This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

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

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

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

Active:

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

Inactive:

1. Liz (talk · contribs)

Outgoing arbitrators, active on this case:

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

Recused:

1. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)

As noted in the ACN announcement of the 2025 Arbitration Committee, Outgoing members are eligible ... to remain active on cases accepted before their term ended. Outgoing arbitrators Guerillero and Moneytrees have opted to remain active for this case, and incoming arbitrator ScottishFinnishRaddish has recused himself. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241231035700","author":"Aoidh","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aoidh-20241231035700-Active_outgoing_arbitrators","replies":[]}}-->

Excellent work getting this up in schedule, and there are some great ideas here. I'm a big fan of the SPA sanction, but it might be worth having a couple more versions with different thresholds to vote on, e.g. 50% and 66%. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111194700","author":"ScottishFinnishRadish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250111194700-ScottishFinnishRadish's_section","replies":["c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250111202700-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250111194700"]}}-->

Would the SPA topic ban be indefinite, or time limited? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111202700","author":"ScottishFinnishRadish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250111202700-ScottishFinnishRadish-20250111194700","replies":[]}}-->

Arbcom will establish a very dangerous precedent if it's a bannable offense to make corrections referenced on offsite material, even if one applies independent thought and sometimes does the opposite of what offsite material may suggest to do, and the edits themselves are not disruptive. The current policies on this carve out a clear exception for independently determined, useful edits that can be defended on their own and don't specifically state that offwiki resources cannot be consulted. The fact that some arbitrators think it's inherently disruptive to consider what is written offsite and consider whether the encyclopedia should incorporate some version of those changes would theoretically prevent edits from being made based on Wikipediocracy, other 3rd party material about Wikipedia such as the Holocaust in Poland concentration camp papers (which arbcom themselves used to start a case), and other things. It's not canvassing or influence peddling to read offsite material and consider whether a true error has been pointed out, as the relevant behavioral guidelines say, and as was discussed. Arbcom would effectively be making new policy since the current policies don't cover this. It doesn't make sense to me that making corrections based on public postings in media is some form of votestacking or campaigning unless that can be shown, nor has it been shown to be MEAT or PROXY. Andre🚐 20:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111202000","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111202000-offwiki_error_corrections_and_oversight","replies":["c-AndreJustAndre-20250111232600-AndreJustAndre-20250111202000"],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

I agree with what Coretheapple has written on this. I don't see that the canvasssing guideline as I understood it was violated by reading a blog and determining to correct the errors that were pointed out or in at least one case support the existing article text contrary to the blog. That would be a significant broadening of what I understood to be canvassing, which is detailed and with bright lines and exceptions and principles outlined. The blog was a public, transparent treatment of Wikipedia topics without advocating any specific participating in consensus-based process or any specific edit, it was, as Coretheapple writes, a bunch of complaints, some of which I deemed actionable, some of which I did not. I don't see how Wikipedia is improved by banning the action on offsite complaining. And while if this is the policy I will certainly follow it, I don't see how I should have been expected to see my actions as willful violation of any previously-understood idea of canvassing. Andre🚐 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111232600","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111232600-AndreJustAndre-20250111202000","replies":["c-AndreJustAndre-20250111233700-AndreJustAndre-20250111232600"],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

At the risk of WP:BEANSing, which could be avoided by laying out reasonable limits on this, consider a thought experiment, which you may call Andre's Basilisk if you wish. A vandal, hoaxster, or subtle POV pusher could introduce deliberate errors or distortions to Wikipedia, and then write offsite blogs asking people to correct those errors. They could publicize the blog to mimic canvassing. The editors, seeing the blog, would then be enjoined against correcting those errors, because there is no exception for independently standing by edits. In short, they would, by virtue of having read the blog, be forced to let the bad edits stand. Andre🚐 23:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111233700","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111233700-AndreJustAndre-20250111232600","replies":["c-AndreJustAndre-20250111235900-AndreJustAndre-20250111233700"],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

Re: to CaptainEek, could you please cite the specific diffs that you say I was POV pushing? Andre🚐 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111235900","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111235900-AndreJustAndre-20250111233700","replies":["c-AndreJustAndre-20250112010500-AndreJustAndre-20250111235900"],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

