WP:ARBPIA5

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

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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 15 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks.

Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board

4) The Committee rules on conduct, not content. It does not dictate the content of any article.

Support:

Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new principle, but a short one. We wanted to make it very clear to any outside readers of this decision that the Committee does not control content. Reading some of the other denser principles, it is a bit hard to divine that crucial info. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While covered implicitly by PP3, worth spelling it out considering the nature of this case. Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though it is worth noting that we can make rulings about where and how content decisions are made when the community is unable to come to a resolution. Proposed remedy 29 is something we are authorized to do in extraordinary circumstances (the merits of that particular decision notwithstanding). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Succinctly delimits our remit. Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like this. I take leeky's point but as a "tl;dr" version this works nicely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fundamental principle that we should hold ourselves to, so I do approve of the new statement here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The line between conduct and content is sometimes blurry, but I think that we try our best to stay to the right side of that line. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text that editors add to an article is part of that editor's conduct and thus under our purview. Editors are responsible for their edits and must ensure they adhere to en-Wiki's policies and guidelines. However, ArbCom does not make decisions on what content should be in an article: that is for the community to come to determine that consensus. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Down in the FoF section, we talk about sealioning, and the ways that editors have harmed the project with non-neutral editing and stonewalling. Assessing whether someone is really engaging in a discussion with reliable sources or offering distractions; whether they're using mainstream scholarship or cherry-picking the fringes; and whether they take consistent positions on policy instead of using whatever argument puts their side in the best light, are all impossible judgments to make without considering the content in question. The Committee doesn't and shouldn't dictate the content of articles, but I'm a bit uncomfortable with a stance where we hold conduct and content to be an entirely separable dichotomy. I'm putting myself in abstain for now, but I'm persuadable to come back to the support section; I'm curious to know how other arbs look at it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A remedy that would step out of our “not ruling on content” would be something like “x articles must say y/be titled like z”. Misrepresenting sources, derailing discussions, attempting to skew topics in favor of your POV by being selective with sources… I consider that to fall under our policies against desruptive editing and POV pushing, and thus are not content issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Moneytrees, just to check, is your post above a vote or a comment? Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac I meant it as a reply, I’ve changed the indenting to make that clearer. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded the last sentence slightly to make it more readable. Feel free to revert. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link to the CT page. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

National and territorial disputes

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Highly relevant. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
humanities endless cycle.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Thank you Guerillero for this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Edit warring

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I empathise with people who are reverting in the heat of the moment because they genuinely believe it's the best thing for the article, I really do, but repeated reverting is not the answer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Disruptive editing

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Contentious topics

10) Contentious Topic page protections are put in place to "intervene in topic areas that have proved problematic". Page protections are not typically implemented automatically in a contentious topic area.

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know it seems a bit odd that we're mentioning this, but it goes to remedy 1, where we are creating an exception to this general principle. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to the quote, given that it doesn't appear on the CT page at all. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Standards of editor behavior

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground

12) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia is not a forum

13) Wikipedia is not a general discussion forum or a debate club.

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In reading through the evidence, something that struck me repeatedly was just how off-topic discussions would become. It seemed as if several parties were members of a debate club who felt that if they just argued with each other enough, they would ex nihilo divine the first principles of the PIA conflict and therefore solve it. The parties were engaging each other and trying to decide what was "right," rather than trying to decide how to present a range of quality sources about a contentious topic. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Being right isn't enough

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
🪤 Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat my mild annoyance that BRIE and BRINE point at different places ... Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HouseBlaster! Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Recidivism

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ownership

16) Wikipedia articles do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Bludgeoning

17) In formal discussions, less is usually more. Editors who choose to ignore this advice by replying to a large number of comments can bludgeon the discussion. Bludgeoning exhausts other editors, dissuades further participation, wastes time, and makes discussions less effective. Editors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Editors should particularly avoid trying to convince specific other people that they are right and the other person is wrong, and should instead focus on presenting their own ideas as clearly and concisely as possible.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Enough is enough

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this explains some of the more extreme actions we have taken, and further actions we propose to take, in this topic area. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with moneytrees about the PD as currently written --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this proposed decision makes a reasonable attempt at reflecting this, such as at § Balanced editing restriction. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Yeah, but honestly I don’t think the PD and what we’re actually going to do here really reflects this. Not that that’s a bad thing…. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of agree with Money. Also, added "Arbitration" to "Committee" just for absolute clarity. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

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

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an unfortunate dearth of dashes in those case names, but yes. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

1RR not always effective

2) 1RR restrictions are often an ineffective mechanism for preventing edit wars in the PIA topic area, as multiple editors will each make a single revert on an article, but the combined efforts of multiple editors creates an edit war with multiple reverts per day on a single topic (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence).

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not to say that the 1RR isn't useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

First-mover advantage

3) Edit warring has been used to preserve a perceived "status quo" point of view in articles within the topic area. This creates an incentive to be the first to write an article or to add content, as it often requires an affirmative consensus to change away from its point of view (Aquillion evidence, ScottishFinnishRadish evidence).

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a hyphen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This finding is accurate, but also how Wikipedia works - bold changes when there is no controversy, consensus when there is. Worm^TT(talk) 12:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

POV forks

4) When the status quo version of an existing article does not match an editor's preferred version or point of view and attempts to change it are reverted, new articles describing the same subject from a different point of view ("POV forks") are often created (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence, Aquillion evidence, Alaexis evidence, Boksi evidence).

Support:

This was an unexpectedly major problem, one which existing processes seemed to be handling poorly. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 12:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a very serious content issue. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected some typos. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Involved closes

5) Requests for Comment and Requested Moves in this topic area are often closed by involved editors (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence).

Support:

This evinces that a) there are a lot of RfC's/RM's being run in the area, which are overwhelming resources, b) not enough neutral outsiders willing to close PIA discussions, c) PIA editors have apparently begun to excuse this, with what is only likely to be dire results. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to be a regular occurrence based on the evidence, but it definitely does happen and it looks like fellow editors in the topic area are willing to turn a blind eye or tag-team edit-war to defend it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like "often" but given the evidence, there are sufficient instances that I'm not going to kick up a fuss here. Worm^TT(talk) 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with leeky and WTT: "sometimes" would probably be a better descriptor than "often", but this is not enough for me to oppose. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The three discussions on two talk pages in the cited evidence is not enough to justify this for me, sorry. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

"Often" is a high bar. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground behavior

6) Many editors in the topic area exhibit both battleground behavior (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence) and sealioning (Valereee evidence), inflaming disputes.

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I was a little hesitant to link to WP:SEALIONING, which seems to exist at the moment mainly as an attack on ArbCom. One wonders if that's really DUE coverage of the issue :) At any rate, many editors are treating the topic area like a battleground and are here with strong agendas to push. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace the essay with a link to the OG webcomic that named the practice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I actually think that SEALIONING should not link to the “Civil POV pushing” essay; I would consider sealioning— such as disingenuously arguing for something to subtly advance your POV— to be a highly uncivil thing warranting harsh sanctions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in current state. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~Can't support while the link points to an essay that I don't think sums up what sea-lioning is. I'd be happy to support with a different link. Worm^TT(talk) 13:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comments:

We do have Sealioning which would probably be a better link as it more accurately describes the term. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Or maybe someone can write an essay specifically about Sealioning (after this case?) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly updated the link; if anyone objects please revert and we can discuss further, but nearly every arb that has opined has indicated that the WP link is not the best. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

7) Sockpuppetry is an ongoing issue in the topic area, causing significant disruption. While roughly the same proportion of editors in PIA are socks as in other topic areas, those socks make a higher proportion of edits compared to other topic areas. In a recent sample of edits in the PIA topic area, roughly 7% of mainspace edits were made by known socks (Sean.hoyland evidence).

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The percentages in the submissions based on Sean's evidence included some back of the envelope calculation by moi, based on what is already hard to quantify research by Sean, so don't take them as gospel. But I think they provide us with a sufficiently useful number to make some data driven decisions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the points made in my colleagues in the abstain section, I do not share the concerns. I calculated the percentage from Sean.hoyland's evidence and it equalled 7.2%; this math can be calculated by anyone who reads their evidence. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I may change my mind, based on how this principle is used later, and it's already passing so it's not that big a deal, but I prefer numbers in findings to be directly backed up, rather than tweaked by arbs. I fully agree with the textual part of the finding, but would prefer the last sentence simply dropped. Worm^TT(talk) 13:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Worm That Turned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here weakly; see Worm. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Third-party participation at SPI

8) Sockpuppet investigations in the topic area can draw outsized attention from third parties who either rush to defend or attack the suspected sock (Eladkarmel evidence, Nableezy evidence).

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We fell short of proposing a strict remedy against this, based on interviews with some SPI admins. But for the love of biscuits guys, could we not just pile onto SPI's? It makes everything way harder. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an issue, though something like an outright ban on third-party participation at SPI would likely hurt more than it helped. If an editor is becoming an issue at SPI, the SPI clerks patrolling SPI may ask editors to cease posting at SPI case pages Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the SPI clerks need to use some discretion and power here. Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I think this discourages clerks and CUs from touching reports, leading them to languish and perpetuating debates that have little bearing on the final result. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal view is that clerks and CUs should feel empowered to direct third parties to stop commenting on a particular SPI (or move it to the talk page), if it isn't helping their investigation, in this topic area. SPI isn't a venue for community discussion/consensus to be achieved through sprawling dialogue. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some third-party comments can be helpful at SPI but there is a tendency for people to state opinions and clog up the page with back-and-forth that doesn't help resolve the issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More empowerment for the clerks. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed § SPI clerks encouraged as a compromise remedy as I believe that this finding should be addressed. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Non-EC accounts

9) Despite widespread extended confirmed (EC) protection on pages, non-EC accounts continue to make a significant number of edits. In a recent sample of edits in the PIA topic area, roughly 13% of mainspace edits were made by non-EC accounts (Sean.hoyland evidence).

Support:

Which goes to remedy 1. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I'm not convinced most of these edits are at the most high-traffic pages (they likely aren't, given that such pages get protected quickly) or are particularly problematic. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on "roughly". Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Elli. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar reasoning to FoF 7. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

per my comment of FOF7 Worm^TT(talk) 13:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here weakly; see Worm. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Outside influence

10) Outside actors are heavily invested in influencing Wikipedia's coverage of the topic area (Aquillion evidence).

Support:

Wikipedia is no longer in its infancy. As we approach 25 years, we're all grown up—and the world is taking notice. Far from being the website your teacher warned you not to cite, it is often the first website that people turn to, and is consistently in the ten most visited websites in the world. The incentives to influence our content are massive. We must remain vigilant if we wish to remain our reputation and our editorial independence. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s all about controlling the narrative and deciding which truths are the most comfortable to live with. This is hardly exclusive to this topic area; Arbcom and the functionaries have seen an increase in offsite operations over the last few years, in all sorts of topic areas. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AE participation

11) Many of the named parties regularly file and participate in discussions at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (Barkeep49 evidence).

