Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:37, 5 December 2024 editLevivich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,397 edits →Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles: proposed language at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Workshop#Cites/quotes and word limitsTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:09, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,199 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 52) (bot 
(87 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown)
Line 19: Line 19:


__TOC__ __TOC__
== Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area ==
== Arbitration motions regarding ''Palestine-Israel articles'' ==
: ]<!-- ] (]) 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes--> : ]<!-- ] (]) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->
*For anyone wondering why ] is in the original but not revised list of parties, this is almost certainly because they have been blocked as a sockpuppet. ] (]) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC) *Glad to see some action on this front. Thanks. ] (]) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*PIA5 was well-overdue. Happy that Arbcom will actually be taking this up, even with the glacial pace it's moved at. ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Then I hope you will participate in the case to offer evidence and workshop potential remedies to quell the disruption. ] &#124; ] 15:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*::@] I’ll certainly be watching with interest, but unfortunately I’m neither consistently involved enough in the topic area nor qualified enough to substantially aid in either of those (beyond my longstanding but not widely popular belief in ]). ] ] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>(])</sup></small></span> 21:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::I understand why some people might advocate for that. In a topic area that wasn't at the whims of real-world events it could conceivably work but I think it's unlikely to work here though we don't know yet where the evidence will lead. As you will have seen, my reluctance to take the case was largely because, in four previous cases, we appear to have exhausted the remedies at our disposal so if you have ideas for new ones I would certainly welcome them. In the meantime, I have some hope for the new remedies just passed in these motions. ] &#124; ] 22:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], I'm a bit surprised by what you say about new remedies. When I recommended ARBCOM take this case, it wasn't because I think you can devise a miraculous new tool for administrators, but simply because determining which editors are engaged in bad behavior requires parsing more evidence than AE can reasonably handle. I fully believe that the usual combination of blocks, bans, and warnings can handle the conflict between the principal actors here at least for the moment. Is there an expectation that you need a new class of remedies? ] (]) 17:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::@] possibly not an ''expectation'', but if somebody has new ideas I'm all ears. This is our most troublesome topic area and will continue to be so until the politicians get their act together, regardless of what we decide to do with these editors. ] &#124; ] 18:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*What's an "interaction" tho? ] (]) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@] ] I'm guessing the ArbCom is examining the conversations and exchanges between the parties in the case. ] ] ] 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The definition of ] at the banning policy page should make it clear what the committee is looking for. ] 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*::{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} Hello, as drafter can you please clarify whether the scope is exclusively about the interaction of editors as mentioned here? Also, will some sort of introduction be provided prior to the opening of the case (ex: structure of the process/type of acceptable evidence/type of editors who will be able to provide inputs/etc..)? ] (]) 07:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] the exact scope is still a little nebulous, and your idea of an introduction is a good one which I'll give more thought to before we open the case. The way I see it is we want to consider whether there are problems with those editors in particular or with the interactions between them, but we also want to explore why the entire topic area is such a problem and whether ArbCom can impose any remedies to help with that or to help admins deal with problems. ] &#124; ] 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{ping|HJ Mitchell}} Thanks for the reply, glad to hear this is being considered comprehensively. Also relevant in my opinion to the success of this case with its specific scope is whether some limitations are necessary, such as the type and number of editors allowed to participate/amount of interventions/character limits/type of allowed evidence/good faith presentation of evidence/etc. As we can see, there is understandable eagerness to participate in these discussions, so there is a need to ensure that the case does not become overwhelming, and that these points can be considered along with their context. ] (]) 09:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::The way I see it, the PIA area is a very dangerous combination of intractible ethnopolitical dispute (a la EE or AP2), open war in meatspace (a la AA2 or EE) and one that everyone in the world and their dog has a horse in for one reason or another (a la AB or GS). None of these are things Misplaced Pages and its processes have any hope of handling because the on-wiki behaviour is a symptom of real-world disputes that cannot be resolved that way. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 07:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::This is likely true and true for a long time, which begs the question, what exactly is it that is different now? ] (]) 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::The answer is to focus where the focus belongs. No one should expect ArbCom to deal with intractable worldwide problems. Instead, the case should focus on whether there are individual editors whose conduct is making the editing environment worse. --] (]) 19:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::That's not an answer to my question tho (which wasn't intended as a coatrack for you to hang your well known opinion on). ] (]) 19:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::I was responding more to what Jéské said, that there was no hope of ArbCom being able to handle the problem. --] (]) 19:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::a) That's not all they said. b) I want to know what they think the problem is (now). ] (]) 19:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::{{u|Selfstudier}}, you ask what the problem is now. The problem is editors in the PIA topic area appear to not be playing by the rules, in a way that our existing system isn't solving. We can't pretend to ignore the real world here. Obviously the war in Gaza is ultimately driving the issue. But {{u|Jéské Couriano}} is right: we can't fix the real world problem. A body of 15 volunteers on a website staffed by people with names like CaptainEek are not going to end a war that has its roots more than a century deep. But we can assess, in our little corner of the internet, whether our own editors are following the rules while writing about that real world topic. We will assess the conduct of editors, and whether our existing ] scheme is keeping a lid on the topic area. I doubt that PIA5 will be the last PIA case, but with luck it will help resolve some tensions in the area for the next few years. ] <sup>]</sup>] 20:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I get that, still doesn't answer the question, why now? Have these editors only now decided to not play by the rules, whereas they did previously? Or is it instead, that there is a lot of noise, mainly from one side of the fence, suggesting that that is the problem, hmm? That possible? ] (]) 20:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Enough evidence has been presented of an apparent problem that the community has been unable to resolve. The Arbitration Committee thus considers it worthwhile to examine the topic area in more detail to determine (a) whether the apparent problem is an actual problem, and (b) if so, what remedies the Committee can enact in an attempt to resolve that problem. Such remedies may focus on individual editors, if there are any editors who are determined to be disrupting the functioning of the topic area. If it turns out that there aren't any such editors, then they wont be sanctioned.