I thank Beeblebrox for the message and acknowledge that despite our past disagreements, and while that may not exactly mean burying all hatchets, we can try to move on or at least be unemotional and rational and collaborate toward our common goals of improving Wikipedia and sane governance thereof. I also apologize to Beeblebrox for headaches I may have caused him in the past. I have apologized to him before but it can't hurt. Speaking of the past, while I normally wouldn't bring up stuff from years ago, CaptainEek wrote in 2022 of an RFC I had started to downgrade Fox News that, "I think this RfC is POV creep and am not fond of it." Then, as now, I don't think I am POV pushing, and you'll note that Fox News was finally downgraded a year later (2023). If someone can show me diffs where something I did was sanctionable to the level of the topic ban proposed, I will certainly commit to considering that and being introspective, as I always have been willing to do. Nobody previously has brought a specific claim of POV pushing. I have abided by the consensus and our community norms and policies and guidelines even when I might have opinions that differ from the ultimate consensus. I have sought to follow the community guidelines on dispute resolution and limit my participation to avoid overdoing it. To my knowledge, the complaint in Smallangryplanet's evidence is simply that the offsite blog talked about things and then I later edited similar things - not that I made the exact edits proposed or copied the arguments, or that I was pushing any POV. I believe my comments on talk pages and my edits are defensible on their own and not sanctionable, except for the proposed expansion of what is considered canvassing. I will of course consider if someone thinks my edits are POV pushing but they didn't need to wait until the proposed decision to tell me or sanction me if that were the case. Regardless of outcome, I'd like to know what specific diffs are POV pushing and what they actually consisted of and how it was violating, otherwise I don't see how I can commit to learning and improving my behavior if I were to appeal the topic ban if it ends up being imposed. Andre🚐 01:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112010500","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250112010500-AndreJustAndre-20250111235900","replies":[],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

The two prior cases against me are mentioned, even though they don't relate to conduct in this case. However, I'll just say that I've apologized for the case against me 7 years ago in several places, such as User:AndreJustAndre/2018, my talk. And as far as the January arbcom ban, which I also privately apologized regarding, I have endeavored to avoid the conduct and the actions that led to that, and I don't think anything's been presented to the contrary. I don't see that the case 7 years ago, in which I resigned my admin and bureaucrat permissions under a cloud, should reflect poorly on me in 2025 since I've learned from and haven't repeated those activities. And while I can't speak openly about the January arbcom ban, it was also a misunderstanding and one that I regret, and have endeavored to avoid repeating. I'm not sure what the value was of mentioning them, since they don't directly relate to this case, topic area, or conduct therein. Andre🚐 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111214400","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111214400-prior_cases_against_me","replies":[],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

Civility is not a minor infraction. It's disappointing to see pillars of the community handwave away civility. Andre🚐 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111214600","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111214600-civility","replies":["c-AndreJustAndre-20250112010800-AndreJustAndre-20250111214600"],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

I'm also very disappointed that AGF or the bad faith that many people show in this topic area is not a bigger issue, as this is one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia. Andre🚐 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112010800","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250112010800-AndreJustAndre-20250111214600","replies":[],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

I have been an editor since 2003, a former admin and bureaucrat, I took a lengthy break after the case in 2018 and returned in 2022, with 8500 edits in 2022, 6600 edits in 2023, and 6000+ edits in 2024, 442 in 2025 so far, and in 2024 alone after returning from the arbcom ban, I created 5 DYKs that appeared on the main page and a number of other articles. I always seek compromise and reconciliation and try to preserve civility. I served out a topic ban imposed by SFR and have endeavored to avoid any sign of testy or edgy comments. I'm not perfect and I've made mistakes and have attempted to own up to them. I also take exception that a comment was made about another editor being someone who always brings sources to the conversation or takes feedback well. I challenge anyone to find edits of mine that don't rely on extensive source research, or feedback I don't take. I've added hundreds of reliable sources to articles and even collaborated with those on opposing ideological lines on disputes, seeking compromise. It's disappointing that this isn't extended to me. Andre🚐 21:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111215600","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111215600-I_am_a_productive_contributor_and_a_net_positive_to_the_areas_I_work_in","replies":[],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