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Major shoutout to Barkeep49 for his excellent work in turning dozens of AE threads into very helpful data. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a bad thing. I'd rather complaints go to AE than lengthy procedural/interpersonal discussions derail discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HJM, not necessarily a bad thing. Cabayi (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HJM as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AE efficiency

12) The plurality of recent AE reports have been in the PIA topic area. Despite this, PIA threads were resolved no slower than threads from other topic areas, were not longer than other threads, and did not require more admin participation than other threads (Barkeep49 evidence and analysis).

Support:

Some surprising outcomes here, but that's what the data says! A good reason to make data driven decisions when we can, because they can prove that our hunches are wrong. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not the most surprising, since AE admins would have more experience dealing with and evaluating behavior in this area compared to others? But good to know for sure. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "and analysis", given that it doesn't seem to be explicitly covered in the evidence section. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AE works best with limited parties

13) AE reports with more than two parties tend to derail or become difficult to solve (Barkeep49 evidence and analysis).

Support:

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is a general problem neither limited to that noticeboard nor a specific topic area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know this from personal experience as an AE admin --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Guerillero, although I have less experience at AE. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to the subject matter experts here, but the evidence presented does support this. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience AE is quite good at examining the conduct of one or two editors, and its structured format makes it easier to keep things on track, but trying to evaluate claims and counter-claims by and about multiple editors can quickly get overwhelming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "and analysis", given that it doesn't seem to be explicitly covered in the evidence section. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

BilledMammal behavior

14a) BilledMammal (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including edit warring (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence) and consistently non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence).

Support:

[Vote struck, but kept this explanatory note as relevant elsewhere] I want to put a note about "consistently non-neutral editing," because we use that on a lot of the FoF. As FOARP helpfully compiled, editors were quite selectively using rationales in RM's. For example, if the sources supported an editor's preferred name, they'd use WP:COMMONNAME. If the sources didn't, they'd use WP:POVTITLE, or something else. This to me is an insidious form of WP:WIKILAWYERING: using your knowledge of policy to achieve a desired result, but without principled consistency. It was a lot more widespread than I expected too. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that the FOARP evidence shows them being opposed to massacre, which is a more principled stance. BilledMammal still engaged in some seriously questionable behavior though, as the amended FoF should make clear. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

14b remedies potential gaps in this and is preferred for me. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In favour of 14b. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote on b. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of 14b. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for 14b Cabayi (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4b preferred. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

FOARP's evidence doesn't show this for BilledMammal; instead, they appear to generally be opposing the use of "massacre" regardless of the victims. Can't support this as written. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I realize that this FoF was a bit anemic compared to the suggested sanction. I think we forgot to close the loop here as drafters, what with the unusually large PD and case here. I've amended it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a 14b here --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero That was my error, I accidentally put an a) in, and have removed it. Unless you really would like a second version...? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek: I wish you didn't change a FoF in mid-stream after getting negative feedback from Eli and on the talk page. I guess I will roll with it -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero At the time, I was the only person who had voted on it aside from Elli, and I was responding to Elli's concerns. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal behavior (alternative finding)

14b) BilledMammal (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including edit warring (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence). They have made vexatious reports at AE and misrepresented sources in the topic area (Smallangryplanet evidence). They have weaponized reporting systems against perceived ideological enemies (David A evidence, private evidence).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Prefer this as more specific/ accurate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
A more complete reflection of the collection of pieces which add up to where I sit on BM. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much prefer this to the original FOF. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise prefer this to 14a. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the examples in Smallangryplanet's evidence are not misrepresentations, but others are. Furthermore, there is evidence that BM did engage in misrepresentation of sources in talk page discussions, per CE's comments below. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per BM's defense on the talk page; I don't think the "misrepresented sources" bit is accurate, you can say they show a clear POV but "misrepresentation" goes too far. Otherwise I think this finding is accurate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited evidence doesn't properly support the edit warring nor the misrepresentation of sources claim. The accusation about weaponizing reporting systems is mostly about intent which can't be properly proven. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

In the interest of being responsive to other's concerns, and in having a clear record of the development of FoF, I have restored the original version, and split the amended version out as 14b. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know some in the peanut gallery have argued that the "misrepresented sources" bit is inaccurate. Now, I agree that not all diffs that Smallangryplanet linked were necessarily bad. Changing children to minors was fine imo. But saying this didn't support "most" of the claims was disingenuous; having read the source, it did support the mass grave finding, even if not the bound hands and feet aspect. Or this, which elicited strong talkpage response (that discussion is an enlightening read in general, because it features many of the parties). Or Talk:Church of Saint Porphyrius airstrike#Ahli hospital, where other folks pointed out that BM was cherry picking sources that were probably misinformation, and BM didn't acknowledge that they could have been wrong. That's not an exhaustive list, but it shows several examples of BM using sources in a questionable manner to support what they wanted to see in the article, and that's not chill. The point in general is that BM was being tendentious. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 behavior

15) Iskandar323 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence). A November 2024 AE report filed on them was closed as "

No action, broader case currently before Arbcom" (Barkeep49 evidence).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clear pattern here. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ïvana banned

16) Ïvana (talk · contribs) was banned from editing the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee on 9 December 2024 for off-wiki misconduct relating to the PIA topic area.

Support:

Thus mooting her as a party. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 16:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)~~ Duplicate vote struck House Blaster (talk • he/they). 23:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added ACN link. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Levivich behavior

17) Levivich (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing (AndreJustAndre evidence), inconsistent standards of behavioral expectations (Crossroads evidence), and incivility (Crossroads evidence, Tryptofish evidence). Levivich was warned for "removing an RM when involved and inappropriate communication" in an October 2024 AE thread (Barkeep49 evidence).

Support:

I think Levivich is generally an excellent and thoughtful editor, and I was actually quite impressed with them at times. But they were often thorny when they didn't have to be. The "not debate club" principle came to my mind after reading Levivich's "Ukranian martians" quote. I think Levivich was actually well meaning in that conversation...but it wasn't a conversation that should have been happening in the first place, and yeah, it made them look pretty foolish. Levivich strikes me as the kind of person who wants to work from first principles, and I respect that. But its not Wikipedia's job to divine those first principles. We aren't an engine for universal truth, and I'd encourage Levivich to focus what he is really best at: the sources. I don't think anybody had better dedication to sources in this topic area than Levivich. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich is very skilled at digging through sources, but his pattern of behavior here is often disruptive. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly good example of Principle 14. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Elli and Eek that Levivich is generally a net-positive but nobody in this case smells of roses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No clean hands here. Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Katie. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)~~ moving to abstain. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The evidence provided for the claims in this proposed finding of fact appears to be relatively weak to me. "Inconsistent standards of behavioral expectations" is based on the comparison of two diffs, Special:Diff/1256040573 and Special:Diff/1218420017, the former of which makes a reasonable request in a discussion while the latter provides individual initial feedback acknowledging uncertainty based on more time needed to read everything. That's fine, not inconsistent. The incivility-related evidence is more convincing about Nishidani's than Levivich's behavior, with Special:Diff/1251342514 and Special:Diff/1181046254 (How fucking crazy does that sound to you? and comparing editors to students) being the worst I've found from Levivich there. I could perhaps support the finding of fact with reservations, but I wouldn't support a sanction based on it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a lot of irl turbulence over the last week, so I'm sorry to switch my vote up at the last minute, but I don't think the evidence shows what this FoF says it does – which isn't to say that the topline result is wrong, just that it's not verified. First, I don't think Andre's evidence shows "consistently non-neutral editing". The Dershowitz/Alam thing does seem partisan, and maybe the Karsh comment was off-color, but that's basically it. Everything else Andre cites as evidence against Levivich seems to be neutral editing, including removing sources based on a narrower perception of BESTSOURCES that doesn't seem to particularly favor pro-Palestinian viewpoints and reverting someone who claimed that "it is now proven that all Jewish ethnic groups share ancestral genetic ties" on a source that doesn't come close to verifying that. As for the inconsistent standards and incivility, I'm not saying those aren't true, but I don't agree with that characterization of the cited submissions per ToBeFree.
Also, just gonna point out that both Levivich and nableezy fought me on my block of an experienced Israeli editor who violated her topic ban, and not because it was the popular position – consensus went the other way. And that was a month after October 7. I wish that pattern held, because I've seen other behavior from Levivich that is very troubling, which I think my fellow arbs are aware of. If it were earlier in the case, I might have proposed an alternative FoF, but we're <24 hours away and I don't want to make my irl turbulence everyone else's turbulence. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Nableezy behavior

18) Nableezy (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence), incivility (Eladkarmel evidence), and aspersions (AndreJustAndre evidence). A 90-day PIA topic ban enacted by ScottishFinnishRadish was reduced upon an appeal from Nableezy at AE. Two further AE reports filed in 2024 were referred to the Arbitration Committee, while a fourth filed by ScottishFinnishRadish was withdrawn (Barkeep49 evidence).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy is another tough case. I have absolutely no doubt that he is here to build an encyclopaedia and he has been here a long time but he gets carried away and loses his cool. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the findings about disruptive behavior by a named user, this one was the simplest to support for me based on the cited evidence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I think the explanation Nableezy gave regarding the RM votes was reasonable enough, so I don't agree with the "non-neutral editing" bit. I don't debate the other stuff, though. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Landing here on the RM stuff as well. I think death counts are a terrible way to determine article titles (exactly how many makes a massacre? Is it five?), but nableezy says explicitly that they're against different article titles based on who's dead in their votes. Also, see my point about nableezy fighting me on my block of Gilabrand above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Selfstudier behavior

19) Selfstudier (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including consistently non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence) and edit warring (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence). Selfstudier was warned for "removing an RM when involved" as a result of an October 2024 AE report (Barkeep49 evidence).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Nableezy above, I was reluctant to support based off of the "consistently non-neutral editing" bit, but I think the rebuttals between Extraordinary Writ and FORAP swayed me to support. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

The edit warring evidence is weak regarding Selfstudier. I am concerned about the neutrality of their requested moves participation, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

האופה blocked

20) האופה (talk · contribs) was blocked during this case as a sockpuppet of Galamore.

Support:

Thereby mooting them as a party. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this needs stating, but it is a fact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I have slightly amended this FoF. Originally, it said that they were blocked as an Icewhiz sockpuppet. But it was pointed out that the block has since been re-tagged as Galamore, and thus I have adjusted the FoF for accuracy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndreJustAndre behavior

21a) AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including making specific edits after an off-wiki blogger requested those edits be made (Smallangryplanet evidence). This comes after they were unblocked by the Arbitration Committee in September 2024, following a January 2024 ArbCom block. In 2018 they resigned their administrative and bureaucratic permissions after ArbCom accepted a case focusing on their conduct.

