Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Add comments, ask question.
→Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area: Removing request for arbitration: declined by the Committee
Tag: Replaced
Line 6: Line 6:
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=auto</noinclude>}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

== Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) '''at''' 04:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Proposed parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator. The users listed should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add a party. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]. -->
*{{userlinks|BilledMammal}}, ''filing party''
*{{userlinks|Ïvana}}
*{{userlinks|Salmoonlight}}
*{{userlinks|Huldra}}
*{{userlinks|Brusquedandelion}}
*{{userlinks|CarmenEsparzaAmoux}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
* {{diff2|1255686683|Ïvana}}
* {{diff2|1255686686|Salmoonlight}}
* {{diff2|1255686691|Huldra}}
* {{diff2|1255686693|Brusquedandelion}}
* {{diff2|1255686697|CarmenEsparzaAmoux}}

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
*[[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PirateWires Wikipedia Investigation (Administrator Notice)]]
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#CoolAndUniqueUsername]]

=== Statement by BilledMammal ===
There is ongoing coordination of off-wiki editors for the purpose of promoting a pro-Palestinian POV, utilizing a discord group, as well as an [[WP:EEML|EEML]]-style mailing list ''(Private Evidence A)''.

A significant participant in the discord group, as well as the founder of the mailing list ''(Private Evidence B)'', is a community banned editor ''(Private Evidence C)'', who since being banned has engaged in the harassment and outing of Wikipedia editors ''(Private Evidence D)''. This individual has substantial reach ''(Private Evidence E)'', and their list appears to have been joined by a substantial number of editors, although I am only confident of the identify of three.

The Discord group was previously public, but has now become private to better hide their activities ''(Private Evidence F)''. It is not compliant with policy, organizing non-ECP editors to make edits within the topic area. It is also used by the banned editor to make edit requests, which are acted upon ''(Private Evidence G)''.

''<specific claims based on private evidence removed> [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC) ''

=== Additional comments ===
{{ping|CaptainEek}} Already done. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: I emailed arbcom-en an hour ago. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|Reply to blocked sock}}{{ping|CarmenEsparzaAmoux}} I wasn’t aware of that discussion at the Navalny talk page, but it doesn’t change the overall concerns, except to add canvassing. That discussion was the first and last time you ever edited that page - and I find it interesting that Brusquedandelion also joined that discussion. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}

To address concerns about the nature of the posting:
:I posted a case request:
:# To centralise the existing discussions
:# To get a resolution to this evidence, one way or the other
:# To encourage evidence from others who have knowledge of this

:I considered posting as [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_SWATJester|SWATJester described]], but:
:# I would find it more frustrating being told only that I am accused of "something"
:# While too vague for the community to be aware of the details, it is specific enough for Ïvana, Salmoonlight, and Brusquedandelion to be able to prepare counter-arguments and evidence.
:# The evidence structure makes it, I believe, easier for ArbCom to review.
:# I misinterpreted the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility_of_evidence|Admissibility of evidence]] section as meaning only that I couldn't post the evidence - not that I couldn't refer to it.
[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Huldra}} I can see why you may be unable to recognize the specifics of this. I don't think they need it, but if they do ArbCom has my permission to share anything they see fit with you. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|Super Goku V}} The evidence predates PirateWires. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

{{ping|CaptainEek}} I wasn't involved in that back and forth with Ivana at ARCA; I haven't contributed to that discussion since September. My reasons for posting this now was because it was seeing discussion at various noticeboards, including AE and ANI, and for a reason I'll provide in private evidence. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 10:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ïvana ===
Echoing what other editors have already said, it is puzzling that a case where almost all of the evidence is private, so public comments won't be able to add much to it, is presented in this way. I was planning to mail ARBCOM requesting a copy of it. I don't really understand how this works because I never had to, so I was under the assumption that I should be able to see the evidence presented against me, because I don't know how I am expected to defend myself if I am not able to see/understand what I'm being accused of (for example what the hell is a EEML-style mailing list? Who is this "community-banned" editor?) but based on Kevin's comments it seems I'm not allowed to do that. So what's the point of this? Since the evidence is private my defense should be private as well, leaving me limited to say almost nothing in this public space and, to the privy eyes, of which there are many, look guilty by omission. This whole thing seems purposely vague. I'm sure that the off-wiki agitators who have been harassing me for months and who constantly rely on data compiled by BM will not fill in the blanks with atrocities to generate outrage to try to pressure ARBCOM to act the way they want.