As Elli points out, CaptainEek's vote (these are Votes not !votes, right!) on BilledMammal appears to conflate issues in the evidence presented by FOARP. Evidence was not presented by FOARP for BilledMammal's non-neutral editing. Perhaps separate evidence exists. It's true that BilledMammal does have a POV as we all do, but this remedy appears to rely on evidence that wasn't presented, and as Berchanhimez points out, while similar findings of fact were found for other editors, CaptainEek opposed the similar remedies in their cases. This raises the question as to what evidence was used in BilledMammal's case. In fact, CaptainEek so far has supported an indefinite topic ban for two editors more on the pro-Israel side of the dispute, despite issues with the evidence, while opposing any remedy other than a warning or admonishment for the others, despite apparently no issues with the evidence against them. Andre🚐 22:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111221500","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111221500-BilledMammal","replies":["c-AndreJustAndre-20250111232800-AndreJustAndre-20250111221500"],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

Eek's amendment does somewhat address my comment here. I didn't evaluate those other batches of evidence closely enough to comment on their validity. Andre🚐 23:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111232800","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250111232800-AndreJustAndre-20250111221500","replies":[],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

CaptainEek makes mention of something that happened 15 years ago, but that isn't the most recent action on Nishidani. I do want to note that Nishidani was last topic-banned about 2 and a half months ago: User_talk:Nishidani#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction. Andre🚐 02:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112025600","author":"AndreJustAndre","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AndreJustAndre-20250112025600-Nishidani's_topic_ban","replies":[],"displayName":"Andre"}}-->

Congrats to AE for their hardwork, and thank you for tackling all this and the mountains of evidence. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111203200","author":"Bluethricecreamman","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bluethricecreamman-20250111203200-Bluethricecreamman's_section","replies":[]}}-->

Minor comment: I notice that there are disconnects between the FoFs and the proposed remedy/remedies for editors:

• BilledMammal: edit warring... and consistently non-neutral editing. Only proposal is an indefinite topic ban.
• Levivich: consistently non-neutral editing... inconsistent standards of behavioral expectations... and incivility. Proposals for an admonishment, 1 year topic ban, or indefinite topic ban.
• Nableezy: consistently non-neutral editing... incivility... and aspersions. Proposals for an admonishment, 1 year topic ban, or indefinite topic ban.
• Selfstudier: consistently non-neutral editing... and edit warring. Proposals for an admonishment, 1 year topic ban, or indefinite topic ban.
• Makeandtoss: non-neutral editing... and stonewalling discussions. Proposals for an admonishment, 1 year topic ban, or indefinite topic ban.
• Zero0000: incivility. Proposals for an warning, or an admonishment.
• Nishidani ongoing pattern of incivility. Proposals for a warning, (no admonishment), or an indefinite topic ban.

While some of these discrepancies in proposals may very well be explained by the differences in severity, frequency, history, or other factors, the reasons for the differences in the proposed remedies are not clear in the proposed decision. As an example, both BilledMammal and Selfstudier have the same wording in the FoF - just in reverse order, yet the proposals for handling those editors are entirely different. So I disagree with CaptainEek's statement Perhaps we played our hand here by not proposing any other remedies, but we just didn't see another path out. - there obviously was another path out for an editor with a virtually identical finding of fact.

I would encourage the drafting arbitrators and those voting on the remedies to consider why there is such a difference between especially the remedies proposed for BM versus those proposed for an editor with such a similar FoF. And at a minimum, either a second finding of fact that explains why BM's behavior was so much worse as to not even propose more limited sanctions, or correcting it by at least proposing the lesser sanction(s) for BM to be voted on. Otherwise, it will appear as if a sanction was decided in advance for BM, thus making it moot to even propose others - while Selfstudier was not a "given" to be topic banned. I'd also encourage the arbitrators to make a clear statement (whether in a principle or a FoF) as to their view on the "general severity" of conduct issues. Is edit warring more severe than incivility, generally speaking, if all else is similar (ex: number of times done)? Are they equal? Where do the other conduct issues identified (such as inconsistent [application] of behavioral expectations) fall in comparison to incivility, edit warring, etc?