Support:

Thoroughly disappointed on the whole here. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 21:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 21b. - Aoidh (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I would prefer an option without the canvasing accusations. An issue being pointed out off wiki does not doom it to being impossible to fix. We do not have evidence that Andre was directly contacted to make edits.--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favor of b. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in favour of 21b. Primefac (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21b Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
21b is more accurate. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I'm not a fan of the proxy editing for a blogger and do think such behavior is rather disruptive than something to be endorsed, but AndreJustAndre does have a point about this not being forbidden by itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I agree with Guerillero. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndreJustAndre behavior (alternative finding)

21b) AndreJustAndre (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area (Zero0000 evidence, Nableezy evidence). This comes after they were unblocked by the Arbitration Committee in September 2024, following a January 2024 ArbCom block. In 2018 they resigned their administrative and bureaucratic permissions after ArbCom accepted a case focusing on their conduct.

Support:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably better but I'm generally unimpressed with Andre's conduct in this topic area. The history is mostly just that, history; it's only really relevant to show that this isn't Andre's first rodeo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Harry. Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I think the Arb block is more relevant to this case than the tool resignation. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harry sums it up. Worm^TT(talk) 13:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 21a. - Aoidh (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for an unspecific "disruptive behavior" finding and a description of history. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Added as an alternate. @Guerillero and Moneytrees: I am fine with further wordsmithing. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 behavior

22) Zero0000 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including incivility (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence, AndreJustAndre evidence).

Support:

If you'd read Zero's evidence, which was the first submission, you might have believed that they'd been unfairly roped into this case. But I think Zero was unfortunately showing a lack of introspection. While hardly the worst of the bunch, their incivility was unbecoming of an administrator, including amending benign comments into personal attacks. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is more the incivility than anything. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not impressed with their behavior. Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I very nearly proposed an alternative FoF dealing just with the incivility. While the comments to RTH were inappropriate to the point of warranting a FoF, I didn't see a more pervasive issue. What tipped me over the edge was the involvement in ~~multiple~~ multi-party edit wars. Again undoubtedly a good-faith editor but not as blameless as his statement on the evidence page would suggest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Harry, leaning more on SFR's stuff. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 05:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Makeandtoss behavior

23) Makeandtoss (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including non-neutral editing (FOARP evidence) and stonewalling discussions (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence). Makeandtoss was warned "...to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict [and] warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction", as a result of a January 2024 AE report, and was given "a final warning for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics" in a June 2024 AE report (Barkeep49 evidence).

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also per Barkeep’s AE reports. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I don't really think FORAP's evidence shows "non-neutral editing", but I do think the other evidence backs it up. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (Per M&T's request on the talk page, I'm specifically thinking about SFR's evidence and the January AE.) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The disruptive behavior described as "stonewalling discussions" appears to have been handled by the June 2024 AE. The requested move participation described in FOARP's evidence indicates a preference for the use of the term "massacre", such as in Special:Diff/1255537259, but a counterexample from the same page exists and FOARP's main point, the "side" dependency, isn't demonstrated by any edit that opposed the use of the term for attacks on Israel. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Nishidani behavior

24a) Nishidani (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including an ongoing pattern of incivility (Tryptofish evidence). As a result of a February 2024 AE report, Nishidani was "warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in [PIA] the topic area" (Barkeep49 evidence). The Committee topic banned them in the original PIA case in 2009; the ban was lifted in 2011.

Support:

I felt like Nish's problems were fairly minor on the whole. Their topic ban is ancient history, I hesitate to consider any sanction older than a decade. But, not untrue. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Elli (talk | contribs) 21:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get a free mulligan every decade to decade and a half in a topic area. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 24b Primefac (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice — not inaccurate, but not as complete. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice also. Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 24b. - Aoidh (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

24b Cabayi (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
24b is better. Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Nishidani behavior (alternative finding)

24b) Nishidani (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior in the PIA topic area, including an ongoing pattern of incivility (Tryptofish evidence). As a result of a February 2024 AE report, Nishidani was "warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in [PIA] the topic area" (Barkeep49 evidence). The Committee topic banned them in the original PIA case in 2009; the ban was lifted in 2011. They were most recently topic banned from PIA for three weeks, starting on October 24, 2024 (Special:Diff/1253179153).

Support:

Turns out the issues have continued more recently than I'd thought. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nishidani is a highly talented and engaging writer, and his comments are worth reading. I also think he has made comments that have been increased tensions and made discussions more difficult. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice to 24a --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 24a. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Katie^talk 20:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been impressed with Nishidani at times. His subject knowledge has humbled me at times, and I think that's something we undervalue as Wikipedians, especially when it comes from other Wikipedians in a difficult subject area. But everyone has to play by the rules and treat each other with respect or the disputes will never be able to move on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 24a. - Aoidh (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed alternative version, since Nishidani's latest ban was in October. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom: , Guerillero, Per suggestion on the Arb list, I've incorporated Barkeep's evidence on AE reports into relevant FOFs, similar to what was done with Guerillero's evidence at the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 PD. (Personally speaking, I believe these should be included in the FOFs to "get the whole story"; just because an editor was/wasn't warned/sanctioned at AE doesn't mean I think they should/shouldn't be sanctioned). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a part of the discussion around the toothbrush incident, so I think it's best for me to not vote on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

ECP by default

1) All articles whose topic is strictly within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area shall be extended confirmed protected by default, without requiring prior disruption on the article.

Support:

While we haven't engaged in such drastic measures before, I think the time is now. What with significant numbers of edits still being made by non-ECP accounts, the flood of socks, and the general hootenanny, I see no other path forward. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes the situation clearer for admins, and removes a footgun for new editors. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This lines up with the intent of the original 30/500 restriction when I proposed it as a drafter for PIA3. I am going to ignore the part where I voted against it. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is has been frequently done regardless, though? I’d also support something along the lines of non EC editors are allowed to make edits to unprotected articles, but these edits can be reverted if they are problematic. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that this is no longer my circus and my monkeys for a second time, but I would really like to not weaken the the restriction any further through doing this. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes it clearer for admins. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunately necessary in this topic area. - Aoidh (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be the default when we include a topic-wide ECR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this is needed. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'll abstain from this vote as I place a lot of these protections and the remedy matches my personal interpretation of the existing extended-confirmed restriction rather than authorizing something new. If there is no way for an editor to edit a page without violating a restriction, they shouldn't be technically able to edit the page. That just leads to justified frustration. I already place extended-confirmed protection in such cases, and supporting this remedy would add a support vote to my own actions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a strong believer in the protection policy's prohibition on pre-emptive protections and so cannot vote for this in good conscience. I understand why my colleagues believe that this would make things simpler from an administrative point of view, though. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz, is the general idea of applying WP:ARBECR to a topic area compatible with your concerns about pre-emptive protection? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

BilledMammal indefinite topic ban

2a) BilledMammal is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Perhaps we played our hand here by not proposing any other remedies, but we just didn't see another path out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a sanction proportional to the various pieces of evidence presented. Daniel (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is necessary and proportionate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. I would be considering a site ban too. Worm^TT(talk) 13:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote to topic-ban Iskandar. Enough is enough. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Leaning towards support here, but I'd want a clearer FOF. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Elli. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

BilledMammal admonished

2b) BilledMammal is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

Oppose:

Insufficient. Daniel (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not good enough. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. Worm^TT(talk) 13:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence that we have does not warrant anything less than a topic ban. - Aoidh (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not strong enough. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Should the tban fail, an alternative. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 admonished

3a) Iskandar323 is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

I envisioned uniform admonishment for those that FOARP identified as being selective wikilawyers. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 3b. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 3b. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 3b. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see what good an admonishment does here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather just put on probation/TBAN than admonish. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3b Cabayi (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is better to take them out of the area until they can demonstrate how to avoid the problematic behaviour. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Iskandar323 indefinite topic ban

3b) Iskandar323 is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice, if weakly; they are certainly not a frequent flyer at AE but there does appear to be a trend in their editing towards a specific viewpoint. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously missed something in my search because they have previously been topic banned and blocked for violating that topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 3a. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have to focus on building an encyclopedia, and a pattern of editing that puts ideological interests above the project's interests harms both the encyclopedia and the collaborative environment. It's righting great wrongs behavior, and it's ultimately disruptive, even if it doesn't culminate in a dramatic moment of incivility and personal attacks. Topic-banning is a painful process, but our processes have taken too much abuse for me to see any other remedy as reasonable. I support. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Indefinite" doesn't mean "forever", but rather "until they can demonstrate that the behaviour will not happen again." Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

#Weakly. I think this is too broad for the first time somebody has been party to a case and has never been sanctioned at AE before (as far as I can from WP:AELOG). I might support a restriction short of a topic ban, or a topic ban appealable after three months, or maybe a ban from the current war. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In favor of probation below. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

HJ Mitchell, note this AE log for a topic ban in 2021, from Barkeep49's evidence. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 placed on probation

3c) Iskandar323 is placed on indefinite probation. If Iskandar323 is found to behaving disruptively within the area of dispute by an uninvolved administrator, the administrator should impose the following sanction:Iskandar is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.

Support:

I don't think the RM votes on their own merit an indefinite topic ban, and I'm sympathetic to the argument that the lapsed topic ban happened early in their editing career and was eventually commuted. So, I think this is a good middle ground over an admonishment. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is sufficient. This feels like a final warning with extra steps. - Aoidh (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3b Cabayi (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the result of a case created in response to AE referrals should be a topic ban dependent on an individual administrator's willingness to place it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fear the probation is setting up Iskandar for failure, as I would want them to demonstrate that they know how to avoid the problems before being placed on probation. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Inspired by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan_3/Proposed_decision#Parties_placed_on_probation_(alt), feel free to wordsmith. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich admonished

4a) Levivich is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

Per my vote on the FoF. Levivich is a great researcher, and one of the most source focused editors in PIA. But they need to stay on-topic and focus on the content, not the contributor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would be happy for this to pass in addition to some tangible sanction. I feel we need to pass a remedy wrt Levivich but I'm not sure about a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 4c. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, per my comment at 4c. Primefac (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 4c. Daniel (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4c Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4c. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Levivich one year topic ban

4b) Levivich is topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.