Also, Chess, stop purposely misinterpreting what I've said and putting words in my mouth. Recent example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhilKnight#c-Chess-20241105003500-Are_you_trying_to_oversight_my_comment? here] - I told Scharb (a clear sock gaming the system to become a SPA btw), not you, that if they have proof of me canvassing they should make a proper report. Everyone can see my [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Ïvana|comments]] in ARCA, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. I have never linked or talked about any specific off-wiki account and I don't plan to, so your logic of "well Ivana talked about A but that really means B so I can do C" is ridiculous and a really bad justification to violate [[WP:OUTING]]. If I say I have an Instagram account, does that give you a green light to post and publicly discuss links of profiles you assume to belong to me? I don't think so. You also seem to know what some of this private evidence is, specifically a supposed Telegram chat that hasn't been shared in WP, or anywhere else. That chat has also only come up in this case so its brand new information. I have never said I was part of any chat. I don't even know what BM is referring to, none of the people accused here has had access to the private evidence. So where did you see it? Has BM shared it with you? Because that is definitely outing (even if the evidence is doctored, because you're operating under the assumption that it is true) and a gross violation. I expect this to be taken seriously. And I don't appreciate you constantly trying to get me outed or alluding to it. Cut it out. - [[User:Ïvana|Ïvana]] ([[User talk:Ïvana|talk]]) 19:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Salmoonlight ===
I don't interact with other Wikipedia editors and I have never heard of this canvassing list. I act alone. I also only talk regularly in one public Discord server. [[User:Salmoonlight|Salmoonlight]] ([[User talk:Salmoonlight|talk]]) 05:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:And why am I still getting pulled into this even when I am topic-banned? [[User:Salmoonlight|Salmoonlight]] ([[User talk:Salmoonlight|talk]]) 05:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::"Provided additional evidence" ??? [[User:Salmoonlight|Salmoonlight]] ([[User talk:Salmoonlight|talk]]) 05:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Huldra2 ===
::I have never been on Discord (didn't even know what it was, before it popped up here), and I have been editing wp since 2005, before Discord even existed(? I think) Also, I have created nearly 300 articles, for various reasons;
::*Sometime because I saw a village that didn't have an article on en.wp, but did have an article in other wikipedias.
::*sometimes because I saw something reported in the news, or on social media ( like blogs[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATurki_al-Hamad&diff=24729518&oldid=24626373]: [[Turki al-Hamad]]), which didn't have an article,
::*sometimes because I have used them as a source ([[Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth]]),
::*and once I even started an article about someone, because I had visited a museum for her ([[Emily Ruete]]..nice little museum for her in [[Zanzibar]])
::*As for the [[Chen Kugel]]-article, best as I recall, I looked at which other places on en.wp he was mentioned, and used those sources. I have no idea as to which " banned editor" is referred to, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*PS: I have never been part of a "EEML-style mailing list". I have, however, communicated via email, with wp editors (both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian); mostly getting/exchanging RS sources. I have also communicated with others about death threats and rape threats and "outing attempts" (when I felt totally let down by the WMF T&S), [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*Is there any chance I could see the "(Private Evidence M)" against me? [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
* I am still wondering what "community-banned editor" I "proxied for"....? Could someone please tell me, as I am in the dark? [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:*Thank you, [[User:Alaexis]] for that YouTube-link: I have now wasted nearly 2 hours of my life watching it; before anyone else do the same: it is nearly all in Arabic. And boy, have you watched it closely: I needed 3 watchings before I found that "hunt them for the rest of their lives", and my understanding is that it was a ''suggested'' project, not an actual project. What they said about Wikipedia (at least in English) I actually agree with: to fight misinformation with ''facts'', [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 22:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC),
:*Well, BilledMammal has now permitted Arb.com to share with me the "secret evidence"; I have emailed arb.com asking for it, but has not yet heard back. So this process is still [[Kafkaesque]] to me: I have seriously NO idea as to which "banned editor" I apparently have been proxing for. I started the [[Chen Kugel]]-article, as there were a lot of mentioning of him on social media (twitter), as people were upset that he said he had seen beheaded babies on oct 7, when there were 0 beheaded babies. Nothing unusual in that (for me): I have started articles on wp because I have seen them mentioned on social media since 2005 ([[Turki al-Hamad]]), [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 20:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:*PS: Were the "twitterati" who mentioned him banned on wikipedia? I have absolutely ''no'' idea; they for sure didn't identify themselves as such: that I would have remembered.
:*I'm understanding less and less. So I am named as a party in an arb.com-case named "Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area", but I am not to know what I am supposed to have done. I have still not had an email from arb.com. Just now I am tempted to change my nick from "Huldra" to "[[The Trial|Josef K.]]", cheers, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:*I still haven't had any email from arb.com about the so-called "secret evidence", May I ask: is this because you are just delayed, or is it because the answer is no: you have no intention of sharing it with me? [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 23:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Brusquedandelion ===
=== Statement by CarmenEsparzaAmoux ===
{{collapse top|This user has now been blocked as a checkuser-confirmed sock.}}
:I do not have a Discord. I do not communicate with editors off-Wiki—let alone edit for others—community banned or otherwise. My edit on Navalny's page was following his death, part of a long-running [[Talk:Alexei Navalny#Censorship on immigration|talk page discussion]] about the inclusion of his comments comparing Caucasus Muslim immigrants to cockroaches. These other two edits... I added info from widely publicized ''New York Times'' articles? [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] Navalny had just died. I don't edit in articles related to Russia at all, but even I read his article when he died. The day I made that edit, his article had more than 300,000 views and his talk alone had more than 600. [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2024-02-18&end=2024-02-19&pages=Talk:Alexei_Navalny|Alexei_Navalny] [[User:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|CarmenEsparzaAmoux]] ([[User talk:CarmenEsparzaAmoux|talk]]) 21:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}

