Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Initiated by Allthemilescombined1 at 11:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification CaptainEek

ArbCom is the “Supreme Court” of Wikipedia and serves as the ultimate authority on maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia project. I have noticed ‘ownership’ of the I/P area by a small group of editors, and I have encountered incivility, POV pushing, tag-teaming and aspersions in the space. I have been following reports about Wikipedia in Pirate Wires and the Jewish Journal further reporting upon troubling behavior, including widespread canvassing. The Wikipedia community can only address these concerns if there is sustained trust in the platform’s governance.

In response to the March 20 Jewish Journal piece on the “Tech For Palestine” editing Discord, CaptainEek stated on March 22 that the Arbitration Committee did not receive the “expanded dossier” at the center of the JJ article.

On April 23, the JJ article was updated in response to CaptainEek's denial of receiving the “expanded dossier” (which appears at the bottom of the article linked above as well as on the journalist's twitter). The updated article indicates that the “expanded dossier” was in fact submitted to ArbCom twice on 9/8/24.

As far as I can tell, ArbCom, while taking efforts to re-review the case in light of the update to the JJ article, has yet to clarify as to how important submitted evidence was missed, ignored, forgotten about, buried, or otherwise. Given that there is zero transparency as to the private proceedings of the committee, this is a complete violation of trust between editors and Arbitrators. How are we to trust that sensitive evidence is being handled appropriately, if such a major miss like this can happen? Furthermore, why would a veteran ArbCom member respond dismissively on a noticeboard before checking their email for correspondence relating to the evidence in question? This does not instill any confidence that the private ArbCom procedures are being conducted appropriately.

As a member of the Wikipedia community, I am requesting a transparent, independent investigation be assembled as to the conduct and procedure of ArbCom on this matter. Just a few of the questions that I want answered:

• What are the current protocols in place to log submitted evidence?
• How was this evidence missed?
• Were the original emails opened by ArbCom? By CaptainEek?
• If so, were the files downloaded?
• Was there any consistent follow up or acknowledgement of correspondence with the editor who submitted the evidence?
• Were the ArbCom and CaptainEek's emails reviewed before CaptainEek made that statement denying the evidence was received?

I am aware of no procedure in place for the Arbitration Committee to be itself investigated. I am requesting that any ArbCom members who were active during the period in question recuse themselves from this proceeding, and only those most recently elected (which took place after this evidence was submitted) to make recommendations on this matter.

•  Clerk note: Moved to own section. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CaptainEek When was ArbCom made aware of the Tech for Palestine canvassing operation?

  -Given that reports were made publicly of the operation as far back as June 2024, were any efforts made by ArbCom to enter the Discord and verify the claims prior to the Discord channel being locked down in September?

  -You’re saying that you weren’t aware that the second attachment was larger, but the emails contained in the article make clear that the follow up emails would contain complete download of the Discord. Care to clarify?

  -Did the person submitting evidence clarify as to why they were anonymous? Did they imply they were an editor? If there were concerns about the security of the data (attachment vs link), was this communicated to them?

  -Equally, does this mean that if editors (or others) submit evidence anonymously, their submissions will not be taken seriously or treated with the same attention that self-identified parties receive? Are there any official policies anywhere on anonymous submission of evidence or reporting of illicit behavior?

  -On this note, does ArbCom consider it within its mandate to investigate claims beyond submitted evidence? If ArbCom does not independently investigate, is there any body at Wikipedia that would?

  -What was the reasoning for only topic banning Samisawtak as opposed to a siteban? Does this mean that other users may conduct themselves in similar fashion and only expect a topic ban?

  -According to the 244-page report, Tashmetu and Isoceles-sai performed edits assigned to them by another person. How is this not canvassing? Furthermore, what was different and more significant about the private evidence provided on Isoceles that finally pushed their site ban across the line when the initial evidence was not considered sufficient?

  -If Baderdean’s actions were outside of the jurisdiction of English language ArbCom, are there procedures in place for submitted evidence to be forwarded to ArbCom in other languages? Or is this solely the responsibility of the submitting party to send to the appropriate body? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Note: Moved to own section. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel Most emails in the screenshots in the “UPDATE:” to the Jewish Journal article are from Captain Eek. The only one from you is the final screenshot dated 1/29/25. You are mentioned here merely because you appear in that correspondence, not because of any further implication. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Daniel In that case, may I amend, to remove you? Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Allthemilescombined1: Yes, and I have removed him as a listed party for you. Please post all replies here in your own section and not in the section for discussion by arbitrators. – JensonSL (SilverLocust) (an arbitration clerk) 06:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArbCom Clerks: I request additional words to address my initial as well as follow-up questions. It is only appropriate to turn this into a proceeding, for a proper procedure and inquiry as to what happened here and how ArbCom conducts themselves. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArbCom Clerks: I have additional questions above my 857 words. I request 1000 words. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to my own section: Seeing as Aoidh has also recused, then I will also recuse.