I would personally like to see arbitrators acknowledge that incivility, even if minor but repeated or "one sided" (i.e. incivility only against some opinions/editors), is often times even more damaging than edit warring - because it demotivates neutral/differently minded editors from engaging in discussion in the topic area at all. I'm undecided whether this would do better as a principle or a finding of fact, or both. But the current proposals and especially the current votes by arbitrators (however few they may be) do not address this, and in some cases seem to ignore it entirely (commenting on an editor's other conduct being useful, while ignoring how their incivility reduces willingness of others to participate). Principle 18 is the closest to addressing this - by identifying that the goal isn't just to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, but disruption to the editing environment and to the community, but then it is not addressed any further just how damaging some of the parties' behavior (such as incivility, stonewalling, and inconsistent behavior standards) have been to this topic area.

I thank the arbitrators for their careful consideration of this case to try and improve the topic area for all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111211500","author":"Berchanhimez","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Berchanhimez-20250111211500-Berchanhimez's_section","replies":[],"displayName":"me"}}-->

I do not see this proposal as a content dictation at all. This is merely a reinforcement and formalizing of the article titles policy, especially the POV titles part. It further reinforces the immediate next section - non-judgemental descriptive titles by requiring that the name used be as non-judgemental and NPOV as possible until a consensus emerges otherwise. In fact, this remedy only makes enforcing the current policy, as written, an arbitration enforcement procedure. It is not dictating any new policy whatsoever.

The one thing I'd change about it is, rather than requiring a consensus of administrators to authorize a RM on a title, allow any editor to start a RM at any time (as is normal now), but require that articles remain at the least contentious title as determined by an uninvolved administrator (as the enforcement action above) until a clear consensus emerges for a different title. In cases where a contentious label is clearly supported by the article titles policy, it should be no trouble for editors to come to a consensus on that issue, and editors should be allowed to continue normal consensus making procedures (ex: in this case, a requested move) even while a more neutral/less contentious title is temporarily enforced as an arbitration enforcement action.

AE should further be empowered to restrict RM discussions if they are being used as disruption or repeatedly opened to "wear out" those opposed to a move. This, however, conflicts with the AE report restriction of one filer and one editor - encouraging "tag teaming" (whether intentional or not) where editor 1 opens the first RM, it results in no consensus to move, and then editor 2 opens another RM shortly thereafter with no new information. In such cases, an AE report should be allowed against the talkpage of the article with the remedies - where a consensus of AE admins could restrict a new requested move from being opened for a period of time by any editor, if disruption is evident and there is unlikely to be any productive discussion in a new RM.

But ultimately, while ArbCom does not dictate content, something needs to be done about editors steamrolling in contentious labels for things - not just in article text, but especially in titles - and creating POV forks when they fail to steamroll their desired contentious label into an article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111220000","author":"Berchanhimez","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Berchanhimez-20250111220000-Article_titles_restriction","replies":[],"displayName":"me"}}-->

I agree with Andre's statement above. The finding of fact, relating to an offsite blog, is very troubling. Nothing coming close to WP:CANVASS was proven or even stated in the evidence at 19.3, other than a bald accusation which is not backed up by a shred of evidence.

Let's back up for a moment and look at the "evidence" that is being relied upon here. While the subject header states "AndreJustAndre Canvassing," there was no canvassing shown in the evidence.

The evidence says "Andre has been canvassing for an off-wiki pro-Israeli blog for months. This blog has published guides explicitly requesting people to canvass for them, singled out numerous editors, including some of the current parties, and highlighted articles demanding specific changes be made." The words "explicitly requesting people to canvass for them" hyperlink to a July 17 post on the blog "Wikipedia Flood" at https://thewikipediaflood.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-only-way-to-fight-wikipedia-flood.html

If you go to that link, you can see that it contains a general guide to editing Wikipedia and contains no specific requests for editing. I see no "requests for people to edit for them." Andre's points are correct re the general implications of the finding, but I think that as a threshold issue you have to look at what evidence there is of canvassing, and there is absolutely none. Nor is there evidence of any other policy or guideline violation in that evidence section, which this entire finding of fact and severe punishment hang on. Coretheapple (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111212500","author":"Coretheapple","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coretheapple-20250111212500-Coretheapple's_section","replies":[]}}-->

I also wanted to draw the Committee's attention to the substantive discussion of that evidence in the Workshop phase in which I think it is fair to say that no policy violations were specifically cited by any of the participants. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111215700","author":"Coretheapple","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coretheapple-20250111215700-Coretheapple's_section","replies":[]}}-->