Support:

Second choice, per below. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to my long-standing opposition to timed restrictions as something that can just be waited out --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of 4c. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I prefer 4d... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Older & wiser don't always walk hand-in-hand. A TBAN needs an affirmative appeal not an automatic lapse. 4c Cabayi (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Time restrictions are a bad idea, I'd rather that there be a requirement to outline how it won't happen again before a TBan is lifted. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I don't have a blanket opposition to time-limited restrictions, especially topic bans. I think at the right time and place a definite-duration topic ban can help someone regain perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; if for example someone is getting heated and needs to step away for a bit, a timed restriction suffices, but this is not a case like that. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich indefinite topic ban

4c) Levivich is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

First choice. The incivility Levivich provides to the topic area, on top of the biased editing as indicated by Andre's evidence, leads me to believe that they should not be editing in this area. Yes, they are good at looking through sources, but they are too often doing it with the goal of supporting their preexisting viewpoint (again, per Andre's evidence). This is the sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior that we absolutely do not need in the topic area. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IW's desire is not a get out of jail free card --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. I think Levivich is a really good editor, but it's time for them to step back and get some perspective. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Katie. This is not a reflection of the individual, but of their behaviour in the topic area Worm^TT(talk) 13:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Worm That Turned, Levivich is a solid editor, but their conduct is problematic. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 4a. That they may or may not be productive in one aspect of their editing in this topic area is not persuasive in the face of the problematic behavior that comes along with it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~With heavy reluctance, second choice. I stirred and stirred over this; I think Worm says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4a & 4c have been the hardest set of remedies within this PD to form an opinion on from my perspective, and I've taken over a week or so to mull over thse proposals and review the evidence on multiple occasions during that time (in addition to the times before the PD was posted). This is a genuine judgement call for all 15 of us — how much do you agree with the evidence, and then weigh the disruptive tendencies shown in the evidence? How much weight do you give their 'good' editing in the topic area & their ability to generally take on board feedback? And finally, what does each of us as individuals think the best outcome for this topic area and the project is? I land very, very narrowly here as my first choice, based on my personal values about how I view disruptive editing within a topic area by an otherwise-productive editor — and I showed my general views on this with my comments at Proposed Remedy 9a. Unlike all the other proposed topic bans for editors, where I opposed their admonishment alternative proposals, I have supported 4a as a second choice here — an acknowledgement of how close I found this judgement call, and my general acceptance that if a majority of my peers land there and that proposal carries, I will fully understand. We want the best part of Levivich without some of the behaviours we saw in evidence, and absent a new proposal that best caters for this (and I don't have anything in my head that delivers this), I land here. Daniel (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and forth, but what landed me here was the gatekeeping comments by Levivich that editors must read a bunch of sources before commenting or editing articles. That is not how Wikipedia works, though it is sometimes frustrating for topic matter experts (myself included for other topic areas). This behaviour cannot be excused and shows that Levivich needs to be removed from the topic area for a while. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An admonishment is too little. A topic ban feels like way too much. I disagree with a huge amount of the FoF. But I can't figure out what else to do about an editor who is productive 90% of the time, but then turns around and participates in a tag-team edit war while selectively complaining about other people tag-team edit warring and trying to get them sanctioned for it. Levivich is a very skilled content editor, but if they then use that to selectively boost sources that agree with their position (see Andre's evidence), keeping them here becomes untenable. I'll support this if it's what's on the table, but the trade-off really, really sucks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Levivich is generally conducive to feedback, so I have every reason to believe they'll take the concerns here to heart. Tbanning them would be a waste (and fulfill Icewhiz's deepest dreams). As I've already identified, Levivich is very dedicated to using quality sources in the topic area, and is generally quite principled. A topic ban just goes way too far. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could support something but I feel this is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statement in the support section (which is why I have not struck it) but in taking yet another look at the evidence presented I am not seeing enough conflict to merit an indefinite ban. Their conduct is problematic, but it is in the way they interact with others and not necessarily in the content itself. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I believe that Levivich can be an acerbic editor, and I absolutely cannot condone insulting editors by comparing them (for example) to naughty school children. I support the FoF regarding this, but when I looked at the evidence last night I did not see enough there to indicate that their behaviour was because of this topic area, unlike many other named parties. I am not excusing their behaviour (as some seem to be implying on the talk page) but I simply do not see enough here for a topic ban. Primefac (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reviewing things and thinking on it more, I think my original vote is weak and that I should just oppose if I feel it’s too harsh. I’m voting not to sanction Nableezy who has been arguably more uncivil, so I should be consistent and not support this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Levivich indefinite topic ban (alt)

4c-i) Levivich is indefinitely topic banned from the current Israel–Hamas war and all related events. This topic ban does not extend to historical conflicts or the broader Middle East conflict, providing Levivich's editing there is not disruptive. The scope of this restriction may be extended by any uninvolved administrator if necessary. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~First choice.~~ Although I understand the reasoning for an indefinite Tban, it's harsher than I'd prefer; I think this is fairer to Levivich. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC) To expand, I think Levivich’s problem for me is more Battleground than incivility per se, keeping the “Being right is Everything” and the “those who are right vs. those who are socks” and the taking of sides etc. on my mind. Work smarter, not harder; I think this sanction gives a better chance at demonstrating his better qualities. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I’m not completely convinced the others in the topic area who weren’t parties in the case are in the clear for their behavior. I could see myself voting for other topic bans if other parties were added and topic bans were proposed, based on what I saw in reviewing evidence. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see a compelling reason for a narrower topic ban. There is no FoF that would support singling this one editor out for a narrower topic ban than other named parties, and unless I am mistaken, no one submitted any evidence suggesting that the issues that this editor is bringing to PIA are somehow uniquely limited to this narrower scope. - Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced that the narrower scope should be adopted. Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aoidh. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aoidh. Cabayi (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is too complicated, too narrow, and won't stop concerns in Zionism, which is one of the articles in the FoF cited. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Trying something a bit narrower. My hope is that this would avoid the most contentious articles but allow admins to add other articles or extend it to the whole of PIA if there are further issues. @Elli, Guerillero, KrakatoaKatie, Worm That Turned, Primefac, and CaptainEek: FYI. I might propose something similar for others if this isn't dismissed out of hand as a bad idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to be more lenient -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think leniency enters into it. Remedies are not supposed to be punishments. They should be as restrictive as necessary to prevent disruption; no more, no less. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy admonished

5a) Nableezy is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum. Would prefer something tangible but short of a sweeping tban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Distant second choice to 5c. This alone is insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5c Cabayi (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Behaviour is too problematic for this. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Nableezy one year topic ban

5b) Nableezy is topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.

Support:

Second choice, per below. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here for now-- I think Nableezy needs to be less combative but usually is not as egregious as others here. Admonishment would be repetitive but I'm not all the way there on an indef TBAN yet.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to my long-standing opposition to timed restrictions as something that can just be waited out --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Over the top. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of 5c. - Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Older & wiser don't always walk hand-in-hand. A TBAN needs an affirmative appeal not an automatic lapse. 5c Cabayi (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same time limited concerns as above. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Putting my hand up and saying that I was one of the people who advocated floating potential timed topic bans as a 'midpoint' remedy proposal. I hear the concerns about simply 'waiting them out', loud and clear. Waiting a 12-month topic ban out will be easier to do for editors who are predominently editing in the PIA section, with minimal involvement in editing elsewhere — it would be ideal if they directed their energies into other parts of the project for that 12 month period, but it isn't guaranteed. For those editors who are more engaged project-wide, it is likely less easy to just wait it out, as they will still be interested in editing. However, noting commentary from my peers and other editors, I agree with the sentiment that if they merit a 12-month topic ban, it's just as easy to indefinitely topic-ban them with the opportunity for them to appeal after 12 months of solid editing (as opposed to 12 months of absence). This gives the best of both worlds, albeit with a tiny bit more bureaucracy (hearing the appeal) once the 12 months is up. Daniel (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is why timed bans fell out of favor c. 2014 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call it naïve optimism...! Daniel (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, we'll get that out of ya pretty quick. ;-) Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy indefinite topic ban

5c) Nableezy is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

First choice. The incivility plus non-neutrality (in the FOARP evidence) merits this. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely warranted. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy's personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages make this warranted. Collaborative editing cannot happen when editors publish hostile comments about other editors. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I'm going to get some stick for some of these votes but I feel this is excessively punitive for a good-faith (albeit problematic) editor. I also feel that the experienced editors who know the subject need to be part of the solution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my vote on the Selfstudier motion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Per my comments on the related FOF. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Selfstudier admonished

6a) Selfstudier is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my change of opinion in 6c. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 6c. - Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 6c Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
6c Cabayi (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too weak, 6c. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I can live with this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Selfstudier one year topic ban

6b) Selfstudier is topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.

Support:

Second choice to 6c. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could support this but I don't love it. I see the arguments against fixed-duration bans but a year away from a topic area but working constructively elsewhere could give an editor a new perspective. Especially when the topic area is as "current" as this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to my long-standing opposition to timed restrictions as something that can just be waited out --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of 6c. - Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Older & wiser don't always walk hand-in-hand. A TBAN needs an affirmative appeal not an automatic lapse. 6c Cabayi (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same time limited concerns as above. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Selfstudier indefinite topic ban

6c) Selfstudier is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to reiterate my support for sanctions here in response to Eek's comment below. Persistent incivility, edit-warring, and POV-pushing necessitate action from us, even though it is not the only problem if the topic area. It's hard to imagine AE admins taking decisive action if we don't. The standard for behavior is higher here, not lower—that this is an emotionally-charged area only makes it more important for everyone to avoid acting in a disruptive manner.
As for concerns that banning some of the regulars will throw the area into chaos: I seriously doubt that, and it's no excuse for problematic behavior. If anything, banning regulars who are persistently uncivil is likely to encourage others, who currently don't want to deal with constant fighting and insults, to step into the topic area—and this is something we should hope for.
This applies to my support for sanctions against Selfstudier, Makeandtoss, Levivich, and Nishidani, to be clear (not going to post this at all four). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Equal choice. Noting that Selfstudier's name does appear on the AE log, albeit only twice and several years apart. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
I agree with Elli's assessment. - Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sat on this for a bit, I think Elli says it well. Eek, I can see what you're saying, but I don't agree. I think "The Problem" is not just one thing, it can be a mix of out-of-date processes, of meats/socks, of external influence ops, of the regulars in the area.... and also the fact that this is a very serious real life issue. Even if we didn't have the other factors, we can only control so much of what happens outside of these keystrokes. I want to be even handed, I want to have compassion and nuance. I think having that requires looking at the big picture and accounting for all the relevant factors... which leads me here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment on Iskandar's remedy, and per Elli. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CE's explanation below has not convinced me. I think the behaviour is problematic enough and Wikipedia will need to deal with the socks if/when they come. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The evidence submissions in the case overall came in two chief camps: socks are the problem, and ban everyone. My hypothesis was that the veterans in the topic area were the problem. But by the end of the case, I think I was wrong. I believe the "socks are the problem" camp actually had a better grasp on the real cause of the issues in the topic area. As pointed out, the named parties in this case are the chief editors in this area and contribute a very high percentage of edits and comments. Banning everyone will have the effect of creating a vacuum, which socks will be all too eager to fill. In crafting remedies, we originally only proposed two topic bans: one for BM (given some private evidence), and one for Andre (just so many issues, although also the Wikipedia Flood stuff, and clearly ymmv on if that's problematic). Otherwise, we only proposed admonishments for everyone else. The rush to then tban everyone does not seem like a measured or balanced reading of the evidence. Did Selfstudier act subpar? Yes. Should we give them and most other parties a final warning? Yes. Should we remove everyone from the topic area in a scorched earth approach? No. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence about this one; CaptainEek has convinced me to go the other way. Primefac (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient for justifying a topic ban to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

The role of drafters is to offer reasonable options to the other committee members, and it is not to be the decider of what other members can and can not support. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 warned

7a) Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.