*::::::::::::When someone says or implies that the whole problem is caused by editors on one side of an editing dispute that relates to a real-world ethnic, nationalist, religious and/or political dispute, in my experience this most commonly just means that they are not seeing (or not acknowledging as disruptive) the problematic behaviours from those who share their point of view. ] (]) 22:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::{{tq|When someone says. .}} You mean me? Sure, I must have been confused about that for years and years. I'm sure I'll get over it now that you have pointed me in the right direction. ] (]) 22:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::I think that it was just a neutral general statement. Also, in this case it likely most applies to BilledMammal, as he brought up this issue in the first place, and simultaneously has a documented history of attempting to censor reliable information that is inconvenient for the heavily pro-Israeli perspective, or seemingly spending enormous amounts of effort to catalogue and thereby target many of the editors that disagree with him in this area, .
*::::::::::::::Anyway, I obviously heavily disagree with the "indiscriminately ban them all" solution that seemed to be suggested here previously. If an editor has not actually done anything bad, and has strictly added accurate and reliably referenced information, while being as polite as they can manage, especially given the scale of the ongoing atrocities, I do not think that they should be punished for it, and removing all of the most knowledgeable members who know how to edit properly and who follow Misplaced Pages's rules, would open up the floodgates for trolls, vandals, death threatening criminals, and large-scale removals of reliable content. Please see here for some examples: ] (]) 07:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::{{tqq|Enough evidence has been presented}} Where was evidence presented? I've been waiting to see it. ] (]) 05:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Sufficient evidence has been presented at the arbitration request, at ARCA and possibly in private that the Arbitration Committee believe there is an issue that needs investigating. Nobody needs to ] you personally. ] (]) 09:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::: Cool it with the snarky responses, Thryduulf. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::That was not intended to be snarky, and while I can squint a bit and see how the second sentence might be taken that way, and I apologise if Levivich does see it that way, it does not undermine the point I was making that there has been no shortage of evidence presented. ] (]) 11:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::If people would forgive an experienced Wikipedian/netizen for giving unsolicited advice...
*:::::::::::::::::@] (and everyone else here) I'm not sure if you know about tonality indicators, but While they were developed for people with neurodivergence negatively impacting social communication (autism, social communication disorder, etc.), they do have a ] for everyone else.
*:::::::::::::::::@] Part of ] can, at times, sometimes include being curious about tonality. A reminder to everyone that even I mess up on this, so I would appreciate a lack of dogpiling. ] ] ] 21:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::{{ping|Selfstudier}} —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::4 was procedural so I flipped to the evidence for 3 and the first thing I see is from a sock "The main problem with Palestine-Israel articles isn't necessarily the new editors or socks but rather some of the old editors who know how to play the rules and transfer Misplaced Pages into an outlet of propaganda instead of outlet of neutral knowledge. The only way to create a change is effective enforcement and punishment against editors who constantly violate the rules." Gosh, that sounds familiar. ] (]) 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Could I get a link for that quote please. Thanks, ] (]) 14:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::] ] (]) 14:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::::Thank you ] for that very interesting link. That statement was made by ], later blocked for .......socking. ] (]) 22:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::I find it useful to remember that sociopathy is not very rare, and Misplaced Pages's open access model means we get a large sample size. ] (]) 05:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::::Would it be a good idea to ] (]) 10:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)


*I get the sense Ivana either refused to respond or they were unrepentant and doubled-down. Either tends to be a very good way to get a site-and-topic-ban combo. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{Re|HJ Mitchell}} {{tq|the exact scope is still a little nebulous, and your idea of an introduction is a good one which I'll give more thought to before we open the case. The way I see it is we want to consider whether there are problems with those editors in particular or with the interactions between them, but we also want to explore why the entire topic area is such a problem and whether ArbCom can impose any remedies to help with that or to help admins deal with problems}}
*{{u|Huldra}} was very publicly accused of misconduct, is there any public statement on whether or not that evidence indicated any malfeasance on her part? And if it did not, is there any reason why such a public accusation is not met with just as public a refutation? ''']''' - 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::Are there any developments here? ] (]) 15:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The Committee does not generally publish exonerations or dismissals of claims via motion. We did however let Huldra know that we closed this without action in regards to her, and that we appreciated her patience and responsiveness throughout the process. ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::The committee also generally doesnt allow public accusations to be made based on private evidence. ''']''' - 18:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::Which is why we removed the accusations and made the issue private. ] <sup>]</sup>] 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::It has been on my mind that perhaps the committee should make such statements. Maybe not in private cases but in public ones. For example, findings of fact that explicitly reject items submitted in the evidence phase that were off-topic or not at all compelling. ] ] 19:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I recall suggesting something similar during my time on the committee (2015). However one of my fellow arbitrators (I don't remember who) was firmly of the opinion that every finding of fact should directly support at least one remedy. The same argument was made (I think by someone else) more recently when I suggested that things which were directly necessary for the situation being adjudicated to occur but which were themselves neutral <small>(I don't remember the context for this, but I do remember using the analogy of a rail accident investigation into why a train ran away - that it was on a gradient was necessary for the runaway to occur, and so a finding of fact was made to this effect, even though it was not relevant to any remedy)</small>. Every remedy should be supported by at least one finding of fact, but I still disagree that the only purpose of findings of fact is to support remedies. ] (]) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::I do kind of agree that the parts of a PD should lead into one another, but maybe it doesn't have to be part of the proposed decision. . A simple statement on the evidence talk page, for example, something along the lines of "we examined evidence related to <user> and did not find it compelling." Striking out evidence that doesn't show what is claimed could be considered as well. This is probably a bad test case as we don't actually know what the evidence was. ] ] 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@], not before a lot of us read the accusations. Should there be consequences for parties making public accusations on the basis of private evidence when those accusations are not upheld? '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Speaking generally, as obviously I have not seen the private evidence, there are multiple reasons why evidence presented may not lead to action being taken, including:
*:::::*The evidence shows the opposite to what is claimed
*:::::*The evidence clearly doesn't show anything (of consequence)
*:::::**This could be due to fabricated or misinterpreted evidence, or genuine evidence of things that are not problematic (e.g. claims of vandalism that turn out to be just removal of unsourced promotional material)
*:::::*The evidence is completely unclear
*:::::*The evidence shows evidence of something, but not conclusively enough to take action
*:::::**e.g. there is clear evidence of bad actions by someone but it is not clear (enough) who that someone is
*:::::*There are no actions that it is possible for Arbcom to take
*:::::**e.g. the evidence points to the bad actions exclusively being done by someone not on en.wp
*:::::*All the actions that Arbcom could take are moot
*:::::**e.g. a person who would be sanctioned already has been (whether for these actions or some other).
*:::::In several of the above, it's possible for evidence to have been presented in good or bad faith. What (if any) consequences there should be for the person submitting the evidence will depend on the circumstance. Fabricated evidence presented in bad faith is very different to genuine evidence presented in good faith that is simply insufficiently conclusive to take action. ] (]) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::: I think that presenting public accusations on private evidence should be prohibited and offenders should be sanctioned, whether or not the private evidence checks out. There is no excuse for it, and there wasn't an excuse this time, so I don't know why the offender was (afaik) allowed to get away with it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::: Technically it ''is'' prohibited, as it is casting aspersions without on-wiki evidence. My concern was that the whole laundry list of evidence-free accusations sat there for ''over three days'', with at least two arbs commenting on it, before Primefac finally removed it. It's still there in the page history, as well. ] 11:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*As I said in my response to the inquiry, I accept the judgement of the committee regarding me. I am however not pleased the committee seems to acquiesce to such clearly politically motivated acts of intimidation. Nothing new here I'm afraid. ] (]) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*:I will note in my opinion, the evidence for Tashmetu was weaker and their response made me unwilling to support the revocation, unlike with the other revocation. ] (]) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*While I am limited in what I can say, this coming out now, in December, has been for me a prime example of the limitations (which I mainly attribute to capacity) of this year's committee. Despite how long it took this seems to be a thoughtful and considered response. I have high hopes for next year's committee and hope they live up to (or exceed them). Best, ] (]) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
*I think we can all thank the committee for taking a reasoned and considered action, announcing it, and remember that people can and do learn and change and get 2nd chances and even 3rd chances. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)


I have some questions about the 2 "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction"
* I'm no ArbCom historian, so I'm wondering if ] is the first time that ArbCom has decided to limit discussion in a contentious topic. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
* Do they tell us something useful about the statute of limitations for gaming? In those cases, the gaming occurred many months ago. There seems to be a lack of clarity and diversity of views on this issue. The staleness question is relevant to a current AE case for example. Gaming is often spotted long after the EC grant is issued (or not at all probably). If there is something like a statute of limitations, it may make actively searching for accounts that look like they may have employed gaming worthwhile, at least for accounts that went on to edit in a contentious topic area.
*:You may be right. I'm not aware of anything similar being applied to a whole topic. I hope it will make editors think more carefully about what they want to say and resist the urge to reply to every opposing comment. ] &#124; ] 15:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
* Is gaming enough by itself or does there need to be another element of the "crime" to trigger removal of the privilege e.g. leapt into a contentious topic area post-EC grant, or was involved in edit warring, or off-wiki coordination etc.? Misplaced Pages provides several tools that people can use to pretty rapidly make 500 perfectly legitimate edits, so there seems to be a fuzzy boundary between ok and not-ok for the first 500 edits.