• The Committee has just concluded its latest investigation based in part on the larger dossier (Special:Diff/1287421004), which has yet to be reflected in Mr. Bandler's article. There was only one more editor who we blocked based on that dossier, and that was based in part on evidence of misconduct in a separate server. As we explain, many of the other editors have not edited in some time or have so few edits as to make an ArbCom block a waste of resources. I think this is rather unfairly being described as my sole fault, when it's just that I happened to be the person who responded to some of the emails that were sent to the entire Committee.
  Now, I'll acknowledge that in our first investigation, I had not seen the 240 page dossier. I want to set the stage for how that could happen. We get an email from someone who isn't disclosing who they are, such that they might not even be an editor. They send us ten different emails (not an exaggeration, I just counted). The first emails have proper attachments, which can be opened in Gmail without downloading them, making them safe to view. Then, as one of the many emails we're being sent, they include a download link, which years of email safety have taught me not to click. They then keep sending attachments. I assumed that the attachments were the same as the download link, and that it wasn't necessary to potentially download a tracker from a questionable individual. Nothing that our source said made it clear that this download link was five times larger than the other evidence.
  But as we subsequently discovered, size did not equal information. We had the info we needed to deal with all but one of the other editors. I can't say if other folks had read the 240 page dossier as opposed to the 50 page one. But for my part, I didn't know of the 240 page dossier at the time I said I didn't know about it. Mea culpa, I missed that, and I'll be more exacting in the future. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I also want to point out that our first investigation was based primarily on information sent from a different confidential source than this one, so we actually had another source of info which allowed us to handle the other editors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Allthemilescombined1 I have commented extensively on our actions here. There must ultimately be limits on what we can disclose. Remember, I am just one of 15 members of the Committee.

  Given that reports were made publicly of the operation as far back as June 2024, were any efforts made by ArbCom to enter the Discord and verify the claims prior to the Discord channel being locked down in September? I'm not at liberty to disclose that.

  You’re saying that you weren’t aware that the second attachment was larger, but the emails contained in the article make clear that the follow up emails would contain complete download of the Discord. Care to clarify? Answering that would require me to discuss information I'm not at liberty to disclose.

  Did the person submitting evidence clarify as to why they were anonymous? Did they imply they were an editor? If there were concerns about the security of the data (attachment vs link), was this communicated to them? I'm not at liberty to disclose that.

  Equally, does this mean that if editors (or others) submit evidence anonymously, their submissions will not be taken seriously or treated with the same attention that self-identified parties receive? Are there any official policies anywhere on anonymous submission of evidence or reporting of illicit behavior? The Committee accepts anonymous submission of information. The fact that a person is anonymous may have weight in some decisions. We can't blindly accept information we receive; an "anonymous source" could be a dog just as easily as a government agent trying to manipulate our content.

  On this note, does ArbCom consider it within its mandate to investigate claims beyond submitted evidence? If ArbCom does not independently investigate, is there any body at Wikipedia that would? See my comments about this at the last election Special:Diff/1257480493.

  What was the reasoning for only topic banning Samisawtak as opposed to a siteban? Does this mean that other users may conduct themselves in similar fashion and only expect a topic ban? Whether ArbCom imposes a particular remedy over another includes a wide range of factors, and is ultimately a vote where each Arb may have a different reason.

  According to the 244-page report, Tashmetu and Isoceles-sai performed edits assigned to them by another person. How is this not canvassing? Furthermore, what was different and more significant about the private evidence provided on Isoceles that finally pushed their site ban across the line when the initial evidence was not considered sufficient? Being assigned edits by another person also includes things like WikiEd students, and Editathons. At any rate, we've taken action against both Tashmetu and Isoceles-Sai. And we're not going to tell you what was in that private evidence because its private.

  If Baderdean’s actions were outside of the jurisdiction of English language ArbCom, are there procedures in place for submitted evidence to be forwarded to ArbCom in other languages? Or is this solely the responsibility of the submitting party to send to the appropriate body? The French effectively lack an ArbCom at the moment. Otherwise, EnWP ArbCom has an exchange system with other ArbComs for coordination. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing as I'm at about 950 words due to the necessity of reprinting and answering the many questions, I request a 750 word extension; 500 for what I have, and 250 for any further replies, should they be necessary. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a perspective: according to the dossier itself: "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles.(p. 3 (out of 244)) (bolding in the original). I can make more edits in a day. Also, from what I could see, it was mostly adding "fluff": celebrity X, Y or Z "supporting Gaza ceasefire", etc. Huldra (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra cited page 3. The page covers the Feb and Sept, 2024 period.