Nor have any specific requests by the blog to perform X edits been pointed out in the evidence or in the workshop phase, nor are evident in a skim of the blog, which is a general "bitching session" about Wikipedia, a theme that can be found in a large number of articles and websites. Yes, Wikipedia is "grown up" and yes it is widely criticized. This FoF and penalty in effect states that if an external website or news article or anything points out something problematic on Wikipedia, that is "canvassing" and that questionable content must remain for all eternity. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111230300","author":"Coretheapple","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coretheapple-20250111230300-Coretheapple's_section","replies":["c-Coretheapple-20250111214200-Coretheapple-20250111230300"]}}-->

• I agree with Berchanhimez re the somewhat arbitrary character of the punishments being dished out and not dished out, and also am discouraged that so little attention was paid to incivility. The Article Titles Restriction is a good idea, and as of now it has no support. It's very well thought-out, makes good sense, and reasons being given in opposition I feel are totally inadequate. The Committee can and should take steps to ensure NPOV and the failure to do so would be disappointing. I urge the arbitrators to think again about that remedy and to think creatively. Right now we are on track for PIA6.Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111214200","author":"Coretheapple","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Coretheapple-20250111214200-Coretheapple-20250111230300","replies":[]}}-->

I second Berchanhimez's comment. I came here to say the same thing, but they beat me to it and said it better than I could. If "Enough is enough" passes, then I'd expect topic bans to be front and center for all named parties besides Snowstormfigorion, as well as several other people active in the area. As it is, this proposed decision is toothless and all but guarantees that many of the same names are going to be back here for PIA6. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111212900","author":"Thebiguglyalien","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thebiguglyalien-20250111212900-Thebiguglyalien's_section","replies":[]}}-->

Thoughts on specific remedies:

• I find 17) "Balanced editing restriction" interesting, but I foresee admins being just as hesitant to use it as they are with topic bans. The disincentives to use it—expense of political capital, backlash from the user's friends, and long-term enemy-making—remain the same. And if I'm reading it correctly, this restriction would also create a variant of EC gaming where editors pad their non-PIA edits to decrease their percentage.
• I strongly support 18) "Article titles restriction", not only for PIA but across topics. But I agree that it's beyond the committee's remit to impose a policy-changing rule like this. A few editors uninvolved in this topic (or any other topic affected by this issue) should be recruited to put together some ideas for an RfC on this issue.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112005800","author":"Thebiguglyalien","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Thebiguglyalien-20250112005800-Thebiguglyalien's_section","replies":[]}}-->

The "ECP by default" remedy appears to directly annull the consensus found a month ago at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 215 § Q3: If this proposal does not pass, should ECP be applied preemptively to articles under WP:ARBECR topics?. I don't have anything to say about the underlying merits of the remedy, and am not accussing the committee of overstepping their bounds, but I think that at least one arbitrator who supports the remedy ought to explain why it is justifiable to disregard existing consensus. Mach61 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111213800","author":"Mach61","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mach61-20250111213800-Mach61's_section","replies":[]}}-->

I can appreciate as much as anyone just how hard it is going through evidence as lengthy as this case was and so I write these comments really trying to avoid "backseat arbitrating", especially as I have not read all the evidence. I want to give plaudits to the drafters for delivering the decision on time. I also give plaudits for attempting something new. I think the SPA remedy hones in on an important element going on in this topic area and applaud the out of the box thinking. If it passes I would encourage it to be amended in some way to evaluate its effectiveness after a reasonable amount of time. And if Arbs agree with Eek (the only vote on it as I write this comment) that it's got too much overhead I hope they'll consider other ways of addressing the issue. Speaking of I'm not sure I really see any remedy which addresses patterns of behavior expressed in FoF 2 (1RR not always effective), 3 (First mover advantage), or 5 (Involved closes). If the issue is really with specific editors, especially if it's just the named parties, perhaps they don't need to be separate Fof and should instead just be reflected for the named parties. And if the issue is beyond those editors - which is my understanding - I hope some remedy or remedies will be offered beyond a "community encouraged" which we know historically have resulted in nothing and which we don't even have at this moment.

In terms of the AE limits, it's a reasonable response to the evidence I presented. The one tweak I would suggest is giving AE admins explicit permission to "split" an AE report into multiple reports while staying uninvolved. This then gives AE admins three options when a report sprawls to multiple editors: shut it down (the default response and likely the response mostly appropriate), permit it, or consider the behavior in its own report, in parallel to others.