Support:

Their misconduct was lesser than most in the area, but did include some troubling incivility, like editing comments to make them personal attacks. They're an admin and should know better. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go with this. Step back and look in the mirror, Zero, and do better. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider something more heavy, but as Harry notes, they've commendably not used the tools in the area. I personally don't care too much about the difference between warn / admonish (different conversation, I'm aware that work has been done), so I fall here. Worm^TT(talk) 13:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything heavier is needed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
registering my long-held opinion that there is no daylight between our three types of warnings --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thefalls short of the conduct expected of an administrator verbiage is important to note, and was added precisely for the WP:ADMINCOND reasons Moneytrees mentions in the comments below. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 20:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being an administrator is relevant (WP:ADMINCOND). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that ADMINCOND is important to note. Like it or not, being an admin gives extra weight to those editor's comments, even if it has nothing to do with admin tools. Admin need to be held to a higher standard. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I oppose the version that mentions their admin status because it's not relevant. Everyone concedes that they haven't misused their admin tools or status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Is it necessary to mention that they're an admin? They've commendably avoided any use of the tools in the topic area and no concerns have been raised about their admin actions. If this didn't allude to ADMINCOND it would be an easy support for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned, Primefac, and HJ Mitchell: It is worth noting that Zero0000 has made what looks like an involved protection in the topic area, though this wasn't raised as evidence during the case. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it would fall under the "any reasonable admin" exception. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most actions that raise concerns about "involvement" could arguably simply have been performed by someone else. Perhaps that excuse is similar to saying "but I was right" in response to an edit-warring block. I wouldn't endorse the protection of Jerusalem Talmud by Zero0000 but it's also not worth making a huge deal about. Sometimes, edit warriors are indeed right and sometimes involved protections are indeed correct. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell I think the thought process behind this is the "admins are expected to lead by example" bit at WP:ADMINCOND. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The dots don't connect for me. It doesn't make sense to tacitly acknowledge that someone has been at pains to leave their tools at the door when editing this topic on the one hand, then tell them their conduct falls below the expectations for admins on the other. But I'm clearly in the minority here, as I am on most of the non-obvious remedies which I find disappointing but I'll live with it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 warned (alt)

7a-i) Zero0000 is warned for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected on controversial subjects.

Support:

New version without mention of admin conduct. @CaptainEek, KrakatoaKatie, Worm That Turned, Primefac, and Daniel: FYI. I'm not personally fussed about whether we call this a reminder, warning, admonishment, or something else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

They're an admin and should know better. We're long past the days where it's just a tool. No matter what we say, adminship is a de facto social role. Admins are expected to model the best behavior everywhere. They don't get a get out of jail free card just because it's their involved topic area so they can't use the tools. Also, don't like the "which falls short of..." language being kept when not in regards to their admin status. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Eek. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mention of admin rights is inline with the expectations lined out at ADMINCOND. But honestly I don't think it's much more than semantics here, doesn't really matter which version of this passes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the mention to be included. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For an administrator to fall short of the conduct expected of an administrator is important to note here. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Users rightly expect better of admins. Cabayi (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point of 7a is actually WP:ADMINCOND to me. Which doesn't mean this finding here is necessarily incorrect, it just misses the point in my view. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Zero0000 admonished

7b) Zero0000 is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area, which falls short of the conduct expected of an administrator.

Support:

Oppose:

Given that their misconduct was fairly minor, an admonishment goes too far. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Eek. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there were tools involved, this would be more likely to pass. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not proportionate. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "warned" to "admonished" here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

The difference between a Warning and an Admonishment exists mostly to sooth the hearts of arbs trying to justify sitting on their hands and has nothing to do with reality --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Guerillero that the practical differences between warning and admonishment are minimal, though I don't outright oppose an admonishment here either. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also of the opinion that the difference between a warning and an admonishment is, quite literally, nominal. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with leeky, but not with Guerillero. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Makeandtoss admonished

8a) Makeandtoss is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one I feel is insufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot give another final warning. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to disagree with Primefac. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8c Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8c Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Makeandtoss one year topic ban

8b) Makeandtoss is topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year.

Support:

Second choice to 8c. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this won't pass and I won't lose any sleep over that but I could accept this equally with 8c. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not loving these one year tbans. I understand we were trying to find something between admonishment and a tban? Perhaps we need to think about a probation option, but I'm not sure we're super well setup for that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to my long-standing opposition to timed restrictions as something that can just be waited out --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)\[reply]
In favor of 8c. - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
8c Cabayi (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Makeandtoss indefinite topic ban

8c) Makeandtoss is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 15:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 20:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban of some description seems necessary. Makeandtoss appears three times in the AE log, including once for "slow-motion edit warring" and once for battleground conduct. For full disclosure, I was the admin who issued the latter sanction so I'll recuse here if there's a general feeling that that's necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you just look at their behavior from June to now, I could see a case for an admonishment. But it seems clear that the final warning they received in June for a spate of prior conduct didn't appreciably put them in bounds, and so I end up here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice after some thought, Leeky says it well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss was given a final warning, and continued unconstructive behaviour. Leeky says it best above. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Would prefer a version that makes it clear they can continue editing about Jordan and related topics, since there is some overlap and Makeandtoss is a very valuable editor about Jordan topics. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence provided for the finding of fact leading to this conclusion here is insufficient to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Nishidani warned

9a) Nishidani is warned to remain civil while engaging in discussions.

Support:

My original suggestion. Nish acknowledged where they had acted subpar, and their issues were very minor compared to other users. Sure, they got sanctioned by us before...but that was 15 years ago. I think a reminder to keep on the straight and narrow is sufficient. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the below mentioned toothbrush incident and more recent sanction, this is inaccurate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elli (talk | contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Absurd --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An "[o]ngoing pattern of incivility" (quoted from FoF 24b), especially in a CT area, is comparably harmful to the smooth running of the project as civil POV pushing is — incivility creates a toxic environment for participants in that CT area. I'll support a tban instead for Nishidani at a minimum. Daniel (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REMIND, a "warning" is less severe than an "admonishment" and given Nishidani's history we should be looking at the higher end of the spectrum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive given past reminders/warnings. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Nishidani indefinite topic ban

9b) Nishidani is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

At the least --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daniel's thinking above. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least. Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly landing here after thinking on it for a while. Similar to Harry in my thinking but landing on the "topic ban" side of it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gatekeeping and requirements to thoroughly read several sources (handpicked by editors) is not a prerequisite to edit Wikipedia, and is harmful to recruiting and retaining new editors. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Overkill. A ban 15 years ago should not be the basis for a ban now. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'd forgotten about the uhhh toothbrush incident. Not sure I'll support, but I can't say I oppose either, given the rather recent topic ban. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Was conflicted on this, but the behavior doesn't quite rise to the level for me, given the narrower scope. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Similar to Eek, I had forgotten some of the stuff that wasn't raised in the initial FOF here. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Overkill, but not by much.~~ I think Nishidani has plenty left to offer and could be a considerable net-positive in the future (and has been in the past). But he needs to rethink his approach to other editors and stop using Wikipedia like a blog. I would support a narrower topic ban or some sort of "suspended sentence" where the ban comes into effect if we receive another complaint. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Given their pointed refusal to engage with the case while live-blogging it on their talk page, I no longer oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

same as my comment on the FoF :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani banned

9c) Nishidani is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

Based on the ongoing activity on their talk page while also claiming to be retired. I am okay with making that retirement an involuntary one. You are either on the bus and here to build an encyclopedia or off the bus. If Nishidani would like to extol the virtues of their personal opinions about the area of conflict, there are many websites for them to do that on. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think this is a tremendous overreaction but I can see where Tom is coming from and I agree with is sentiment—you need to be in the tent pissing out, or out of the tent pissing in but sniping from the edges while claiming to be retired is not an option. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considered, but ended up this side. Worm^TT(talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get it – make a decision, dude, in or out – but if we're going to do this, there are a whole bunch of other people who need bans too. Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban sufficient. Daniel (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the reasoning for why, but I don't think we've reached this point yet. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That so many of us seriously considered this option should be a wake-up call for Nishidani. Cabayi (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're there yet, but only just. - Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am very close to voting support, but similar behaviour by Levivich is not bringing a site ban, so neither should this. However, if this behaviour continues I would like admin to seriously consider implementing a site ban. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I am going to have to think about this one. On the one hand, the "retired" argument is a bit much, but I am not sure I see quite enough disruption to force their retirement. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word limits amended

10) WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (discretionary) and WP:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Word limits (1,000 words) are both modified to add as a new second sentence to each:Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit.

Support:

Numerous folks had asked us for this, and this is an easy add. Encouraging editors in discussions to uses sources is a good thing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is almost so easy it doesn't need saying but happy to clarify. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yay Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If users start to abuse this by adding walls of quotes, administrators should escalate sanctions. Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical that "Wikipedia discussions" opens the door to a wall-of-text opinion piece on some unrestricted talk page, but, yes. Cabayi (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but admin should be liberal in placing restrictions if this remedy is abused. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AE reports in the topic area limited to two parties

11a) Any AE report in the PIA topic area is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

Support:

Barkeep's evidence makes it clear that AE's structure works best when it is focused. I think part of the reason we received the two AE reports that became PIA5 is that they had so many parties that AE just couldn't untangle the Gordian knot, and therefore had to pass it on to the Gordian knot de-tangling committee. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This idea isn't about Palestine-Israel specific issues, it's based on the general observation that adding more parties to a noticeboard report makes it harder to focus on one person's disruptive behavior. Second choice to 11b. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. If there's a sentiment that it should only apply to PIA, I'm happy for that - but would prefer it be across all topic areas. Daniel (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to keep it narrow here; if it works out, maybe then we can apply it to AE as a whole. I want to note that admins sould absolutely feel free to waive this if needed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to 11b. - Aoidh (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather see a proof-of-concept in one topic area before applying it to all of AE. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

One set of rules is best --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Guerillero. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Guerillero. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"One set of rules to bring them all and in the AE process bind them" Cabayi (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

AE reports limited to two parties

11b) Any AE report is limited to a max of two parties: the party being reported, and the filer. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

Support:

First choice to 11a. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only choice --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Daniel (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice; feels a bit broad but I get the desire. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First choice over 11a. - Aoidh (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, but I'm fine to have this. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm hesitant to limit AE outside of PIA5, but I don't see why Barkeep's finding is necessarily limited to PIA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Community encouraged

12) The community is encouraged to run a Request for Comment aimed at better addressing or preventing POV forks, after appropriate workshopping.