=== Statement by Chess ===
Per what I said at [[WP:ARCA]], there is strong circumstantial evidence of [[User:CoolAndUniqueUsername]]'s involvement. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 04:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:Going with what has publicly been revealed:
:*Ivana has admitted to linking AN threads on Discord for others to comment on.
:*Ivana was publicly asked to be the head of a "blitz team" to coordinate the editing of articles.
:<span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Reminder that if the accused wants the evidence to be public, they can make it so. [[WP:OUTING]] applies here to the extent Ivana et al haven't revealed their identities in the Telegram chat '''onwiki'''. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Zero0000}} Corrected. I'm aware and my point is the rules are to protect them. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 18:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Alaexis}} Minor correction, the Discord group had some level of onwiki presence. See [[User:BilledMammal/tfp Wikipedia collaboration]] linked above.
:Also, the Telegram channel is a separate (but publicly accessible) group.
:With respect to the "private evidence", there are many editors that have independently stumbled upon this. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Floquenbeam}} Most of these accusations against TFP were made in a news article Elon Musk retweeted 2 weeks ago.[https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1849639215199650279] Ivana was called out by name in that article as well another one by Jewish Insider in June.[https://jewishinsider.com/2024/06/wikipediai-israeli-palestinian-conflict-zionism-adl-encyclopedia/] This is included in [[Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Tech for Palestine]]. If ArbCom wishes to hold this case in secret, it needs to make a public statement acknowledging so and explaining very clearly what precedents it is using. Banning BM and nuking the page would probably be the absolute worst possible thing ArbCom can do at this point given these accusations have been out for months with no response. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 22:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Floquenbeam}} ArbCom should at least acknowledge the situation and publicly explain what they are doing. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Dan Murphy ===
Yoinks! A private-evidence extravaganza of a star chamber. Sounds like a GREAT idea! And from such a clean set of hands.[[User:Dan Murphy|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Dan Murphy|talk]]) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: "Most of these accusations against TFP were made in a news article Elon Musk retweeted 2 weeks ago. Ivana was called out by name in that article as well another one by Jewish Insider in June..." My God! Offsite canvassing involving Elon Musk and other committed partisans! How deep does this rabbit hole of smears and innuendo go?! <sarcasm off> One of the contributors to this page, Alexis, has even insinuated that some of these Wikipedia editors are involved in an effort to hunt down and kill Israeli soldiers, not a shred of credible evidence provided. And here this pile sits.[[User:Dan Murphy|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Dan Murphy|talk]]) 00:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Liz|Liz]] ===
The claims of that article on coordinated editing along with this case request are pretty accusatory, I just hope that the private evidence sent to the committee warrants an investigation. Not being privy to this information, it will be difficult for us regular editors to make arguments on whether or not this request should be accepted. I hope this request doesn't devolve into statements based on suspicions without evidence. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by David A ===
I apologise if I am disturbing, misunderstanding what is allowed, or getting too paranoid here, but how did BilledMammal, as a supposedly regular editor, get ahold of such extremely specific and private information, if it is even reliable? This seems suspicious given that:
# BilledMammal has participated in several attempts to delegitimise and thereby remove all references from [[Al Jazeera]] from Wikipedia, which is the main news organisation that reports war crimes by the Israeli government. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#Al_Jazeera_reliability] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_445#Al_Jazeera_-_factual_errors] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_449#Reliability_of_Al_Jazeera]
# I read a comment by another Wikipedia editor regarding that a recent news article that attacked Wikipedia used information organised by BilledMammal in one of their userspaces. [https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-s-pro-hamas-editors-hijacked-the-israel-palestine-narrative] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA_activity_statistics_complete]
# Shortly afterwards, Elon Musk, who will soon have control over the United States economy, apparently retweeted the article in front of over 52.7 million people while attacking Wikipedia, and then BilledMammal waited until right after the United States election had finished, which Donald Trump won, as Benjamin Netanyahu and a statistical majority of the population of Israel wished, to initiate an arbitration process against some of the editors with differing viewpoints regarding the conflict between the Israeli government and the Palestinians, that he had previously extensively catalogued the activity of in one of the links above. [https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1849639215199650279]

[[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 09:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

There may also be two other potential concerns here. One is that it is likely quite easy to doctor evidence in the form of screencapture images from chat rooms with modern technology, and another is that it is also easy for people to claim to be/impersonate others online. Just because somebody in a chat room claims to be a specific Wikipedia editor, this does not automatically make it a fact. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

As a comment regarding what Aquillion just wrote, I am personally not certain whether or not good faith or targeted harrassment is at play here given the following procedure of events, if I have understood it correctly:

1) BilledMammal repeatedly fails to get Al Jazeera banned from Wikipedia, and is otherwise very actively involved in editing activity that supports the current military actions of the government of Israel.

2) He posts an extremely detailed catalogisation of all the relevant editing activity in the Israel-Palestine conflict area of Wikipedia for everybody with differing viewpoints than himself regarding the issue, which must have required staggering amounts of work if it was done by a single person rather than an A.I. computer.

3) That information is leaked to a very propagandistic online newspaper, which publishes an attack article against several specific editors and Wikipedia as a whole.

4) Elon Musk posts a link to the article in front of an absolutely massive audience, while also attacking Wikipedia's legitimacy.

5) Donald Trump and the Republicans win the United States election.

6) Immediately afterwards, BilledMammal posts a very public and attention-grabbing appeal to have several prominent editors who disagree with him banned from Wikipedia, with very unclear evidence, of very uncertain reliability, involved.

[[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 05:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Zero0000 ===

{{To|BilledMammal}} Did you obtain this evidence personally, or are you passing on what you received from someone else? [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

{{To|Chess}} You wrote "WP:OUTING applies here to the extent Ivana et al haven't revealed their identities in the Telegram chat." Maybe I misunderstand you, but to be clear it is not allowed to copy personal identifying information to here from an external site even if that information was voluntarily revealed on the external site. That is made clear by the very first sentence of OUTING: {{tq|"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, '''on Wikipedia'''.}} (bold in original). Also see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=914386202#RfC:_Clarification_of_OUTING this RfC]. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is dated, but if you don't think similar stuff is going on now I have a bridge to sell you:<br/>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY] My favorite quote is "to ensure that it's balanced and Zionist in nature". [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 15:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Simonm223 ===