Finally, I would encourage ArbCom to consider if it makes sense for certain named parties that it acts as AE. I am in particular thinking about Nableezy who has been unfairly targeted with reports multiple times but who has also been warned multiple times. The multiple "nothing here" reports are unfair to Nableezy and upsetting to a group of editors, while the multiple warnings upset a different group of editors. If Nableezy ends up with another warning here arguably the only difference being that the warning is coming from ArbCom this time and so figuring out what to do next might be best coming from ArbCom as well, especially as it being before ArbCom will (I expect) offer a gentle deterrence from some of the reports that might have unfairly targeted Nableezy. This approach might also make sense for some other parties.

I hope this is helpful and I express my gratitude for all the time that the arbs going to spend evaluating the evidence and discussing this lengthy and thoughtful proposed decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111213900","author":"Barkeep49","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Barkeep49-20250111213900-Barkeep49's_section","replies":["c-Barkeep49-20250111215500-Barkeep49-20250111213900"]}}-->

I think Mach has it wrong above - ArbCom is WP:CONEXEMPT and one reason because the community can't be expected go to through 175k+ of evidence to make a decision. And ArbCom may decide that a particular remedy is appropriate in this topic area without being appropriate in all ECR topic areas. But I do think ArbCom will need to reword Remedy 15 "Changes to extended confirmed". ArbCom may not write policy and as such may not change what extended confirmed is from how the community has defined it. ArbCom may, instead, choose to fork it so that it is no longer ECR but imposes a 500/90 restriction in the same way that extended confirmed started as a 500/30 restriction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111215500","author":"Barkeep49","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Barkeep49-20250111215500-Barkeep49-20250111213900","replies":[]}}-->

@Elli, since you seem to be taking the lead on this proposal: I think the idea of the balanced editing restriction is great, one of the first fresh ideas we've seen in a while in a topic area where clearly standard sanctions haven't been enough. However, I think it suffers greatly from not explaining how the implementation would actually work. These are the sort of boring, unsexy details that often get left out of proposed remedies because they weigh them down, but whose lack confuses things for admins down the line, and, as here, make some arbs rightly hesitant to support.

It sounds like what would be needed here is, extrapolating from what you've said:

• {{pp-extended}} is given some parameter like |ctop=, which could take a value like a-i. Someone will add that en masse at time of enactment.
• Some bot ensures that that parameter is present on any subsequent ECPs that are logged as ARBPIA, and ensures that {{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=a-i}} is present on all such pages' talkpages. (I think most have it? But I don't think all. And I don't think the filter can read the protection level of the associated content page.)
• A filter logs edits that are made to any ECP'd mainspace or talkspace page with the former template, or any talkspace page with the latter template.

If this is the idea, it should be explicit in the remedy. A remedy that invokes a technical implementation that's not specified anywhere would be no remedy at all. Some elastic language could still be put in saying that the clerks have discretion to modify technical implementation as needed. And I would hope this would address both @ToBeFree's concern, and make clear, pace @CaptainEek's concern, that the administrative overhead is no higher than any other restriction. In fact, by my reading it would be lesser, as it would be possible to have a bot auto-report any edits that violate the 33%-in-30-days restriction.

I'd also suggest adding Draft and Draft talk both to tracked namespaces and TBAN-exempt namespaces, but if that overcomplicates things, well, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and it would definitely not be good for this case to close without any new options added for admins. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111214300","author":"Tamzin","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tamzin-20250111214300-Balanced_editing_restriction_implementation","replies":[]}}-->

• Remedy 11b should not be part of this case, it should be a separate motion. Changing basic committee procedures seems well outside the scope of this case. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111220300","author":"Beeblebrox","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Beeblebrox-20250111220300-Beeblebrox's_section","replies":[]}}-->

• Remedy 17 requires too much monitoring to be useful. This is a large complicated problem, but the purpose of the committee is to find simple, "back-breaking" solutions, not artful complicated ones. Trying to force users to edit different topics without an actual topic ban has traditionally not been effective. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111220700","author":"Beeblebrox","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Beeblebrox-20250111220700-Beeblebrox's_section","replies":[]}}-->

• Remedy 15 is a policy change. The committee is not authorized to change site policies.