Support:

Reading through the Nuseirat rescue/massacre debacle, I realized that our existing POV fork guidance is wholly insufficient. It isn't the Committee's place to tell the community how to fix it, but I think we have clearly identified a problem that the community needs to be thoughtful about. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our track record of encouraged RfCs is dim, but sure. This is better than us trying to do this --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem here, and short of helping by removing disruptive editors from the topic area, we can't fix it directly. Daniel (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be good, though the scope should also involve preventing disputes over article titles (along the lines of proposed remedy 18). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Prime but I don't think there's any harm in planting the idea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation, whether or not it happens. Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At minimum, I guess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care if this is opened in Arbspace or not; afaik there's also a mixed record of that working. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero is right regarding our track record, but some community discussion & consensus on this point is needed. Cabayi (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't hurt, though made with all of the qualifications above and below. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth a try. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

To echo Guerillero's comment, our track record with RFCs is not good. If an RFC was desired an RFC would have been run, but I will not stand in the way of my colleagues offering encouragement. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Primefac. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

AE administrators thanked

13) The Committee recognizes that working at AE can be a thankless and demanding task, especially in the busy PIA topic area. We thus extend our appreciation to the many administrators who have volunteered their time to help out at AE.

Support:

Not the sort of thing we'd usually propose, but the idea struck me as I read yet another long, arduous AE post. Its so easy for us to criticize AE, but really, they do an incredible job. It takes commitment, courage, dedication, and a lot of time to be an AE admin, and we couldn't do this without them. So, thanks to every admin at AE, keep up the good work!! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly encourage any admin who feels they can dispassionately evaluate evidence and has a good grasp of how policies are applied in difficult subject areas to consider helping at AE, even if it's just one report every so often. I'm sure the regular admins there (having been one myself) would appreciate more eyes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Always Worm^TT(talk) 14:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult work as any. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We tip our fezzes to you! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! Cabayi (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

AE topic bans

14) When evidence is presented at AE of an editor who can be shown to be editing in a consistently and blatantly biased manner in the PIA area, they are not editing the topic area neutrally. In such instances, AE admins are empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban.

Support:

If this reflects the status quo, that's fine; I think there is currently too much hesitation to take action against persistently biased editing when it comes from experienced, knowledgeable editors, which is why this case exists. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As guidance goes, I would say this for any topic area subject to the CT procedures if I were starting from first principles. At the same time, AE does not do this well at all because the structure makes the large amount of evidence needed to make these claims impossible. I think the subcommitee is a better tool for this than sending these to AE and having them spin out of control. I fear we may come across to AE admins as out of touch with this guidance. So, I land here weakly --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~If this is the status quo, this changes nothing, but if admins are looking for an affirmative from us on this matter, then it does no harm.~~ Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reflection of the status quo. But if we're gonna say this and 'enough is enough', we should mean it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being biased itself is not an issue, we all have biases that we need to be mindful of. However when an editor has such a demonstrably problematic bias that their behavior in the topic area is indistinguishable from someone who is in the topic area solely to push an agenda rather than write neutral content about a topic and selectively applies Wikipedia policies and guidelines depending on whether or not the content supports their POV, that is an issue in this topic area. It is important that AE admins feel empowered to deal with issues like this. - Aoidh (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per ToBeFree and leeky. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I think this partly reflects the status quo. AE already topic bans those who can't edit neutrally. I fear that it is otherwise too vague to be of use and risks misuse. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to codify this kind of thing. Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments made after mine; this is already something AE admins can handle themselves. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there was evidence that there were struggles to manage PIA at AE, my reading of the evidence doesn't make me believe that it was because of admin hesitation on topic bans. Thus, I do not think codifying this has the potential to create more problems than it solves. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to oppose, per Harry & WTT. I think the overarching message from this case is pretty clear, and there are now many tools - one of which is topic bans - that AE administrators can use to mitigate disruption in this CTOP. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

I don't disagree with this, but I don't want to be seen as condescending to AE admins, nor do I want to tie their hands. I trust them to evaluate each case on its merits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Harry. I generally agree, and would like to empower AE admins if I felt that they needed that. However, at present I trust them to evaluate and make a decision. Worm^TT(talk) 14:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eek/Katie; some things are better not said. On Harry's point, this feels less like condescending towards AE admins and more like a... platitude? If that makes sense. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per WTT. Daniel (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)~~ Striking abstention to break the possible deadlock; moving to oppose. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To recap my understanding of what's been said on this remedy already - TBANs are already in the toolbox of admins working AE so we absolutely (need | do not need) to tell them so. I'm not seeing what difference this remedy will make. Cabayi (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Changes to extended confirmed

15a) The requirement for the extended confirmed user right is changed from 30 days and 500 edits to 90 days and 500 edits.

Support:

Extended confirmation is currently mostly about the edit count, which frequently leads to attempts by non-extended-confirmed editors to make a lot of edits as soon as they are informed about the requirement. Account age isn't affected by these attempts, but 30 days have often already passed or pass too quickly. This change could help, not just in the Palestine-Israel topic area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Clearly, as written, this changes something we don't have the right to change. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It was the community that created the user right in response to ArbCom's 30/500 restriction ([1]), and ArbCom has later changed WP:ARBECR to refer to extended confirmation instead of a specific edit count ([2]). The committee is intentionally not longer the authority to define what extended confirmation means. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a procedural thing -- even if we had the ability to do this, I wouldn't support. Socks will just wait a few more months. This isn't really a solution for gaming from non-socks either. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ECP was created by the community or devs (I can't remember which one) to support the enforcement of the 30/500 restriction that arbcom created. Before that it was done by an edit filter and reverts. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my 15b vote. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer ArbCom's to define. Cabayi (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Changes to extended confirmed restriction

15b) The phraseonly extended-confirmed editors may in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction is amended to readonly accounts that have existed for at least 90 days and have made at least 500 edits may.

Support:

Oppose:

Not worth the headache to have a differential ECP regime from the software built in one. We may have had a hand in the genesis of ECP, but it is now out of our hands. Folks are welcome to attempt to get ECP amended at the community level, though I acknowledge it could have downsides outside of PIA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would probably be the only way to achieve the proposed change, but it wouldn't be helpful if done this way. We'd suddenly have two kinds of extended confirmation, 90/500 for WP:A/I/PIA and 30/500 everywhere else. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't make sense to be inconsistent with ECP. Plus my substantive opposition to that change (explained above). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support ratcheting this up more. Was it a mistake in the first place? Who knows. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Among other reasons, I think this will calcify diversity of thought and make AE even more drawn out and laborious (if less frequent) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Making this inconsistent with the software definition just creates an enormous headache for little benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of banging my head against a brick wall for no apparent reason. Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think technical enforcement of what we have does what we want better. There's no edit count at which we can guarantee you're not a liability in this area, as this case well exemplifies. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed, in an attempt to have a policy compliant way to achieve what some folks want. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors reminded

16) Editors are reminded that outside actors have a vested interest in this topic area, and might engage in behaviors such as doxxing in an attempt to influence content and editors. The digital security resources page contains information that may help.

Support:

We enter a dangerous new era. Please, please, read that page and take its recommendations to heart. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I could wave a magic wand and get any policy passed that I wanted without restrictions, editor safety and security measures would be my top priority. These days I feel like ArbCom members are some of the only editors actively pushing to make sure fellow editors (particularly new ones) are creating accounts and editing in a manner that is both safe and healthy. Primefac (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 21:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 15:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I don't think this is enough. I think (or wish) the Foundation dedicated more people and more resources to assisting editors in dealing with attacks against the community and this site. I will expand further on list. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Balanced editing restriction

17) Within this topic area, the balanced editing restriction is added as one of the sanctions that may be imposed by an individual administrator or rough consensus of admins at AE.

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
- This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.
- Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.
They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).
This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.
Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

Support:

There's no way to implement a sanction like this perfectly, but this would give AE more flexibility to deal with persistently-argumentative editors in the topic area. We need a sanction that is easier to impose than a topic-ban, and this would hopefully accomplish that. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoutout to Tamzin for showing a relatively easy way to implement this, totally changed my mind. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might need some reworking or might end up taking a lot of time at ARCA but I think it's a rough diamond of an idea. It's definitely worth a try. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this, as an attempt to try something new. Worm^TT(talk) 14:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my early years on the Committee we received a large number of unblock requests from single-topic editors, and one question we would often ask was "what topics do you plan on editing if you were unblocked?" We rarely received an answer that was sufficient to indicate a desire for anything other than returning to the original topic that got them indeffed. This remedy reminds me of that question; there are other topics on Wikipedia, and being able to edit productively in those topics is just as important as being able to edit productively in a contentious one; if not, they should be shown the door. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try. Katie^talk 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Adopt[ing] robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community" can also mean adopting novel measures, which this certainly is, if there's a forseen upside to doing so. Happy to put this in the toolkit for our AE administrators to use when the situation is appropriate, given that the technical elements of the proposal have been shown to be feasible. Daniel (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convinced by some arguments on the talk, with the caveat that edits outside of the topic area need to have an eye kept on; We're had cases where editors have made hoax edits outside of the topic area in order to ward off the appearance of being a SPA. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is going to be either forgotten or a complete quagmire in 2 years, but it is worth a shot --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea and its implementation will remain in every protection template transclusion in the area, probably even if this restriction is ever removed from the list of options. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to avoid becoming an SPA in any contentious topic area, not just PIA. I'm interested to see if this could work. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this will be worth the effort that has to be invested before the first of these sanctions is ever applied, but we'll see. Where administrators are hesitant to place a topic ban yet there would be reasons to do more than warning, perhaps this option leads to helpful action where none would else be performed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I was on the fence on this initially, the comments here and on the talk page have put me here. This would give admins and AE more flexibility in dealing with issues in the topic area. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how this goes, and we can modify this if needed later. Since this is the fifth PIA case, it is time to try something bold. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~Inventive, but I think the administrative costs outweigh its benefits. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm not sure if declaring (an) edit filter(s) the authoritative measure for this is the best idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the filter would catch all edits to articles extended confirmed protected in the topic area, and their talk pages (by adding a parameter to the protection template). It would be pretty clear what edits do and don't count. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would you ensure that all articles extended-confirmed protected in this topic area have the needed protection template? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An initial bot or AWB run to update the templates, and adding a new protection option in Twinkle. I'd be happy to deal with the technical details of this, but it shouldn't be too hard. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; as described by Tamzin this does seem to be implementable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated this proposal in line with Tamzin's suggested implementation. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The other option I'd be in favor of is some kind of self-logging; perhaps requiring sanctioned editors to put '[PIA]' in the edit summary. The filter doesn't catch everything, but I think the upside is that it catches everything in the core topic area and is objective. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I've moved around a sentence here to make things a bit more clear. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a quick change to address Extraordinary Writ's point that the current wording allows for edits to become violations retroactively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced editing restriction: review discussion

17.1) Six months after the closure of this case, the Arbitration Committee will hold a discussion at WP:ARCA to review the effectiveness of the balanced editing restriction and consider possible changes to it. At the request of an uninvolved administrator who finds that the balanced editing restriction is subject to pervasive gaming or other significant challenges, the Committee may open the discussion at an earlier date.