*:: "Replying to every opposing comment" is a problem in the area, but 50 words for each of 20 opposing editors (or 100*10) is enough for that, and Motion 2b (admin imposed limits on individuals) can control that. The most effective automatic way would be to restrict editors to their own sections. What concerns me more about 2c is that editors who like to bring reliable sources and quotations from them will reach the limit quite easily but we should be encouraging that approach to content issues. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
] (]) 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@] That's a fair criticism. I'd like to see how these new remedies bed in first, but if they cause more problems than they solve I'm happy to look at them again. Admins already have discretion so I hope they wouldn't sanction editors for exceeding a word limit by posting quotes from sources but similarly, if the remedies need fine-tuning to help discussions function effectively, we can look at that. And personally I welcome new ideas for helping the topic area to function. When the workshop phase opens in the case, please do post your suggestion for editors commenting only in their own sections, and any others you have. ] &#124; ] 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::I certainly wouldn't count quotations against the word total. ] (]) 19:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Of all the CT, it would appear that PIA is the one where ArbCom seems to be handling the most. As a result, it would appear that they try their new anti-disruption ideas at PIA, and then decide if it should apply to all CTs. ] ] 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::It's mainly because PIA has a ''''']]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]''''' history of being an intractible ethnopolitical hellhole topic area that the community cannot itself handle, even more so than the equally-long-running Eastern Europe topic area.<small>(yes, each of those letters is a link to a case that is centred in the PIA area.)</small> —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::{{tq|What concerns me more about 2c is that editors who like to bring reliable sources and quotations from them will reach the limit quite easily but we should be encouraging that approach to content issues.}} I'm not a huge fan of this restriction but I do think that in that case an editor could just present their quotations in another discussion thread or on a subpage, which wouldn't have such limits, and could then link to it in their RFC / RM comment. The purpose of the restriction is to get such discussions out of structured conversations, not to prevent people from producing large lists of quotes.--] (]) 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::This is happening right now, with me posting quotes in response to people saying "the sources don't say that", at ]. ] (]) 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Sooner or later a dispute will erupt between someone who does that and someone who thinks it is 'gaming' the word limit. Also, it would be better if the sources are where they are cited and not somewhere else. The best solution would be to fix the restriction to exclude citation and quotations of sources from the word limit. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Yeah and another advantage of having the rule explicitly say source cites/quotes don't count is that it will encourage editors to cite/quote sources in formal discussions, which would be good to do. ] (]) 02:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::I think @] makes a very good point and am more than happy to explicitly exclude sources from the word limit. I think the most useful thing that folks could muse on here would be draft wording. ] <sup>]</sup>] 03:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::@]: I proposed language at ]. ] (]) 16:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*:The committee passed ] in the Iranian politics case. Best, ] (]) 22:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Those are part of IRP's available discretionary sanctions; they aren't ArbCom explicitly limiting participants in discussions in the topic writ large. The closest thing I can think of would be ] and ], and those both are more about restricting the discussions themselves rather than the debate within them. —] ] <sup><small>] ]</small></sup> 07:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)


:There is no one sized fits all solution to ECP gaming I'm afraid. In this case of course, there was an off-wiki element which makes it perhaps a poor comparison to other cases. ] <sup>]</sup>] 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
==Request==
*
I am very disappointed with the fact that my admin. tools have been removed. I have been in this project for many years and I have hundreds of articules on my watchlist. I used my tools to revert unsourced information which are sometimes posted by vandals.
::I think if a) it can be shown that an editor employed gaming and b) the editor went on to make a significant proportion of the edits in a contentious topic area, then running a checkuser might reduce the ban evasion rate. I think this might be the case for a couple of reasons
::* The likelihood that a revision to an article was done by a ban evading actor is far higher in PIA than across Misplaced Pages in general. This is clear when you compare the PIA topic area to 500,000 randomly selected articles. For a PIA article revision, the chance that it's a sock edit is 5.9%, whereas for the random sample it's 2.9%, at least for the 2020 until now period. For the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, it's 6.82% vs 1.96%.
::* EC requirements appear to concentrate ban evading actors in the subpopulation with EC rights. This subpopulation is relatively small compared to the general population, which could be a useful feature. Annual grants for EC are generally only in the 3500 to 4500 accounts range as far as I can tell, very substantially less than the total number of new accounts each year. And the chance that an EC account is blocked for ban evasion is high, in the 5 to 10% range, depending on the year. Furthermore, the speed of EC acquisition, the number of days from registration to extendedconfirmed, tells you something about the likelihood that an account will be blocked for ban evasion i.e. the quicker someone acquires EC, the more likely they will be blocked for ban evasion. You can see that relationship for all newly acquired EC grants across Misplaced Pages from 2018 onwards.