While I am aware that a prior committee invented what eventually became the extended confirmed user right, I can't see how it can still feel it is under their direct control and they can just change the requirements. I would expect that the community would gladly support this proposal, were it brought to them. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111222300","author":"Beeblebrox","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Beeblebrox-20250111222300-Beeblebrox's_section","replies":[]}}-->

• For the record, Andre and I have had some serious past disagreements, including me filing the case that led to their resignation of advanced permissions. So I am certainly not someone inclined to just jump to his defense.

So perhaps it is surprising, or maybe not, that I think Andre makes a strong point when saying It's not canvassing or influence peddling to read offsite material and consider whether a true error has been pointed out. I briefly looked at the website in question, and I found it to be incredibly biased and didn't read much of it, but that does not mean there is no possibility that they identified real problems.

I was on the committee during Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland, and we certainly considered the validity of off-site criticism when deciding that case, even if we did reject a good portion of it.

I've personally made at least several hundred edits that improved content here in direct response to valid criticism of WP content on other websites. Many others, including those that are just "lurkers" on these websites do the same. The net effect on WP content is overwhelmingly positive and should not be discouraged.

All that being said, I've not seen the specific post that supposedly canvassed these edits, the kind of posts I've replied to are generally "look at how bad this is" not "please make these specific edits on my behalf" and there is at least a bit of a difference between the two. Perhaps the committee could be more clear about which was the case here. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112001300","author":"Beeblebrox","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Beeblebrox-20250112001300-Beeblebrox's_section","replies":[]}}-->

I object to the finding that I have engaged in "consistently non-neutral editing", and the evidence for that is incredibly thin. You are going to base a claim that I have engaged in "consistently non-neutral editing" on a handful of requested move votes, and even ignoring the why of those votes? What about the editing that shows the exact opposite where I for example offer a title away from massacre? What about the edits where I add material opposed to that supposed POV? Or change Israel claims to Israeli accusations? I have an editing track record going back over 15 years of doing my best to edit neutrally. Back in 2010 when I appealed a sanction SlimVirgin said that I am somebody "who tries hard to be neutral, which includes making edits that I'm pretty sure he doesn't personally agree with" and then gave such an example. The claim that I have edited with a consistent bias is one that is not substantiated by FOARP's handful of cherry picked !votes that, crucially, does not consider the context of those votes. You want to ban me for incivility or whatever else by all means, Im not going to pretend that I have been a paragon of civility, and if you all feel that merits my removal from this topic or this project then thats fine, but the claim about "consistently non-neutral editing" is completely unjustified. nableezy - 22:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111224300","author":"Nableezy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Nableezy-20250111224300-Nableezy's_section","replies":[]}}-->

I support ECP by default, 500/90 EC, balanced editing restriction, and general lack of bans (please also don't ban Billed and Andre).

My 3 cents:

1. FoF 3 "First mover advantage" has not been addressed. Could be addressed with "72-hour moratorium on breaking news page creations" (Guerillero workshop).

2. FoF 5 "Involved closes" has not been addressed. Could be addressed with "Panel closure" (Vice_regent workshop).

3. FoF 7 "Sockpuppetry" has not been addressed. Could be addressed with "SPI clerks encouraged to dig deeper into allegations where initial evidence is insufficient but has some basis" (Aquillion workshop).

I also want to highlight insight from isaacl workshop talk page. It contains FoF "How much progress is made depends highly on the cooperation of the participants, but it is practically impossible to have a sustained participation over an extended period of time." Could be addressed by "Some form of delegation may be needed to resolve complex disputes, the involved parties could agree upon a person/group to which the decisions at the determination step are delegated." Kenneth Kho (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111225000","author":"Kenneth Kho","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kenneth_Kho-20250111225000-Kenneth_Kho's_section","replies":[]}}-->

Miscellaneous comments from someone who occasionally closes RMs in this area:

• Elli is correct that BilledMammal was opposed to "massacre" across the board, including when it wasn't consistent with a pro-Israel POV (see this RM cited in FOARP's evidence).
• The evidence for non-neutral RM participation by Selfstudier, who was generally uncomfortable with "massacre", is also less compelling than it looks: this !vote, described by FOARP as "support 'massacre'", actually didn't support including it in the title (just as an alternative name in the lead), while Selfstudier didn't cast a bolded !vote in this or this RM. The only RM where Selfstudier actually !voted for a massacre title (in FOARP's evidence, anyway) was [1].
• While these RMs have drawn a lot of suboptimal participation, closers have consistently been very careful about looking beyond the !votes and closing in accordance with policy: see [2] (endorsed at MRV), [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. It's therefore not necessary to deploy drastic steps like remedy 18.
• I'm really uncomfortable with the balanced editing restriction—partly because it's easily gamed, partly because it has strange consequences (if I make 30/100 edits in the area on weeks 1 and 2, 35/100 edits in the area on weeks 3 and 4, and then go on vacation for a month, then I've seemingly followed the restriction but suddenly come into violation halfway through my vacation), and partly because it can be imposed without actual evidence of disruption. It is unlikely to help and would be a wikilawyer's dream.

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112000200","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112000200-Extraordinary_Writ's_section","replies":["c-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112004300-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112000200","c-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112013600-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112000200"]}}-->

I will add that if you're going to sanction Nableezy for non-neutral RM !votes, you do need to address the explanation he gave: that he only changed his standards in response to RM results. That concern with neutral/consistent outcomes does at least line up with what he said at the time ([8][9][10]). More generally, I think the non-neutrality line of argument is not the most fruitful one: it's very difficult to prove that people's arguments are insincere. If you're going to do it, it requires a pretty granular examination of the actual reasoning—not just an inference that someone must be !voting the party line too often. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112004300","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112004300-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112000200","replies":[]}}-->

I'm also surprised that (as Barkeep49 notes) there's no remedy related to the 1RR: if 1RR restrictions are often an ineffective mechanism for preventing edit wars (FoF 2), surely it's time for a change? There are plenty of options (BRD, consensus-required, applying restrictions per-content rather than per-editor), and while none is ideal, I think there's a strong argument for trying something new, even just for a trial period. We have plenty of narrow remedies for specific parties and plenty of creative swinging-for-the-fences remedies, but maybe what we need is options that fall somewhere in between. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112013600","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112013600-Extraordinary_Writ-20250112000200","replies":[]}}-->

• To editor CaptainEek: "amending benign comments into personal attacks" — is that in reference to my evidence or something else? What comments? Zero^talk 00:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112002700","author":"Zero0000","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Zero0000-20250112002700-Zero0000's_section","replies":[],"displayName":"Zero"}}-->

• ScottishFinnishRadish's evidence is cited as showing incivility in the area. However, the only example is actually a mild criticism of an administrative action. In particular, it is not "in the PIA topic area" per its usual meaning. All wp editors have the right to criticise administrative actions. Zero^talk 00:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112004900","author":"Zero0000","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Zero0000-20250112004900-Zero0000's_section","replies":[],"displayName":"Zero"}}-->

• The meaning of remedies 11a-b is unclear. All three of the AE reports leading to this case had only two parties. HaOfa Nableezy1 Nableezy2. They only became multi-party affairs when they were referred to ARCA. Does the committee intend that other editors cannot be mentioned in AE cases? That evidence against other editors can't be mentioned at AE (by the handling admins, or by anyone?)? That other editors can't be added to ARCA referrals? I wouldn't know how to interpret this as an admin at AE with the current wording. Zero^talk 03:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112035500","author":"Zero0000","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Zero0000-20250112035500-Zero0000's_section","replies":[],"displayName":"Zero"}}-->

First, I want to thank the drafters for having had to deal with an overwhelmingly complex case. I'm still absorbing everything posted here myself, but I have some initial reactions.

Like others who have commented above, I feel like I'm seeing a strange disconnect in the PD votes so far: incivility, no big deal, but everything else, very big deal. If ever there has been an ArbCom case where Enough is Enough, this is it. The community made it very clear to you that nobody wants PIA 6–1000. If you were considering site-bans for experienced editors who have content skills, I'd be opposing those site bans. But you should be going more in the direction of topic bans, which can be appealed after some time. Excusing significant and ongoing incivility on the basis of... what? erudition?... is not going to solve the problem. On the whole, we are past the point where warnings and the like are appropriate any more.

Also like other editors, I'm uncomfortable with how some of the Arbs seem to think André had allowed himself to be canvassed. Before you make a final decision about that, please re-read the Analyses of Evidence on the Workshop page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250112012600","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20250112012600-Tryptofish's_section","replies":[]}}-->