Support:

Proposing this—pleased to see remedy 17 is passing, which I expect will help reduce problematic behavior in the topic area. However, I also acknowledge the concerns others have raised that it is possible the design of the restriction will need to be revisited to account for gaming or other challenges that arise. This remedy will give us a clear timeline to revisit the restriction to ensure that potential issues get fixed. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support, I think a review would be helpful around this time. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Arbcom has the Wikipedia equivalent of parliamentary sovereignty where past committee's can't bind future committees to anything. If you want to have a discussion in 6 months about this, write it in your personal planner and see if there is a consensus at that time to do so. Writing it here doesn't actually do anything more than that, and probably less knowing how future plan slip out of mind when the work starts rolling in. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather have a sunset clause added to automatically have this expire if it is not being used; something along the lines of "if no balanced editing restrictions are logged in a calendar year this provision will expire". That way we get our feedback without actually needing to remember to start a discussion about it. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer a sunset clause, per Primefac. Daniel (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can open a discussion whenever we want, but stuff happens around here, and we forget about the stuff we said we were going to do in favor of the stuff that's raining down at the moment. So I like Primefac's idea better. Katie^talk 21:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the sunset clause approach, which we have pioneered elsewhere in PIA. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to starting a review at the request of an admin. No objection to the sunset clause - but I'd rather be reactive in this instance. Worm^TT(talk) 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Reviewing at some point is good. I'm not hung up on whether it's a sunset clause or an ad-hoc ARCA discussion. Cabayi (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A review to see how effective this is would be beneficial, though implementing it as a sunset clause would be preferred. - Aoidh (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Article titles restriction

18) An article on a violent engagement within the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, where the engagement postdates the passing of this remedy or where editors cannot come to a consensus on an appropriate title for the article, may not describe the engagement as a "massacre", "murder", "bombing", "genocide", or "assassination" or similarly contentious word. Any administrator may move such an article to a more standardized title by, for example, substituting in the words "killing", "battle", "attack", "war", "conflict", or "airstrike". This move should be logged as an arbitration enforcement action, and it does not render the mover INVOLVED for other administrative purposes.

A clear consensus of admins at AE can authorize and create a requested move, where the clear consensus is that the article titles guideline, particularly WP:POVTITLE, supports a non-standard title.

Support:

A title established by consensus is a first step towards avoiding POV forks. Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I like the general idea of requiring editors to maintain a neutral point of view, but in its current form, I'm afraid this is incompatible with ArbCom's prohibition from ruling on content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not an editorial board. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the intent, but ArbCom should not be dictating article titles like this, especially in a way that may supersede Wikipedia:Article titles. - Aoidh (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the “community encouraged to create an rfc regarding POV forks/titles” is a better solution— this comes too close to ruling on article content, I think. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the RfC --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with my colleagues. I do like the idea, but not through arbcom. Worm^TT(talk) 14:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aiodh. Katie^talk 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can't rule on content. As an editor who writes in historical topics, I know that many common names for events include those words. I don't think we can make a blanket ban on those terms in a topic space, and unfortunately have to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Given the disruption around RMs, we need something like this remedy. However, this doesn't give clear guidance enough for how articles should be named, while also requiring a consensus for some terms (like "assassination"), where it isn't clear that there's much of a problem. While ArbCom should normally not touch content decisions, the issue here is really the decision-making process at RM. It isn't working, we need to do something, and enforcing a "first mover advantage" (the easiest solution) would be worse than doing nothing. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this stepping into editorial board territory. ArbCom is empowered to take extraordinary measures when necessary, and mandating that all article be at a generic title is not making a judgement about the nature of the events described. But I'd rather see if we get a useful RfC where the community works out how to handle these issues, and ArbCom step in if that fails. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

To anyone in the peanut gallery who is saying "this is a good idea, can't believe the arbs are against it," see also remedy 12, which suggests that the community run an RfC to tackle this very issue. I agree that we could probably have better guidance on how to title articles that might have controversial wording, so as to prevent POV forking. But I don't think its the place of the Committee to say "these titles good" and "these titles bad." That is a tempting, but dangerous road for us to walk, because it abdicates our content neutrality. Plus, the community might come up with a more nuanced solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndreJustAndre indefinite topic ban

19a) AndreJustAndre is indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine-Israel conflict, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

The Wikipedia Flood (the blog in question) evidence leaves this as our only option here I'm afraid. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming that the Wikipedia Flood stuff is totally fine and not problematic, we received extensive evidence about Andre. Andre being aggressive (Nableezy), twisting the truth (Zero0000), protecting a sock who was spewing hate (Makeandtoss), and turning a blind eye towards newbies who support their POV (Bluethricecreamman). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the canvassing after the relatively-recent block and unblock. Not every canvassed edit he made is problematic, but as a whole the pattern of behavior is below what's expected and necessary here. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andre's conduct in topic area has been hostile and problematic in multiple different ways. Even if we were to ignore the previous time he has come before this committee, an editor of Andre's experience should know better. Note that after a grace period I might be sympathetic to making exceptions to allow Andre to write articles that could be considered to be at the fringes of the scope. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly reject the WikiFlood element, but I still think this is warranted. Looking at the evidence as a whole, I think the topic area has simply given Andre more trouble than it's worth. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on this: I believe Andre has been less problematic since his return to the topic area. However, I feel like the behavior detailed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive343#Nableezy, which led to the referral, is in a similar vein of what led to the Arb block. I think a longer break from the topic area is for the best. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to all of the evidence above, I'm rather puzzled trying to sort out whether Andre thinks a couple of frivolous SPIs are no big deal, something we all do (pro-Israeli-leaning filer) or partial cause for an indef (pro-Palestinian-leaning filer, less than a week ago). Enough is enough. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether the ban motion passes. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minimum. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

I won't stand in the way of this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'm sensitive to the "Andre's basilisk" problem (in line with the classic cognitohazard) and acknowledge that we've tried to avoid these kinds of sanctions for off-wiki stuff before. In response, I would point to the "enough is enough" principle. We're fed up here. Andre, you've been a helpful community member and were once an admin, but like, why should we give you the benefit of the doubt here? Far from being contrite about happening to make the edits that a very questionable off-wiki source is asking for, you're suggesting that that is entirely out of our hands and that we should ignore your POV pushing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndreJustAndre admonished

19b) AndreJustAndre is admonished for their behavior in the Palestine-Israel topic area.

Support:

Oppose:

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequate, I'm afraid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more. Katie^talk 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good that it was proposed, but unnecessary. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous form makes an admonishment insufficient. Cabayi (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

In the interest of fairness, provide an admonish as an alt remedy. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndreJustAndre banned

19c) AndreJustAndre is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:

AndreJustAndre received an unblock from the committee in September, which I opposed, and speedran his way into being a party of an arbcom case by December. I think we need to admit that our decision to return Andre to editing was in error and return him to being removed from the project. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After due consideration, I believe a ban is necessary. I certainly understand Guerillero's point of view, coming off a ban where one thing he mentioned was that he'd be careful in the area, and then ending up in a case within months is a really bad look. Looking back over the appeal, and more importantly the initial block last January, I believe there are enough red flags that I believe a topic ban is insufficient in this instance, and that a full ban is required. Worm^TT(talk) 10:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We might not have formally given a topic ban on unblock, but the implication sure was there, and to be back before us not even six months later is troubling. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT. Andre put himself in a corner and here we are. Katie^talk 17:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT. - Aoidh (talk) 03:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are at a place where one editor is taking up several hours of time from other editors to deal with their misconduct. Time is the most valuable resource that Wikipedians have, and we cannot get it back once it is spent. The fact that their behaviour ended up at an ArbCom case so soon after an unblock leads me to think that this is necessary. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not convinced this is necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowly opposing this, I think Andre has curtailed his behavior enough to avoid this but not a TBAN. I will expand in a comment in my vote for the TBAN. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly take Dave's and Tom's points. I think it's very concerning that just a few months after the lifting of the ArbCom block, we're considering sanctions against Andre again. His interactions with Nableezy in particular suggest a tendency to personalise disputes or at least to hold grudges past their point of usefulness. Nonetheless, he is correct that we did no impose any formal conditions and, although his recent conduct has been problematic, his 20-year history suggests that he still has something to offer Wikipedia; it's also worth noting that there isn't evidence of serious problems outside of ARBPIA. It's a close call but ultimately I can't support a ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mulled this one over for a long time, and I thought Worm and Guerillero made very compelling cases. Also, Andre isn't exactly helping himself by offering a passionately weak defense of the behavior I expressed concern over in my TBAN vote. There's certainly a credible fear that a topic ban isn't going to be enough to prevent Andre from being disruptive, especially in light of the ArbCom block.
However, a credible fear isn't enough for a siteban for me – I want to see fairly clear evidence that a pattern of behavior will continue unless we stop it. Since Andre hasn't repeated the behavior that led to the ArbCom block, and no one's suggested that a topic ban wouldn't have prevented all of his post-unblock behavior, that standard isn't met for me. If Andre proves me wrong on that, though, a ban's next. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19a Cabayi (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm in two minds on this. I've been generally disappointed by Andre's conduct since his return from his block. That block was absolutely necessary and I haven't been convinced that the lesson has truly sunk in, despite supporting his appeal (which I found quite convincing). On the other hand, Andre is a net-positive elsewhere and I could be convinced that lesser measures will be sufficient. At the moment, I reluctantly lean towards supporting the site ban but I need more time to make up my mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm minded to support here, but need to look a bit more into the history in the archives. Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the same boat as Harry and Worm, will have to think this over. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AndreJustAndre: suspended site ban

19d) Should the Arbitration Committee receive a complaint at WP:ARCA about AndreJustAndre, within 12 months of the conclusion of this case, AndreJustAndre may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion.