::So, maybe gaming followed by contentious topic area editing could be an indicator of an increased likelihood of ban evasion. ] (]) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::], where are you getting these numbers from? Ironic, I know, but could you cite your source? And. not to a gif but some source that explains how this data was gathered and evaluated. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::{{u|Liz}}, voices in my head mostly. Also, from SQL executed on the analytics server from my laptop using my toolforge account, sometimes directly, sometimes with some extra processing using Python. hmmm...I'll think about how provide some background. I have been looking at the topic area for a while now. ] (]) 03:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


::::* The first background thing is the answer to the question "what is the topic area?". We don't know precisely so we (BilledMammal, Zero0000 and I) have used approximations and gathered stats based on those. The approximations use article titles and are normally limited to namespaces (0,1), but not always. The article titles are selected by looking for ARBPIA templated talk pages and pages that are members of both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects. This approximation has been slightly expanded recently to include pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine Collaboration project and pages that are in both the Israel and Lebanon wikiprojects and both the Israel and Syria wikiprojects. This could be expanded further of course to improve sampling, but the existing approximation seems to catch a large number of titles.
As a Wikipedian I have received many recognitions for my written work. However,, a certain admin here has recently began to haraze me continuesly and as such I guess said person can now be happy that my tools were removed. Please return my tools if you believe that this action was unjustified. Thank you.] (]) 00:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::* The second thing is the answer to the question "what is a ban evading actor, a sock?" In a perfect world (which is what external ML research projects appear to assume), you should be able to find ban evading actors by looking at the category graph because all actors blocked for sockpuppetry should be categorized as such. In reality, the category graph is incomplete. There are many accounts that have been blocked as socks that are not categorized as socks. This seems to be partly culture-related. Some editors seem to think that adding a sock template (which automatically categorizes the account) somehow gives credit to the actor. This is not helpful in my view, especially for ML project, partly because the category graph is the most efficient way to link accounts to sockmasters, which is very useful information. So, to handle this, actors are labeled as ban evading actors based on a combination of information from the category graph and from the block logs (looking for terms like checkuser, sock, multiple accounts etc. in the comments). Once you can label actors as ban evading actors you can , both inside the topic area and outside, and . You can also .
:The good news is that, if your tools are not returned, there's nothing stopping you from reverting vandalism or writing more articles, the two things that seem to be the focus of this request. ] (]) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::* The third thing is how to count extendedconfirmed grants. It is easy to see who has been granted the EC privilege and when. So, it is easy to e.g. , measure the difference between registration and the grant issue, and the difference between grant and a block for ban evasion.
:Has {{u|Hammersoft}} apologised to you yet, for his egregiously poor advice? ]'']'' 00:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::* Another thing is identifying gaming, which is quite an interesting unresolved issue for me. This was discussed a bit .
::::We have quite a lot of information about the topic area. Some examples follow. There are some plots for Top and High important articles for the Israel and Palestine projects. Some information about account ages for various articles , or over the whole topic area . . . ] (]) 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Forgot to mention the random sampling. It is easy to select n pages randomly and examine them. It only takes a few minutes to select, for example, 2 million pages and count the number of revisions by ban evading actors and normal editors, with an optional time range limit. I have code to do this in chunks to avoid getting hate mail from the cloud services people. For 2 million randomly selected articles, for the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, 1.97% of the revisions are by ban evading actors blocked for sockpuppetry (211,546 revisions out of 10,732,361). ] (]) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}
*Thank you, arb.com, for this announcement. As I expected, the only ones to be sanctions are/were relative "newbies" in the IP area (I am not familiar with any of them.)
*Which make me doubt BilledMammal's "evidence" that ZeiSquirrel is a banned sock: what experienced Wikipedian is such a fool that they break our "wiki-laws" ''in plain sight''? I haven't seen the evidence, but it better be water-tight for arb.com to take that as "the truth". It certainly needs to be better than the "evidence" against me. Cheers, ] (]) 20:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*Meanwhile over at ], ] and ] (HaOfa) have been blocked as Icewhiz socks. '']''<sup>]</sup> 13:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:::Also, in the meantime, lets enjoy the open ] on X () for "] on Dec. 19 about "Misplaced Pages’s anti-Israel bias and '''how to fight back against it'''." "'''Learn the tricks of the trade''' with Aaron Bandler, ]", () (My bolding), ] (]) 22:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
* If we're talking of disappointments, I was saddened that after your initial response {{u|Marine 69-71|you}} apparently took {{u|Hammersoft}}'s poor advice and ] the case rendering some form of desysop all but inevitable.{{pb}}Your post implies a worldview that sees the admin tools as a reward for good editing. They're not. The tools are given so that you can use them for the good of the community, not for yourself. You don't need the tools to revert unsourced information.{{pb}}If you have an issue with an admin your ] should be to start a discussion on their user talk page. You have not edited a user's talk page since your unfortunate comment, the discovery of which turned the ArbCom case against you.{{pb}}If you want the ArbCom to revisit its decision, ] is your next step. If ArbCom were to revert its decision (seems unlikely) it seems probable that you would be taken straight to the new ] process and, given that you have only used the tools to help yourself for quite some time, lose the tools again. ] (]) 10:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::"Learn the tools necessary to engage in online activism through much-needed Misplaced Pages editing to fight back against the hijacking of truth in the open learning forums".