I'm a bit aghast that this arbitration case exists and I sincerely hope that it is rejected by the arbitration committee. Targeting specific editors for this based on supposed private evidence is borderline McCarthyism especially as the motivation is a blog of a right-wing agitator with an axe to grind against the supposed progressivism of Wikipedia. Please, let's not do this. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:I certainly share @[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]]'s concern. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Contrary to @[[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]] I would suggest, moving forward, that the Arbitration Committee simply procedurally refuse any request for a case that depends exclusively, or primarily, on private evidence. Wikipedia must never become a star chamber. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]] I don't know what, exactly, your link to that Youtube video has to do with this farce. I really couldn't care less if people, even if they have similar usernames to Wikipedians, dislike the IOF. That is not something that Wikipedia should '''ever''' adjudicate on. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I concur with @[[User:LilianaUwU|LilianaUwU]] that a boomerang is appropriate here. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 12:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Super Goku V ===
{{ping|BilledMammal}} You might want to request an extension on this. That aside, I have concerns that some of the evidence is tied to Pirate Wires. {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment|1253681893|1253632574|I voiced my concerns about them in a related situation just over a week ago}} and I don't think I am alone based on some of the comments at the PirateWires Wikipedia Investigation discussion linked to. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 08:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Parabolist ===
So instead of just sending all of this incredible evidence to the arbs, we get this grandstanding case request, where BilledMammal gets to accuse a host of editors of a litany of crimes without actually needing to post proof. The entire point of arbs receiving private evidence by email is so that this doesn't happen. And considering how weak some of the claims are (One editor's crime is simply being in a Telegram group? BM doesn't even think they edited?) it looks like a great deal of wall-bound spaghetti. (Private Evidence Z-3) [[User:Parabolist|Parabolist]] ([[User talk:Parabolist|talk]]) 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Nableezy ===
If the only evidence for a claim is private material then the accusation should be made in private as well. Iff the committee feels that the evidence has merit then yes some public statement or motion is in order. But right now an editor is making very public accusations against editors and then saying they cannot share any evidence. As the filer here previously [[special:Diff/1193881111|said]] {{tq| I am concerned that this is quickly turning into a witch-hunt, with editors tossing out accusations with little to no evidence, accusations that in a different forum would result in a boomerang as often as not.
I think it would be beneficial for the committee to instruct editors to avoid issuing accusations unless they have some form of evidence for them, and to remind editors that posting unsupported accusations - casting [[WP:ASPERSIONS|aspersions]] - can result in sanctions}}. Obviously I don’t know what evidence exists here, but having the accusations made publicly and the evidence provided privately strikes me as a convenient way of smearing the names of editors to the wider community. If y’all are on board with that ok I guess, but if this is entirely reliant on private evidence then a. There isn’t anything any body else can offer here making the preliminary statements utterly pointless, and b. I hope if the evidence is not convincing that there is just as public an apology to the users who were accused. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' - 13:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ca ===
I joined the Discord server after concerns were raised at {{sectionlink|Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel#Canvassing}}. According to official announcement, they set to private their Wikipedia editing channel due to doxing concerns. I inquired on the status of their Wikipedia editing activities, and one user said they were suspended for the same reason. and one The organizers seemed largely clueless in the workings of Wikipedia; one appeared to be using ChatGPT in an attempt to code a bot to canvass participating editors into discussions. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 14:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Girth Summit ===
I've just now become aware of this arbitration request. I know nothing about the dispute this case centres around, but I came here to note that a few minutes ago, following my investigation at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpesch95]], I blocked one of the parties, {{noping|CarmenEsparzaAmoux}}, as a suspected sock. This was based on behaviour, rather than CU data, but I have not gone into the specifics of my findings per [[WP:BEANS]]. I'd be happy to explain further if anyone from the committee wants to reach out by email. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 17:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Just adding that I've since been able to confirm the connection with CU. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 21:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Jéské Couriano ===
{{ping|KevinL}} This is [[WP:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying|not the first time ArbCom has had to deal with bad actors in the PIA area who are coordinating off-wiki]], so there is precedent for taking this case just within the PIA area itself. (If you want non-PIA precedent, may I interest you in [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list|EEML]] or [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones|WTC]]?) —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by SWATJester===

This is a gap of process. Nableezy hits on this here, with his point "a": {{tq|if this is entirely reliant on private evidence then a. There isn’t anything any body else can offer here making the preliminary statements utterly pointless, and b. I hope if the evidence is not convincing that there is just as public an apology to the users who were accused}}. I think this case would have been better filed if everything within the "Statement from BilledMammal" portion were replaced with "Private evidence has been submitted in regards to the above named parties." And that's it. As Nableezy said, there's nothing anyone can or needs to do in the preliminary statements portion if they can't respond to the allegations adequately, which means there's no point in listing the allegations either. Verifying that a request was indeed submitted, and naming the parties are the only things this should provide, IMO, as I do think *some* degree of public awareness that a case was filed is better than just privately emailing the committee and hoping for a response in several days or weeks. The Committee should consider formalizing that into a process, or updating the case-filing guide, for these types of requests in the future. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 19:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:For everyone who's @-ing me, I need y'all to understand that my point above is speaking to process in general regarding private evidence, not the content specific to this one in particular. I'm not making an opinion on the suitability of the video, or whether this particular case should be filed, or what happened off-wiki on this particular matter. I'm saying that as a general process, if all or substantially all of a case request is being based on private evidence from the requester, then I think that the public statement on this page should be strictly limited to just identifying that evidence was submitted and naming the parties. I think this part is necessary, because without it -- assuming a case gets accepted, heard, and completed -- Arbcom will appear to just magically be handing down a ruling out of nowhere, and it's a surprise to everyone. Furthermore, since Arbcom is currently struggling with activity constraints, having public acknowledgement that a request was made serves as a receipt for the requestor (and other interested parties) to be able to follow up on if we don't eventually see a resolution in a timely fashion. Y'all can characterize Arbcom as a star chamber however you like, but that ship has long since sailed -- the committee has longstanding precedent for acting on private evidence. I'm less interested in relitigating that, and more interested in filling the gap in the process for the instructions to a filer on *how* to do that, because the current process -- whether you view it as being intentional or not -- has the capability of making a filing be functionally an aspersion. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 00:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Alaexis ===