Support:

I would prefer 19c, but sure. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While we already have the ability to do this, so this remedy is somewhat pointless, Andre seems to not understand just how thin the ice is that he's on. This should make that crystal clear. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Aiodh, I'd rather have 19c), but okay. Katie^talk 04:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. I'm also happy with leeky's suggestion of a single uninvolved admin activating the suspended ban. Worm^TT(talk) 09:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This strikes the right balance in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recidivism is an issue here; hopefully this will curtail it. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, agree with Worm. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been convinced of the value to this proposal. Cabayi (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 19c, but this is the second best. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we really mean it this time! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This is basically a carbon copy of the normal admonishment — that I already feel lacks any meaningful enhancement over a warning —, but with extra pizzazz to make people feel like they are doing something. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have this power. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaptainEek where does ArbCom derive the power to ban by motion outside of a case or when there is no personal information involved? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is within our powerTo act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. While the Committee typically uses the case format, we aren't strictly bound to it. Here, the community has already thrown its hands up. If Andre was back before us within a year for good cause, I don't see why we'd have to go through the trouble of a whole case when we could ban by motion. I understand the value of signalling to the community that we're receptive to this possibility, but I don't think it's a power that exists only if we grant it to ourselves via motion in a case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Proposed because 19c looks unlikely to pass. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: might I suggest an alternate wording? I can also propose this as an alternate remedy.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge difference between requiring an ArbCom motion and allowing any uninvolved administrator to place an ArbCom siteban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(To be honest, if I received this "suspended indefinite siteban" sanction I'd stop editing for a year.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that adds a lot of words but no additional clarity. The only substantive difference is that it can be activated by an admin rather than an AC motion. By all means propose that as 19d-i. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can take or leave the 'any admin' bit, but i was just hoping to clarify that we're making ourselves the body of first resort for Andre in particular. I don't want admins to think this is just a CTOP-related thing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Levant Subcommittee

20) A Levant Subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee is set up for the purposes of resolving conduct disputes within the area of conflict that are too complex for the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, but do not require the action of the whole committee. The subcommittee is to be made up of at least 2, but not more than 10, uninvolved admins appointed by the committee for terms not exceeding 1 year. Members can be appointed to any number of terms.

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

The Arbitration Committee may, by a majority vote,

create procedures, timelines, and other policies for mini-cases,
set up mailing lists, noticeboards, or other communications channels for the subcommittee,
allow the subcommittee panels to use the clerk office,
substitute panel members with arbitrators, other subcommittee members, or uninvolved editors,
enact procedures to handle appeals from the subcommittee in a expeditious way (such as rejections by net-4),
and transfer referrals from a panel to the full Arbitration Committee.

Support:

This came about from discussions at the workshop that some sort of intermediate body is needed due to arbcom being timid and slow to act. I think AE is not set up to work on the issues that the committee is asking them to solve. I would envision the procedures that this remedy mentions to cover most of the finer details that people would like to know. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this or something like it is worth trying. If we try it and it's a disaster, we can learn what lessons we can and fold it up but we don't know if we don't try. Again, this might end up being tinkered a lot at ARCA but that might be time well-spent in the long run. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I may have considered this at one point, but today I don't want to be extending the bureaucracy of Arbcom in any way. On top of that, setting up a subcommittee in response to a tough case is something I'm against, on the "hard cases make bad law" principle. I appreciate the work that's gone into the idea, but I cannot support it. Worm^TT(talk) 14:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just really reluctant to make subcommittees with arbitrators here. I could possibly envision it with a group of seasoned admins, though. Katie^talk 18:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For one, if we had ten spare admins to work in PIA, one suspects that the topic area would be less of a problem in the first place. Second, I am hoping that our idea to limit AE reports to two players will alleviate this issue, and also make it easier for AE to refer cases to us in the future. I know this case (borne out of two AE referrals) probably leaves a bad taste with the AE admins, but I hope us dealing with this, plus some reforms, will make future referrals less painful. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the remedy to POV and single purpose accounts could viably be single purpose arbitrators. Cabayi (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keen to see if the actions taken in this case in other remedies (plus the pre-case motions) can fix the issues AE was having with this topic area, as a first step. Daniel (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like how Cabayi describes this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Daniel here. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly per Daniel; I'd be open to supporting something like this if significant issues come up again. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought on this some more and considered Eek's comments in particular, I don't think the good that this could do outweighs the additional bureaucracy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Daniel and Worm Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-committees were dissolved by past ArbComs, and I'm not convinced that creating a new sub-committee will yield a different result. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Is the arb randomly drawn, or only the subcommittee members? The wording isn't exactly clear about how we'd determine which arbs deal with situations. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is up to future arbs to have as part of the procedures. I could see it being handled in a few ways: randomly drawn from a small number of arbs who are assigned to the subcommitee for part of their term, whoever on the committee volunteers in that mini-case, drawn randomly from the whole committee, or an arb who is assigned as the subcommitee as a coordinator. My personal preference would be the first or last option based on my AUSC term c. 2012, but there are good reasons to go with the second one. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to support per Worm; will have to think more on this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on AE reports limited

21a) Comments on AE report in the PIA topic area are limited only to the parties of the report. Non-parties are expected to only provide context and evidence and avoid opinions or remarks on other editors. Comments that do not specifically address the report can be removed by uninvolved administrators and may result in additional sanctions.

Support:

Second choice to 21b. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't like weird rules for only one topic area. I could probably support this for everything at AE. "But they..." is a common mud throwing tactic to try to distract from one's actions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Guerillero; should be all or nothing. I do like the idea though, especially after years of dealing with ARC requests where most of the replies are little more than "the Committee should accept this case". Primefac (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
per them two... Cabayi (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I often refer to the 'ol "peanut gallery." While I know that term has a slightly negative, if humorous, connotation, I actually do find third party input to be important, and I mean the term in good spirit. Now, its not the be-all, end-all. Sometimes, third party feedback is distracting or useless. But spectators frequently provide useful context, diffs that other folks missed, and ideas that others didn't have. AE admins should feel empowered to hat off-topic or unhelpful content. But to prevent third party input altogether puts a much, much greater weight on the already burdened AE admins. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With 11b passing I would rather see how effective that is before adding to it. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aoidh. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aoidh Worm^TT(talk) 09:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Eek. Katie^talk 12:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point about special rules for one CTOP. I support the principle though. The limiting of the peanut gallery to the peanut gallery is why AE works where ANI fails but even AE can get bogged down in "but look at them". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Eek. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed per comment by SFR on the talk page and out finding about AE working better when less cluttered; I'm fine with some wordsmithing. Credit to SFR for the idea. Someone can propose something for the entirety of AE, if they think that's a good idea. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on AE reports limited (alt)

21b) Comments on AE reports are limited only to the parties of the report. Non-parties are expected to only provide context and evidence and avoid opinions or remarks on other editors. Comments that do not specifically address the report can be removed by uninvolved administrators and may result in sanctions.

Support:

I've said "play the ball and not the man" often enough that I can't oppose its introduction as a conduct policy for AE. Cabayi (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Other editors have edited disruptively too"-type comments distract from the main issue under discussion, one specific user's behavior. One of the main benefits of choosing AE over AN or ANI should be the focus on on specific user's behavior in one specific topic area, and quick and simple action in case it's actually problematic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would prevent AE threads from ballooning and getting off-topic with "but look at him". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment at 21a. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a terrible idea, but I'd rather not muddy the waters per Aoidh's comment at 21b. What's more, I prefer to give the admins at AE flexibility - so if I were to switch to something like that, I'd recommend giving the it as an option to shut down by AE admins (or at least the option to open up the floor, though I like that less), rather than this solution. Worm^TT(talk) 09:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Aoidh. Primefac (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT. Katie^talk 12:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
mostly per Worm; I think this might benefit from some workshopping outside of this case. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer to try other measures relating to AE, that are passing above, first. Daniel (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WTT. Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed for all of AE, per comments from Guerillero and Primefac. Open to further wordsmithing etc. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI clerks encouraged

22) If a sockpuppet investigations clerk or member of the CheckUser team feels that third-party input is not helpful at an investigation, they are encouraged to use their existing authority to ask users to stop posting to that investigation or to SPI as a whole.

In addition to clerks and members of the CheckUser team, patrolling administrators may remove or collapse contributions that impede the efficient resolution of investigations without warning.

Support:

This is following on from § Third-party participation at SPI. Given that my colleagues are hesitant to introduce strict remedies that address the finding, I think that such encouragement from the Committee at a minimum could be useful. I will support stricter measures if they can command a majority. Sdrqaz (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to try. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments at the FoF Sdrqaz links to. Daniel (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing is blockable. Using warnings, redactions, and pblocks(?) to ensure the smooth functioning of SPI seems well within existing policy. Cabayi (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be shy. If someone is interfering with your work, clerks/CUs, get them out of there. Katie^talk 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worm^TT(talk) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CUs/clerks/patrolling admins already have wide latitude at SPI and should feel free to flex their muscles if an SPI starts filling up with comments that aren't useful to the investigation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not in a condescending way, more of a “don’t feel constrained” way; keep up the good work. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by SilverLocust 💬 at 05:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 05:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC) by SilverLocust.[reply]

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
think everything has a majority one way or the other. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 01:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision

Proposed motions

Template

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

Role of the Arbitration Committee

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee is not an editorial board

Arbitration Enforcement

Arbitration Enforcement-imposed sanctions

National and territorial disputes

Edit warring

Disruptive editing

Contentious topics

Standards of editor behavior

Wikipedia is not a battleground

Wikipedia is not a forum

Being right isn't enough

Recidivism

Ownership

Bludgeoning

Enough is enough

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1RR not always effective

First-mover advantage

POV forks

Involved closes

Battleground behavior

Sockpuppetry

Third-party participation at SPI

Non-EC accounts

Outside influence

AE participation

AE efficiency

AE works best with limited parties

BilledMammal behavior

BilledMammal behavior (alternative finding)

Iskandar323 behavior

Ïvana banned

Levivich behavior

Nableezy behavior

Selfstudier behavior

האופה blocked

AndreJustAndre behavior

AndreJustAndre behavior (alternative finding)

Zero0000 behavior

Makeandtoss behavior

Nishidani behavior

Nishidani behavior (alternative finding)

Proposed remedies

ECP by default

BilledMammal indefinite topic ban

BilledMammal admonished

Iskandar323 admonished

Iskandar323 indefinite topic ban

Iskandar323 placed on probation

Levivich admonished

Levivich one year topic ban

Levivich indefinite topic ban

Levivich indefinite topic ban (alt)

Nableezy admonished

Nableezy one year topic ban

Nableezy indefinite topic ban

Selfstudier admonished

Selfstudier one year topic ban

Selfstudier indefinite topic ban

Zero0000 warned

Zero0000 warned (alt)

Zero0000 admonished

Makeandtoss admonished

Makeandtoss one year topic ban

Makeandtoss indefinite topic ban

Nishidani warned

Nishidani indefinite topic ban

Nishidani banned

Word limits amended

AE reports in the topic area limited to two parties

AE reports limited to two parties