• There were 209,432 edits by 19,279 distinct accounts/IPs to articles, talk page, templates etc. within the PIA topic area for those months using the current way of modeling the topic area.
• 15,976 of those edits were by accounts subsequently blocked as ban evading actors.

From this we can say a few things

• The topic area is large and complicated with thousands of moving parts. It is not a simple thing that is 'owned' or controlled by a small group of editors or ArbCom.
• 260 is small compared to 209,432. There are presumably many external canvassing operations trying to influence content. TFP is not an example of an effective or impactful operation.
• The impact of ban evasion over this period was over 60x larger than the apparent impact of this TFP group.

And I'll add this.

• Editors, not ArbCom, are the ultimate authority that maintain "the integrity of the Wikipedia project" through their editing. ArbCom, for example, have no authority over ban evading actors in PIA, an unsanctionable class that media and social media sources conveniently ignore, despite the significance of their impact on content and the dynamics of the topic area.
• I think the statement 'The Wikipedia community can only address these concerns if there is sustained trust in the platform’s governance.' is entirely wrong. No one is coming to save anyone who has concerns about the state of the topic area. And the Wikipedia community does not need to do anything based on trust of anyone or anything. The community can address concerns by following Wikipedia's rules and not allowing themselves to be exploited by external partisan influence operations.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, for me, success or failure depends on things like compliance, completeness etc., all emergent properties well beyond the control of ArbCom or individual editors. Success can take years to emerge. For me, success or failure has no dependency on how partisan actors see things. They are unreliable narrators. There are misalignments between their value systems and Wikipedia's. Their stories about Wikipedia willfully misinform and mislead. It doesn't seem to make the topic area better. A real problem, for me, is that doing the thing that is prohibited by the universal code of conduct, "manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", is what many of us do without even trying, naturally, in good faith, without any malicious intent or conscious manipulation, and it can take a long time for content to meander its way to somewhere resembling compliance with the important policies, too long for impatient partisans. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recuse. The basis of this request is thatAs far as I can tell, ArbCom ... has yet to clarify as to how important submitted evidence was missed, ignored, forgotten about, buried, or otherwise. However, in December 2024-January 2025 ArbCom addressed what led to this being overlooked and considered a variety of motions with the aim of preventing something similar moving forward. We amended our procedures after passing a motion that has so far been very effective in its implementation. - Aoidh (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the committee consider distinguishing between action taken on anonymous sources and confidential sources? In this case, "anonymous" means unknown to the committee, while "confidential" means known to the committee, but not disclosed.

And re: Sean.Hoyland,the Wikipedia community does not need to do anything based on trust of anyone or anything. The purpose of this project is to create an encyclopedia that serves readers looking to gather information. If we're seen as untrustworthy with poor governance, we've failed at that goal.

Hello, I may be able to answer some of those questions, as I’m not bound by the same confidentiality rules as ArbCom. I would also like to note that I fully understand that the Arbs receive many reports of varying quality and that steps have already been taken to address the pace at which action is taken, so this is primarily descriptive, not accusatory.

Having said that, my own report of this issue contains 18 screenshots from their discord, the names of the most relevant editors, and a link to their on-Wiki collaboration space. I received confirmation of receipt on Jun 30, 2024, then requested an update on August 31, to which I received a response (on September 3) stating that no further information was needed at this time and that there was no news. I requested an update on November 1, which was not replied to. Between confirming reception and her block on Dec 9, User:Ïvana made more than 1000 edits, including to sensitive articles.

The email from which the report was made is linked to my account and would be verifiable to ArbCom, as I have forwarded canvassing emails to them before. As such, I don’t think that this was an issue of „anonymous/confidential“. I also can’t speak to whether or not what I provided was sufficient to take action, and required a second attempt to reformat the attachment to my email with the help of an arbitrator, for what that’s worth.

