Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Topic banned Motion (orig. case) 3 May 2025
Clarification request: Investigation request regarding Arbitration Committee evidentiary procedure none none 30 April 2025
Motion name Date posted
Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 26 April 2025
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1–2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Amendment request: Topic banned

[edit]
Motion enacted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Noleander at 14:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Noleander arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Noleander_topic-banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Noleander

[edit]
  • Over the years, I've encountered several articles that needed some improvement, and I was ready & willing, but was not able to proceed due to the topic ban. It would be nice to be able to improve the encyclopedia in those situations.
  • @CaptainEek That was a long time ago ... but I think the biggest change following the topic ban was that I began to get consensus in the Talk page of articles before making any edits. I do that as a matter of habit for all articles on contentious subjects, or articles that are monitored by passionate editors. A recent example is the mathematics article pi where I wanted to make some innocuous improvements, but I knew the article was heavily watched, so I announced my intentions in the talk page and asked for input before I began making the edits. On the other hand, if I'm contemplating a benign edit on an obscure article, I'll generally make the edit directly without first posting on the Talk page. To answer another question you all may have: No, there are no specific edits I'm intending to make within the topic ban subject area. The reason I am now asking for the topic ban to be terminated is because I recently rewrote the Margaret Sanger article and got it promoted to FA status. Shortly thereafter, I discovered that her first husband was Jewish. I panicked for a moment, but figured that it did not run afoul of the topic ban since he is barely mentioned in the article. But it would nice to not have to worry about that in the future. [PS: If my reply is supposed to be up in the "Statements" area, feel free to move it up there] Noleander (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoidh I agree with the decision that the Arbitration Committee made back then. I respect the encyclopedia and the processes that have been established over the years. From day one, I've respected WP policies (NPOV, UNDUE, VERIFIABILITY, etc). I've always - even back early 2000s - enjoyed working collaboratively on Talk pages to reach consensus, because every editor brings their own unique perspective to WP, and that is a good thing. I'm not a belligerent, edit-warring kind of editor. Regarding the Topic Ban, if I recall correctly, back then I'd visit some topics and notice: "This article was written by apologists and omits some important information" or "Hey, this article is overly positive" or "Why doesn't this article have a 'Criticism of' section?" My goal, when encountering such articles, was to achieve balance by, for example, adding material that shed light on negative aspects of the topic. My intention was never to flip the balance to be overly negative. Unfortunately, in spite of my respect for the NPOV and UNDUE polices, there were times that I went too far, and put in too much negative information. If I was on the ArbCom, I would have made the same decision that they did. Today, if I encountered – what I perceived to be – an unbalanced article, I would go to the Talk page first, and start a conversation on achieving balance. If a consensus could not be achieved, I'd suggest an RfC, and then go from there. Noleander (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eluchil404 wrote "... they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity." I'm not sure if they are trying to suggest that I've been sulking since the topic ban, and just recently resurfaced with nefarious purposes? The facts are: after the topic ban was imposed, I've made over 30,000 edits, promoted five (5) articles to FA; promoted seven (7) articles to GA; received about 20 barnstars; created about 40 new articles; and helped scores of editors by reviewing their articles. All of that work was after the topic ban was imposed. The vast majority of those achievements were in the 2010's, following the topic ban. I'm not sure how the ups and downs of my IRL obligations impact this request for lifting the topic ban. Noleander (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoidh I apologize if I was not clearer in my prior comments. So, let me be clear now: I am committing to not repeating the behavior that precipitated the topic ban. That means complying with all WP policies, including NPOV and UNDUE, in any edits or articles related to Judaism or Jewish peoples. Specifically: my edits will not involve material excessively or inappropriately negative related to Judaism or Jewish peoples. I hope that addresses your concerns; but if I misunderstood your concerns, let me know. Noleander (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... a meta-comment: You guys do this topic ban stuff every day. But me: I don't have a clue what is expected here, or what information I'm supposed to provide. So, although it may look like I'm reluctantly dribbling out information, in fact, I'm being terse so I don't waste your time. I'm just feeling my way along in here, step by step.