Plenty of users have expressed concerns that the case is based on private evidence. I have no idea what kind of evidence it is, but there is publicly available evidence of pretty impressively organised off-wiki coordination, please see this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AdD3W-FPPQ], starting from 1:57:43. One of the projects (unclear whether it's related to Wikipedia or not) of the group was doxing IDF soldiers to "hunt them for the rest of their lives" (1:58:23). [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:In case something happens with the video on Youtube, I've downloaded it. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Swatjester|Swatjester]], the video shows posts on Discord with the tag tfp-wikipedia-collaboration with various Wikipedia-related tasks. This is [[WP:CANVASSING]] (notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way) which is is considered disruptive behavior. Off-wiki communication is strongly discouraged ([[WP:STEALTH]]).
:Almost all boxes are ticked: it's biased, partisan and done in secrecy (or semi-secrecy - even if the board was public its existence certainly wasn't disclosed on Wikipedia). [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Chess|Chess]], thanks for correcting me, TFP did have a Wikipedia page at some point (still, other editors would generally be unaware that there is a coordinated campaign being managed on Discord). Even without secrecy, it's still a clear case of canvassing. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 22:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===
Wait, what? I usually stay a minimum of 50 yards away from anything to do with Israel/Palestine, but I took a quick glance at this for some reason. I'm amazed. You can make serious public accusations based on private evidence? I'm pretty surprised this hasn't already been removed by an arb or a clerk, possibly even rev-del'd, and BM maybe arbcom banned at least until they acknowledge they can't do this in the future. At least told in no uncertain terms to file this privately. You want to use private evidence, file a private case, and let arbcom figure out how to handle it. If this was any other forum, like AN/ANI, I'd likely have already personally removed this, rev-deled it, and indef blocked BM with no talk page access. --I guess arbcom's glacial pace means BM has found a loophole. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Chess}} "Do your own research" isn't really how ArbCom operates. We can't make public accusations and then refer to "Private Evidence A-O". Even if the evidence is also on Twitter. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by DatGuy ===
{{ping|Alaexis}} I don't see how your linked video holds any relevance to this case at all. The (albeit limited) blurbs displayed at your linked timestamp don't reveal any disallowed Wikipedia behaviour. There's also no mention of canvassing. [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sean.hoyland ===
re: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jpesch95]], a timeline for their ban evasion accounts is available [https://drive.google.com/file/d/14l7M1Xtlu4A_G78oShpWFYKnDUYDPlzJ/view?usp=sharing here] for interest. Since they appear to operate multiple accounts in parallel, I assume there may be some undetected accounts out there. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 04:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Regarding {{u|Ivanvector}}'s interesting theory, {{tq|...consider how repeatedly turning away new editors from participating in open discussions here, by way of goalpost-moving ARBECR enforcement creep, naturally leads to the consequence of those new editors coordinating off-wiki}}. Is this statement true? It could be true, it's plausible, but it is not currently supported by evidence, and although I've thought about possible unintended consequences of ECR too, I'm not quite sure how to measure it.

Setting aside the fact that new editors are limited to edit requests because of the observed consequences of not doing that going back over a decade, some counterarguments might be
* Coordinating off-wiki, external (private or state-supported) influence operations etc. pre-date the existence of the extendedconfirmed privilege, let alone ARBECR.
* Statistics suggest it's real-world events that have a very significant impact on PIA related activity levels both on and off-site, rather than changes in things like article protection or ARBECR.
* Coordinating off-wiki appears to be a "natural" feature of contentious topic areas.
In reality, a large number of content edits and talk page discussions continue to be made by non-EC actors because the topic area is largely open and the amount of ECR enforcement really depends on the time-scale used to observe it. My views on protection are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1255712966 here]. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 04:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by LilianaUwU ===

I thought private evidence was supposed to be private? No but seriously, this is worrisome that BilledMammal could just basically post private evidence without posting it. I think a [[WP:BOOMERANG|boomerang]] is in order. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by berchanhimez ===
{{hat|Initial comments that have not resulted in any discussion/response, including from arbitrators}}
I see nowhere in the arbitration guide or procedures that's immediately visible that prohibits someone who submits private evidence to the Arbitration Committee during the process of requesting a case from posting their own summary of that evidence publicly (in line with policies on Outing, of course). To quote [[WP:A/G]], which seems like the place that should be, {{tq|Requests for an arbitration case are made on the "Case" subpage. Other types of requests, usually in relation to cases which have already been closed, are instead made at the "Clarifications and Amendments" subpage.}} Nowhere does it say that an editor wishing for a case to be opened based primarily or solely on private evidence must only submit that evidence to the Committee and not post anything publicly about such request.

In fact, if there ''were'' a prohibition on making a public case request solely based on private evidence, it would hinder the ability of ''other editors'' who may have their ''own'' private evidence from knowing "hey, this is a good time to submit my evidence to the Committee, since they already have some other evidence from someone else". Further, it hinders the ability of the "defendant(s)" in the case to respond, as they would not be aware that an editor has submitted private evidence to the Committee. There are multiple aspects of the Arbitration process that are exempt from policies/procedures that apply elsewhere on Wikipedia. I believe BilledMammal has made the accusations in this case request [[WP:AGF|in good faith]] and that the evidence they have submitted privately to the Committee is, at least at face value, in partial or full support of the accusations they've made.