I waive my confidentiality to the degree that is required to confirm that all statements made above are accurate and complete. FortunateSons (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously disagree with Chess' statement above thatThe purpose of this project is to create an encyclopedia that serves readers looking to gather information. If we're seen as untrustworthy with poor governance, we've failed at that goal. This is putting the cart before the horse; our goal isn't to be seen as trustworthy but to be trustworthy. There's an important difference between the two. Since it's a bit of a digression and it's an argument I've seen before in various forms, I wrote an essay on it just now, WP:NOTREPUTATION. But as it applies to this case, the crux is that it is our actual policies and procedures that matter, which must be applied appropriately and proportionately. When actual problems that cut at our core mission are raised, we have an obligation to resolve them; but we do not have an obligation to satisfy anyone, here or externally, beyond that point. Giving an issue undue weight or bending our procedures because someone with a big megaphone is making a stink about how they're not happy with our handling, if it causes us to get things wrong as a result, harm our mission, and, therefore, our reputation, far more in the long term. --Aquillion (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• @Allthemilescombined1: You are at approximately 857 words. ARCA has a word limit of 500 words per editor. Because everything in your statement has been responded to, you need to request an extension before adding more. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Sean.hoyland: you are at approximately 615 words. You can trim your second reply to Chess, as it has not been responded to. Otherwise, please request an extension before any additional replies. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Allthemilescombined1: How many words are you requesting for additional comments here? – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 00:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Allthemilescombined1: Why have you tagged me and notified me in this? Your statement makes no reference to me that I can see, and I was only elected to sit on the Committee from January 2025 onwards (which I'm only noting, given you made reference to requesting recusals for those on the Committee in calendar year 2024 — which doesn't include me). Daniel (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In response to this (subsequently moved to the correct section), that was an email "for the Arbitration Committee". I think you adding me as a party here was misguided, and I would have been in a great position to provide feedback on this (as a new arbitrator this year), but as a result of being listed as a party this is a recuse by default. Daniel (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now that I've been removed as a party, I can provide some context as to 2025 internal processes. I cannot speak for 2024 as I was not on the Committee at that time, as previously mentioned. This year, we have a fairly regimented tracking system of all email correspondence coming in. Some emails are immediately handled by a single arbitrator (think misdirected block appeals that are clearly out of scope, an article subject who actually was looking for info-en about a content issue, or similar). Anything that isn't handled by a single arbitrator is then added to the tracking list under "Ongoing", with links to the email thread and notes appended as to its status and age etc. Once things are resolved (most frequently by way of replying, and often these are replies 'for the Arbitration Committee'), they are moved to "Resolved" for a short period before dropping off the Resolved list. This tracking list, which also includes current on-wiki matters linked, is published internally and also shared at least weekly via email to the list to keep everyone on top of open and active issues. That being said, no process is foolproof, especially not one run by volunteers — but this seems to be working well so far this year (see also Aoidh's comments regarding effectiveness), and will be especially important as our email workload seemingly increases with the intersection of Wikipedia and off-wiki coordination. An important caveat is, this process is only effective for tracking the issues themselves; regarding tracking individual pieces of evidence within an issue, that is handled on a case-by-case basis due to the wide variety of types of issues and types of evidence we receive. Continuous improvement is a noble cause and one I will always be aligned with, in every capacity both on- and off-wiki. While I appreciate the nature of this enquiry in this venue, I am somewhat despondent at the collateral impact that is the workload hours it's taking away from the sizable private list of issues we currently have sitting with us, and for that reason alone I hope this is wrapped up soon. There is only so much that can be said on this topic, or any topic for that matter, and I feel like my colleagues have done an excellent job replying to the wider substance of this above and below. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me take a swing at this:
  • What are the current protocols in place to log submitted evidence? Generally it stays in email threads. Some things are placed on Arbwiki for ease of review when handling motions.
  • How was this evidence missed? Things slip through the cracks, unfortunately. Right now there are a lot of active email threads plus on-wiki business. Some of it is getting a bit old. Luckily some people are diligent about keeping a running tally of what's ongoing and how old it is.
  • Were the original emails opened by ArbCom? By CaptainEek? There's not really a way to verify who opened it.
  • If so, were the files downloaded? No way to know.
  • Was there any consistent follow up or acknowledgement of correspondence with the editor who submitted the evidence? I think so, I can't find all the emails though.
  • Were the ArbCom and CaptainEek's emails reviewed before CaptainEek made that statement denying the evidence was received? Reviewed by who? I just tried to dig up the emails in question and it took about ten minutes and I only found one and I knew what I was looking for. We don't generally review each others' comments when they're notFor the Arbitration Committee,. No one reviewed this comment, for instance, and I shouldn't be trusted with one of those cup and ball toys, never mind a keyboard.
• Now, speaking for the dossier, it was 240 pages of blurry, artifacted images with a ton of repetition. It had a great deal of focus on editors with a handful of edits, or that were already blocked, and didn't really add anything above what we'd already received. By the time I reviewed it almost everything actionable was done, and based on additional private evidence unrelated to the dossier we took some other actions. It sucks that we don't have a better system of tracking the enormous amount of issues that come to us. It also sucks that someone forgot a couple emails out of literally thousands from six months earlier, but that happens. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm against word extensions. They've asked questions, we've answered, and we can't go into explicit detail about how we weighed evidence without the risk of revealing private evidence. This venue is for clarifications on scope, rulings, and the like for a specific case, not general questions about our processes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not seeing what more needs to be done here. We've explained, in the detail that we can, how we missed this, and how we've updated our procedures since. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Elli. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]