Statement by Thryduulf

[edit]

The topic ban being appealed is Noleander is topic-banned from making any edit relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed, in any namespace. which overlaps with the BLP, Arab-Israeli conflict and race and intelligence CTOP designations, and potentially overlaps with the Eastern Europe and American politics designations but is not fully covered by any of them. That said a scan of his user talk archives suggests that apart from one accidental breach of the topic ban 2012 he has fully complied with it, and I see no reason not to grant the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eluchil404

[edit]

I briefly reviewed Noleander's activity and noted that they have recently become active again after a long period of inactivity. Thus there is considerably less than 14 years of consistent editing activity since the topic ban. I suggest that having an explicit probationary period is reasonable in this case. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

[edit]

14 years is long enough to be given another chance. Also, while, as noted, they don't have 14 years of active editing to be "proven out" they have the equivalent of 3-4 years which is a substantial amount. North8000 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Topic banned: Clerk notes

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

Topic banned: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • Fourteen years and the topic they were disruptive in allows CTOP enforcement? I'm willing to overlook the subpar appeal based on the time passed without, in my brief check, any other issues. If there's any concerns we could explicitly allow for any uninvolved admin to restore the topic ban for a one year probationary period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to hear a little more from Noleander about what they've learned from their topic ban and how they've improved their editing since. It may be a rather old sanction, but Noleanders brief statement still doesn't give me much to work with. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am reasonably satisfied with their response to Eek. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't find any issues on a cursory scroll either, which is impressive for 14 years on a fairly wide topic ban; I'd be in favor of lifting the topic ban, neutral on the probationary period given how much of it overlaps with CTOPs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look through Noleander's recent contributions to see if there were any concerns. Noleander seems to have been recently editing articles related to the American civil rights movements of the 1950s, which contains a lot of delicate subjects of race. They have also edited in some mathematics articles, as they pointed out above with the Pi article. I did not see any major concerns in their article edits or talk page conversations, and am, at this time, leaning towards lifting the ban for a probationary period so that it can be reapplied more quickly should the need arise. I would like to give arbs and the community more time to comment before making my formal declaration. Z1720 (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the issues is the Noleander's editing Finding of Fact, which noted that Noleander's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on any Jewish subjects of the article. @Noleander: Would you mind commenting on this aspect of the TBAN? - Aoidh (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 1: Noleander's topic ban rescinded

[edit]

Remedy 1.1 (Noleander topic-banned) of Noleander is rescinded.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted – HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. I land here at the moment per my comment above. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fourteen years is a long time, and I'm willing to extend some rope. With the confluence of CTOPs I think that any issues can be quickly addressed. I will also support a motion explicitly calling for a probation period. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Okay. No probation period needed from my side, but I would also support if the motion contained one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe that people can change their conduct and believe in second chances. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  5. So long as Noleander is properly aware of the CT scope, I'm willing to go along with the 14 years, AGF rationale. Cabayi (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Willing to give another chance. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Fine with this, mostly in the spirit of WP:ROPE: if a concern happens later, we will be able to deal with it then. Z1720 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Willing to support given how long ago this sanction was placed down, and in the spirit of providing a second chance. I would normally consider a probationary period where it could be reapplied by any administrator, as mentioned by others, but given the direct overlap with existing contentious topic restrictions it feels somewhat unncessary in this situation — any administrator can just use those levers if they need to. I'm sure Noleander is acutely aware of our attitude towards disruption in this topic area, as we explicitly outlined with our principle "enough is enough" earlier this year, so I trust that the disruptive behaviours of a decade and a half ago are exactly that — a thing of the past. Daniel (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. That they have made constructive edits outside of this topic area is consistent with their activity prior to the TBAN; they were able to edit constructively outside of this topic area, but not within it. I don't see any compelling evidence that the issues that led to the TBAN are no longer a concern other than "it's been a while". Their response does not assure me that they see this topic any differently, only a (non-binding) assurance that they'll use the talk page this time around. However, the issue isn't which namespace was used. - Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you're not implying Noleander should have better demonstrated their topic-related editing ability by editing constructively inside the area. ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just that their edits outside of this area were not an issue even at the time, so the fact that their edits outside of this area are not an issue now isn't by itself a compelling rationale. - Aoidh (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

There seems to be appetite to grant the appeal and thus rescind the topic ban, so proposing. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Though for what its worth, I'm leaning against it at the moment. I'm not convinced that lifting it is necessary or wise, though I admit a 14 year old sanction is extremely old to still be carrying.) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Investigation request regarding Arbitration Committee evidentiary procedure

[edit]

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:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Allthemilescombined1

[edit]

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]
  • information 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]

Statement by CaptainEek

[edit]

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]

Statement by Huldra

[edit]

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]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

[edit]

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]

Statement by Aoidh

[edit]

I'll recuse. The basis of this request is that As 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]

Statement by Chess

[edit]

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.

Statement by FortunateSons

[edit]

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]

Statement by {other-editor}

[edit]

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.

Investigation request regarding Arbitration Committee evidentiary procedure: Clerk notes

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

Investigation request regarding Arbitration Committee evidentiary procedure: Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • @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 not For 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=1288501283"