'''Regardless''', there should be no boomerang from publicly posting this case request. The Arbitration Committee should clarify what a user submitting a case request based ''solely'' or ''in large part'' on private information should post publicly - but they should ensure that '''any''' case requested, even one based solely on private information, at a minimum is able to have a summary of the accusations and the accused party/parties posted publicly. Whether this is done by the person reporting the private evidence or the Committee themselves is up for debate - but it should not be possible to submit private evidence against users and the first they hear of it is a private case being opened against them. Nor should it be possible for a private case to be refused just because ''one'' editor's information submitted is insufficient, without other concerned editors being given a ''public'' notice that there is consideration of evidence in a matter to be afforded an opportunity to submit their own.

Respectfully, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 11:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
:I am quite sad that even though the process of "filing a private case" has been questioned or pointed out as insufficiently documented by multiple people here, arbitrators in their votes so far are choosing to "decline the public case request without prejudice". That only reinforces what I have pointed out is a severe issue. While posting private evidence publicly is obviously problematic, there needs to be significant clarification in the Arbitration Policy and procedures as to how case requests based ''solely'' or ''primarily'' on private evidence should be handled - both as it relates to the case as a whole and any particular party. It is not fair to editors that a private case be opened with them as a party out of the blue. It is akin to a first mover's advantage - to use this case as an example, BM has obviously spent significant time compiling their evidence - but unless this public case request ''with parties'' was made, there would be no way for any of the parties to even ''know'' that evidence had been submitted to ArbCom. Let's say that it takes ArbCom 10 days to decide to open a case based on private evidence. The filing party, and anyone else they've ''chosen'' to make aware privately, has now had yet ''another'' 10 days to compile "prosecutorial" evidence against the parties - without those parties not even being aware they're being investigated - and without other editors who weren't notified by the person submitting privately to AC being able to have time to compile their thoughts and evidence.{{pb}}Sure, AC can handle this with extensions to phases of the case. But that shouldn't be necessary - a public case requests without accusations is the ''bare minimum the community should accept''. If this is a new template for a private case request that only lists parties with a statement "I have submitted evidence privately to ArbCom concerning these editors regarding [topic area or short summary of issue that doesn't violate policy]", then fine. If this is ArbCom agreeing that any private evidence they recieve that may result in a case will result in a public statement by ArbCom '''ASAP''' even while it's still being considered, then fine. But the policy needs to be clarified to reflect whatever the decision is on this matter - the chilling effect of so many editors blaming or going after BM for attempting to make the editors involved '''and the community''' aware of this potential case during the case request phase will result in worse Arbitration than using this as a catalyst to improve the policy/procedures to directly address three things:
:#How cases based solely/primarily on private evidence should be notified to the community for further input - including if only some parties are being considered based solely on private evidence for an otherwise public case request.
:#What the person submitting such a case request is expected to do to notify the community they have done so (if anything), and what ArbCom will do to ensure there is ample public notification of the case request ASAP for virtually all circumstances where others in the community may have valid input or other evidence that would assist AC in their determination
:#Defining what a "private case request" is (such as what people think this is) versus just private evidence that is not being intended to directly result in a case being opened (such as private information about sockpuppetry that is being discussed between functionaries, private information related to a clarification/amendment, etc) - and ensuring publicity of summaries/etc. wherever possible, regardless of whether it's the submitting party or AC's responsibility to provide this.
:I'm happy that I don't see BM being faulted for their misinterpretation of unpublished rules. Please use this as a case to amend or modify the official Arbitration pages and procedures/guides to reflect these "unwritten rules" so that other editors do not make the same mistake, and to ensure community involvement is invited where possible. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 06:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ivanvector ===
I encourage the committee and the community to consider how repeatedly turning away new editors from participating in open discussions here, by way of goalpost-moving ARBECR enforcement creep, naturally leads to the consequence of those new editors coordinating off-wiki. Perhaps, rather than expanding the creep into literally doxxing those editors (which I agree ought to have been met with a sanction), a review of that provision is what's needed here. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 15:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ===