*:I'm disappointed too, {{u|Marine 69-71|Tony}}. If you'd come back and said something like "I understand the concerns about my use of admin tools and I'll strive to do better in future. Also I realise that comment looks really creepy in hindsight; that's not the kind of person I want to be and I completely understand that that's not an appropriate way to behave in this community, especially coming from someone in a leadership position" I'd have opposed the desysop. ] &#124; ] 13:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::No surprise that some editors are wary new editors coming into the topic space. '']''<sup>]</sup> 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
*::As I said above: , Marine 69-71 had '''every opportunity''' to participate in the Arbcom discussion, he knew this was a serious matter but clearly '''chose''' not to after his statement on 27 October. If he had chosen to engage and recognized and addressed the issues then its likely that he could have got away with admonishment, until his inappropriate comment came to light, which then swung Arbcom to desysop. He has only misused the tools for his own benefit and ignored many of the most basic rules and requirements that would be expected of any user let alone an Admin. Admin is a position of responsibility to protect and advance the project, its not a knighthood or lifetime appointment, if you misuse the position you lose it. Marine 69-71's actions led to the Arbcom and his desysopping, he had many opportunities to defend himself and mitigate the fallout but didn't take any of them. This request should be ignored, if he wants to try his luck at RRFA then he can do so. ] (]) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I am sure whoever the valiant Misplaced Pages neutrality protector who stalked pro-Palestinian activists and doxed them is going to be on this case too! Afterall they were clearly only motivated by a desire to ensure adherence to Misplaced Pages code of conduct and had no other motives! ] (]) 07:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::I agree. It comes across as unresponsive and entitled. And critically lacking in reflection and introspection. ] 12:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It says right on The Israel Forever Foundation mission page "...enlightening, experiential, and apolitical learning and activism", so although I'm not quite sure I really know what the word experiential means, it all sounds like harmless fun. Just a bunch of enthusiastic people wanting to improve Misplaced Pages. Perhaps a source of fresh ideas like ronald, "The solution: Misplaced Pages should be blacklisted as a sponsor of terror and its staff should be imprisoned." It'll be fine. ] (]) 10:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::I suspect your chances of ever getting the admin rights back are slim, but your best bet is:
:::::I'm sure. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::# Wait at least a year before taking ''any'' related visible on-wiki action.
::::::Pease ]; I'm sure ] will report it if anything even close to ] occur, ] (]) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::# During this year, read the comments at ] to understand ''why'' you lost these rights, and figure out how to convince the community that you won't repeat these mistakes.
:::::::], I don't know if you are serious but I don't think you can rely on BilledMammal for regular reports. They have been on a WikiBreak (or retirement?) since November 14th. They haven't been involved in this case since it opened. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::# After the year is up, try a new RFA.
::::::::@], there's a tad bit of sarcasm from Sean, Huldra and myself. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::] ] 00:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@], I apologise for using this page for a bit of a banter (I think it is called: I am not a native English-speaker). In addition to this arb.com case, BilledMammal has made 14 AE reports only in 2024 (according to ]). AFAIK, ''every single one'' of them against editors deemed not pro-Israeli enough. The chance of BM making a case against pro-Israeli canvassing is, IMO, approximately zero. That is something editors not following the IP-area knows nothing about, therefor our (Sean, TarnishedPath, Tashmetu and myself) comments here were at the wrong place: my apologies, ] (]) 21:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== Proposed motions to improve ArbCom workflow ==
: ]<!-- ] (]) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

Latest revision as of 18:09, 23 December 2024

Shortcuts
What this page is for:
This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:
To request arbitration, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52


This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area

Original announcement
  • I get the sense Ivana either refused to respond or they were unrepentant and doubled-down. Either tends to be a very good way to get a site-and-topic-ban combo. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Huldra was very publicly accused of misconduct, is there any public statement on whether or not that evidence indicated any malfeasance on her part? And if it did not, is there any reason why such a public accusation is not met with just as public a refutation? nableezy - 18:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    The Committee does not generally publish exonerations or dismissals of claims via motion. We did however let Huldra know that we closed this without action in regards to her, and that we appreciated her patience and responsiveness throughout the process. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    The committee also generally doesnt allow public accusations to be made based on private evidence. nableezy - 18:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    Which is why we removed the accusations and made the issue private. CaptainEek ⚓ 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    It has been on my mind that perhaps the committee should make such statements. Maybe not in private cases but in public ones. For example, findings of fact that explicitly reject items submitted in the evidence phase that were off-topic or not at all compelling. Just Step Sideways 19:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I recall suggesting something similar during my time on the committee (2015). However one of my fellow arbitrators (I don't remember who) was firmly of the opinion that every finding of fact should directly support at least one remedy. The same argument was made (I think by someone else) more recently when I suggested that things which were directly necessary for the situation being adjudicated to occur but which were themselves neutral (I don't remember the context for this, but I do remember using the analogy of a rail accident investigation into why a train ran away - that it was on a gradient was necessary for the runaway to occur, and so a finding of fact was made to this effect, even though it was not relevant to any remedy). Every remedy should be supported by at least one finding of fact, but I still disagree that the only purpose of findings of fact is to support remedies. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I do kind of agree that the parts of a PD should lead into one another, but maybe it doesn't have to be part of the proposed decision. . A simple statement on the evidence talk page, for example, something along the lines of "we examined evidence related to <user> and did not find it compelling." Striking out evidence that doesn't show what is claimed could be considered as well. This is probably a bad test case as we don't actually know what the evidence was. Just Step Sideways 22:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek, not before a lot of us read the accusations. Should there be consequences for parties making public accusations on the basis of private evidence when those accusations are not upheld? TarnishedPath 23:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    Speaking generally, as obviously I have not seen the private evidence, there are multiple reasons why evidence presented may not lead to action being taken, including:
    • The evidence shows the opposite to what is claimed
    • The evidence clearly doesn't show anything (of consequence)
      • This could be due to fabricated or misinterpreted evidence, or genuine evidence of things that are not problematic (e.g. claims of vandalism that turn out to be just removal of unsourced promotional material)
    • The evidence is completely unclear
    • The evidence shows evidence of something, but not conclusively enough to take action
      • e.g. there is clear evidence of bad actions by someone but it is not clear (enough) who that someone is
    • There are no actions that it is possible for Arbcom to take
      • e.g. the evidence points to the bad actions exclusively being done by someone not on en.wp
    • All the actions that Arbcom could take are moot
      • e.g. a person who would be sanctioned already has been (whether for these actions or some other).