It's time for Arbcom to put its foot down on this secret denunciations nonsense. If there's a case, make your case ''publicly'' should be the rule. Casting public aspersions based on secret denunciations is galling and should be dealt with harshly. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 16:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Thryduulf ===
I think the best way forward for case requests based on private evidence in the future would be something like:
*Step 1: Filer sends evidence privately to ArbCom
*Step 2: Filer opens a public case request with only
**A neutral title (e.g. "canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area") that does not include the names of any editors
**Themself as the only party
**A statement that they have submitted private evidence about this to the Arbitration Committee, with enough context that the Committee knows whether they have received all of it. e.g. "there are 6 emails with subject lines starting "Private case request")
*Step 3: An arbitrator confirms whether they have received (all) the evidence
*Step 4: After a short period of time, the Arbitration Committee public state either that it is clear there is no case and dismisses the request, clear there will be a case (see below), or that it is unclear and it is still being discussed (internally, with the filer and/or with proposed parties as appropriate). If it is unclear and further evidence from other editors might help, this should be explicitly solicited at this point.
*Step 5: If there is to be a case, the Committee posts as much as they can publicly, alongside details of case structure, etc.
This would seem to allow for as much transparency as possible without outing or casting aspersions. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{replyto|Huldra}} It is possible that they are still deciding whether they feel you have a case to answer (e.g. if the allegations against you are deemed not be credible then there is no benefit to you seeing them). It's also possible that the evidence has not been presented in a way allows for easy splitting, e.g. it may be that the allegations and/or supporting evidence regarding you are intermingled with private evidence relating to other parties. If this is the case then the Committee will want to be sure that spending the time disentangling it is worthwhile - which it almost certainly will not be if the evidence presented does not justify an arbitration case with you as a party. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Just Step Sideways===
I have to agree with what Floq, Kevin, and others have said about what is going on here. These are extremely serious allegations based on private evidence. There should not be a public case where a user can publicly make such accusations when they can't publicly back them up. Take the case against me as an example: all that evidence was private, so a case was had in private. To this day I ''don't even know who asked for it'', that's how private it was, and I was still on the main mailing list at the time. This request should be shelved and BM reprimanded for proceeding in this manner. Reprimand yourselves for letting it go on this long while you're at it. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:Given what's now come to light, as was kind of hinted at right at the beginning of the filing, it is maybe somewhat easier to understand why BM approached this the way they did, but I still strongly believe the committee should have ''immediately'' asked for the specific accusations directed at specific users, with no on-wiki evidence, be removed. I also think perhaps a matter for next years' committee should be to make some sort of clarification of how to file a private or hybrid case request without running into this issue. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 23:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Vanamonde93 ===
It really bothers me that the allegations that are a part of this request are still on this page, while the evidence is not. I assume ARBCOM will debate the private evidence and then post their conclusions: why are these accusations allowed to stand, regardless of their merit, in a place and manner where the accused cannot answer? If ARBCOM wants to notify the community that you are considering this evidence, why not leave a neutral placeholder to that effect, with named parties but no accusations? [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 00:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Selfstudier ===
{{re|CaptainEek}} {{tq|BilledMammal did send us a lot of this several months ago and we just didn't do anything with it}} Can we assume that this was because said evidence was not probative/persuasive? At any rate, it is difficult to make any sensible comments about this filing, there being nothing to comment upon. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by FOARP ===
I think the fact that BM raised all this privately months ago and then got no feedback, not even a "yeah, no" response, goes a long way to explaining their actions, and that the people recommending sanctions against BM need to revise their views in that light. I certainly have had my own experiences of BM's editing where it really felt like they were pushing things a bit too far, but if I had totally blanked them and refused to engage, I could hardly have blamed them for raising their issues in a forum that could not be ignored. [[User:FOARP|FOARP]] ([[User talk:FOARP|talk]]) 21:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho ===
@[[User:FOARP|FOARP]] I don't think an experienced good-faith editor such as BM should be sanctioned. However, I don't think BM's maneuver is justified either, I am quite sure both sides have their own "damning" private evidence, but both sides need to allow ArbCom to take its time. [[User:Sir Kenneth Kho|Sir Kenneth Kho]] ([[User talk:Sir Kenneth Kho|talk]]) 23:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)


===Statement by Robert McClenon (Covert Canvassing)===
On the one hand, I agree with the large number of editors who have sharply criticized the filing of this case request. Stating publicly that a case request is based on private evidence has the same disadvantage of lack of transparency of a true private filing, but sometimes true private filings are necessary, and this request does not have the advantage of respecting privacy. On the other hand, not to excuse the filing editor, this filing is another illustration that there are ugly undercurrents about conflicts involving the editing of articles on the [[Palestinian-Israeli conflict]]. ArbCom should not accept this case, but it is time for ArbCom to take action beyond three months of background discussion, preferably by opening [[WP:ARBPIA5|ARBPIA5]] and invoking [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#At_wit's_end|At Wit's End]], or at least by finalizing the rules that have been under consideration for three months. There are likely to be other troublesome filings, both here and at [[WP:ANI]], as long as ArbCom delays taking action on [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground editing]] in a continuing real [[Arab-Israeli wars|battleground]]. Dismiss this request, possibly with censure to the filing party, but open a formal case with both public and truly private evidence.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Aquillion ===

While I agree with the decision not to hold a public case at the moment, I don't think it makes sense to sanction BilledMammal as some have requested. RFAr is normally considered a place where people can raise issues, even without ''immediate'' evidence, with the understanding that evidence will be part of a full case if accepted; the argument that this shouldn't be done when the evidence is offwiki and couldn't be presented without violating [[WP:OUTING]] is fair but it's reasonably something that could trip up even experienced editors. Turning that into a red line that leads to sanctions (and sanctioning people merely for bringing otherwise good-faith case requests) would create a tripwire that would have a chilling effect on people's ability to bring things to ArbCom in general. ArbCom is often the last and in some cases ''only'' place to raise such concerns (and off-wiki coordination is extremely serious and does need to be examined), so the bar for actual sanctions just for making accusations should be higher here than it is elsewhere - it should require either clear bad faith accusations or editors making accusations that they plainly have no ability or intent to ever validate. Getting accused of misconduct in an ArbCom filing isn't fun, but other editors are capable of realizing that it is merely a preliminary case request and doesn't imply guilt. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 15:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Statement by Detsom ===

Re: private evidence/public accusations. Given the accusations are of a literal '''conspiracy''' – shouldn’t there be an even greater emphasis on transparency? Significant accusations like these, particularly involving multiple users, should require a high standard of evidence and accountability, far more so than allegations against a single editor. Furthermore what is even being alleged here? The request states "for the purposes of pushing a pro-Palestinian POV," but as far as I know, holding a perspective or opinion isn’t, in itself, a violation of any policy. If the issue is coordinated editing or fabricating references, wouldn’t it lend credibility to the allegations to publicly post them?

I’m really puzzled about this. Is it because the evidence was gathered covertly (e.g. by someone posing as a member of an off-site group) or to protect a source? Protecting the methods of acquiring evidence – especially if those methods raise ethical concerns – is not a valid reason to withhold it.


Re: the rest. I admit I'm not super familiar with ArbCom processes (I came across this discussion while doing research on the 2024 ArbCom candidates), but am wondering if it is ''normal'' for an editor to perform their own investigation of other editors? I’m not sure if I’ve seen a precedent for a user initiating their own investigation across multiple platforms like this. It feels deeply contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, i.e. [[WP:GOODFAITH]], [[WP:HARASS]], and [[WP:CIVIL]] (maybe others).

This entire request is weird, and leaves me feeling dirty. [[User:Detsom|Detsom]] ([[User talk:Detsom|talk]]) 03:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)



=== Statement by {Non-party} ===

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 case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Covert canvassing and proxying in Israel-Arab Conflict: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Covert canvassing and proxying in Israel-Arab Conflict: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/6/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Covert canvassing and proxying in Israel-Arab Conflict: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] I assume that you will email us this private evidence? [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 05:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] I take it you're referring to the email dating from July? I can't say that you have that email lined up nicely with "private evidence A, B, C" and so on. Or have you just sent something? [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 05:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

*I am troubled by the process here. Ordinarily, it is impermissible to cast aspersions on editors, as documented at [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and as grounded in policy at [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:AGF]], and [[WP:CIV]]. I am concerned that @[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]]'s reliance on off-wiki evidence to make public, on-wiki accusations of misconduct, without any finding by the Committee that such misconduct did in fact occur, is inconsistent with those policies. {{pb}} There's a reason that the [[WP:ARBPOL#Admissibility of evidence |arbitration policy]] explicitly provides that {{tqq|1= Evidence based on private communications (including, but not limited to, other websites, forums, chat rooms, IRC logs, email correspondence) is admissible '''only by prior consent of the Committee and only in exceptional circumstances'''.}} (emphasis added). The "consent of the Committee" is required because the Committee is the body charged with adjudicating disputes involving privacy implications, and it can unjustifiably besmirch someone's reputation to accuse them publicly of misconduct in reliance on evidence that they cannot see and cannot reasonably or fairly respond to. {{pb}} I suggest that we close this public case request as out of process. In the event that the Committee opts to take action on BilledMammal's private submissions, it can then fashion the appropriate process, such as a shell case for in camera proceedings with a public final decision, as the committee held in ''Stephen'' (see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stephen#Motion:_Stephen_(case_request)|motion]]), or a hybrid public-private case like the committee held in ''Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block'' (see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Reversal_and_reinstatement_of_Athaenara%27s_block#Motion:_Reversal_and_reinstatement_of_Athaenara’s_block|motion]]). Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Jéské Couriano|Jéské Couriano]]: My objection is to using this case request to post accusations that would be inappropriate to post anywhere else based only on private evidence. If the Committee finds merit to the submission of off-wiki evidence, it is in the right position to fashion the appropriate process. In my term on the committee I've heard a number of cases involving off-wiki evidence, including both entirely-private proceedings and proceedings with a public component, so that's not the part I'm hung up on. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*I agree with L235 on this, and will be removing the allegations until such time as we deem them appropriate to post on-wiki. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 12:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''Decline''' per Guerillero, with no prejudice against holding a case should the private evidence lead us in that direction. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*Having emailed ArbCom does not create an exception to existing Wikipedia policy (e.g. [[WP:OUTING]]). That said, the information we received via email needs to be examined and addressed as appropriate. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 13:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Decline''' - Whether it's rolled into PIA5 or otherwise handled as appropriate, a standalone case isn't warranted. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' this publicity stunt to redirect it to the proper channels largely per floq --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 22:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*I agree that BilledMammal shouldn't have just dumped a pile of private evidence in public. But I also don't see how we get out of dealing with the merits of this issue. I have a number of talking points here. <s>First, BilledMammal and Ivana and co were having a rousing back and forth at the PIA ARCA, which methinks is what led to the posting of this, and indicates that there is indeed an issue here—perhaps a boomerang issue, or at least an issue not entirely focused on off-wiki evidence. </s> Second, that makes me wonder if this wouldn't be better heard as part of what looks will be PIA5. Third, I think us Arbs need to take some blame here. BilledMammal did send us a lot of this several months ago and we just didn't do anything with it. We shouldn't be surprised that he felt like he had to file a public request seeing as we didn't do anything privately. Fourth, I generally agree with SwatJester's points. ArbCom can hear in camera cases. We're the only body that can effectively deal with private evidence. I think a good way to handle such cases can be to have a person file a public request, so as to put the parties on notice, but with something like "private evidence sent to ArbCom" and nothing else. I'm also partial to Thryduulfs suggestion, which is a more anonymous approach. Fifth, if anything, we should probably have a separate discussion at ARCA to workshop how to better take private evidence heavy case requests. Bottom line: we need a better process to take in camera cases, and we also need to do our job and solve the issues here, whether in public or not, whether in PIA5 or by itself. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 09:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] oh gosh, you're right. My bad, I don't know how I misconstrued that. I'll strike myself. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 10:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] Perhaps it wasn't convincing. But I think the bigger issue is that the summer was a low point of committee activity (I admit I was part of that problem, I took the summer off arbing to study for the bar exam), and I think it just fell by the wayside as this enormous issue that no one had the energy to dive into. We gave BilledMammal our boilerplate "yeah we got this" and then had no further discussion about it. I agree that the community may not have much to discuss as a result, but that's not the point of a case. While we appreciate community input and the advisory function that uninvolved commenters provide, the peanut gallery is not a strictly necessary aspect of a case request. My concern is how do we make sure that potential parties to the case get a chance to have their say. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*This public case request should be '''decline'''d for now. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' a public case. If a private case is warranted we will proceed at that time. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 00:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' a public case for all the reasons given. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 11:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:06, 20 November 2024

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For a guide on talk page archiving, see H:ARC.
Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for arbitration


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=1258528645"