    In several of the above, it's possible for evidence to have been presented in good or bad faith. What (if any) consequences there should be for the person submitting the evidence will depend on the circumstance. Fabricated evidence presented in bad faith is very different to genuine evidence presented in good faith that is simply insufficiently conclusive to take action. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think that presenting public accusations on private evidence should be prohibited and offenders should be sanctioned, whether or not the private evidence checks out. There is no excuse for it, and there wasn't an excuse this time, so I don't know why the offender was (afaik) allowed to get away with it. Zero 11:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Technically it is prohibited, as it is casting aspersions without on-wiki evidence. My concern was that the whole laundry list of evidence-free accusations sat there for over three days, with at least two arbs commenting on it, before Primefac finally removed it. It's still there in the page history, as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • As I said in my response to the inquiry, I accept the judgement of the committee regarding me. I am however not pleased the committee seems to acquiesce to such clearly politically motivated acts of intimidation. Nothing new here I'm afraid. Tashmetu (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
    I will note in my opinion, the evidence for Tashmetu was weaker and their response made me unwilling to support the revocation, unlike with the other revocation. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • While I am limited in what I can say, this coming out now, in December, has been for me a prime example of the limitations (which I mainly attribute to capacity) of this year's committee. Despite how long it took this seems to be a thoughtful and considered response. I have high hopes for next year's committee and hope they live up to (or exceed them). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I think we can all thank the committee for taking a reasoned and considered action, announcing it, and remember that people can and do learn and change and get 2nd chances and even 3rd chances. Andre🚐 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I have some questions about the 2 "For gaming the extended confirmed restriction"

  • Do they tell us something useful about the statute of limitations for gaming? In those cases, the gaming occurred many months ago. There seems to be a lack of clarity and diversity of views on this issue. The staleness question is relevant to a current AE case for example. Gaming is often spotted long after the EC grant is issued (or not at all probably). If there is something like a statute of limitations, it may make actively searching for accounts that look like they may have employed gaming worthwhile, at least for accounts that went on to edit in a contentious topic area.
  • Is gaming enough by itself or does there need to be another element of the "crime" to trigger removal of the privilege e.g. leapt into a contentious topic area post-EC grant, or was involved in edit warring, or off-wiki coordination etc.? Misplaced Pages provides several tools that people can use to pretty rapidly make 500 perfectly legitimate edits, so there seems to be a fuzzy boundary between ok and not-ok for the first 500 edits.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no one sized fits all solution to ECP gaming I'm afraid. In this case of course, there was an off-wiki element which makes it perhaps a poor comparison to other cases. CaptainEek ⚓ 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I think if a) it can be shown that an editor employed gaming and b) the editor went on to make a significant proportion of the edits in a contentious topic area, then running a checkuser might reduce the ban evasion rate. I think this might be the case for a couple of reasons
  • The likelihood that a revision to an article was done by a ban evading actor is far higher in PIA than across Misplaced Pages in general. This is clear when you compare the PIA topic area to 500,000 randomly selected articles. For a PIA article revision, the chance that it's a sock edit is 5.9%, whereas for the random sample it's 2.9%, at least for the 2020 until now period. For the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, it's 6.82% vs 1.96%.
  • EC requirements appear to concentrate ban evading actors in the subpopulation with EC rights. This subpopulation is relatively small compared to the general population, which could be a useful feature. Annual grants for EC are generally only in the 3500 to 4500 accounts range as far as I can tell, very substantially less than the total number of new accounts each year. And the chance that an EC account is blocked for ban evasion is high, in the 5 to 10% range, depending on the year. Furthermore, the speed of EC acquisition, the number of days from registration to extendedconfirmed, tells you something about the likelihood that an account will be blocked for ban evasion i.e. the quicker someone acquires EC, the more likely they will be blocked for ban evasion. You can see that relationship here for all newly acquired EC grants across Misplaced Pages from 2018 onwards.
So, maybe gaming followed by contentious topic area editing could be an indicator of an increased likelihood of ban evasion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland, where are you getting these numbers from? Ironic, I know, but could you cite your source? And. not to a gif but some source that explains how this data was gathered and evaluated. Thank you. Liz 02:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Liz, voices in my head mostly. Also, from SQL executed on the analytics server from my laptop using my toolforge account, sometimes directly, sometimes with some extra processing using Python. hmmm...I'll think about how provide some background. I have been looking at the topic area for a while now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • The first background thing is the answer to the question "what is the topic area?". We don't know precisely so we (BilledMammal, Zero0000 and I) have used approximations and gathered stats based on those. The approximations use article titles and are normally limited to namespaces (0,1), but not always. The article titles are selected by looking for ARBPIA templated talk pages and pages that are members of both the Israel and Palestine wikiprojects. This approximation has been slightly expanded recently to include pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine Collaboration project and pages that are in both the Israel and Lebanon wikiprojects and both the Israel and Syria wikiprojects. This could be expanded further of course to improve sampling, but the existing approximation seems to catch a large number of titles.
  • The second thing is the answer to the question "what is a ban evading actor, a sock?" In a perfect world (which is what external ML research projects appear to assume), you should be able to find ban evading actors by looking at the category graph because all actors blocked for sockpuppetry should be categorized as such. In reality, the category graph is incomplete. There are many accounts that have been blocked as socks that are not categorized as socks. This seems to be partly culture-related. Some editors seem to think that adding a sock template (which automatically categorizes the account) somehow gives credit to the actor. This is not helpful in my view, especially for ML project, partly because the category graph is the most efficient way to link accounts to sockmasters, which is very useful information. So, to handle this, actors are labeled as ban evading actors based on a combination of information from the category graph and from the block logs (looking for terms like checkuser, sock, multiple accounts etc. in the comments). Once you can label actors as ban evading actors you can easily count their revisions, both inside the topic area and outside, and distinguish them from accounts not blocked for sockpuppetry. You can also make timelines of their activities.
  • The third thing is how to count extendedconfirmed grants. It is easy to see who has been granted the EC privilege and when. So, it is easy to e.g. track this over time, measure the difference between registration and the grant issue, and the difference between grant and a block for ban evasion.
  • Another thing is identifying gaming, which is quite an interesting unresolved issue for me. This was discussed a bit here.
We have quite a lot of information about the topic area. Some examples follow. There are some plots in here for interest for Top and High important articles for the Israel and Palestine projects. Some information about account ages for various articles here, or over the whole topic area here. Unique editor counts over time. Ways to look at protection and talk page ARBPIA templating. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to mention the random sampling. It is easy to select n pages randomly and examine them. It only takes a few minutes to select, for example, 2 million pages and count the number of revisions by ban evading actors and normal editors, with an optional time range limit. I have code to do this in chunks to avoid getting hate mail from the cloud services people. For 2 million randomly selected articles, for the post-Oct 7, 2023 year, 2023-10-07 to 2024-10-06, 1.97% of the revisions are by ban evading actors blocked for sockpuppetry (211,546 revisions out of 10,732,361). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, in the meantime, lets enjoy the open canvassing on X (link) for "Israel Forever Foundation on Dec. 19 about "Misplaced Pages’s anti-Israel bias and how to fight back against it." "Learn the tricks of the trade with Aaron Bandler, Jewish Journal", (lets sign up) (My bolding), Huldra (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
"Learn the tools necessary to engage in online activism through much-needed Misplaced Pages editing to fight back against the hijacking of truth in the open learning forums".
No surprise that some editors are wary new editors coming into the topic space. TarnishedPath 23:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
I am sure whoever the valiant Misplaced Pages neutrality protector who stalked pro-Palestinian activists and doxed them is going to be on this case too! Afterall they were clearly only motivated by a desire to ensure adherence to Misplaced Pages code of conduct and had no other motives! Tashmetu (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
It says right on The Israel Forever Foundation mission page "...enlightening, experiential, and apolitical learning and activism", so although I'm not quite sure I really know what the word experiential means, it all sounds like harmless fun. Just a bunch of enthusiastic people wanting to improve Misplaced Pages. Perhaps a source of fresh ideas like ronald, "The solution: Misplaced Pages should be blacklisted as a sponsor of terror and its staff should be imprisoned." It'll be fine. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure. TarnishedPath 11:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Pease WP:AGF; I'm sure User:BilledMammal will report it if anything even close to canvassing occur, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Huldra, I don't know if you are serious but I don't think you can rely on BilledMammal for regular reports. They have been on a WikiBreak (or retirement?) since November 14th. They haven't been involved in this case since it opened. Liz 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, there's a tad bit of sarcasm from Sean, Huldra and myself. TarnishedPath 05:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Liz, I apologise for using this page for a bit of a banter (I think it is called: I am not a native English-speaker). In addition to this arb.com case, BilledMammal has made 14 AE reports only in 2024 (according to this). AFAIK, every single one of them against editors deemed not pro-Israeli enough. The chance of BM making a case against pro-Israeli canvassing is, IMO, approximately zero. That is something editors not following the IP-area knows nothing about, therefor our (Sean, TarnishedPath, Tashmetu and myself) comments here were at the wrong place: my apologies, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)