Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments concerning motion

As part of our recent investigation into off-wiki misconduct, we had been made aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#11_April_2025. Two of the alleged socks of Smallangryplanet have now been ArbCom blocked. However, our investigation did not reveal direct evidence of off-wiki misconduct by Smallangryplanet or Lf8u2. Given the public SPI, which constitutes the extent of the evidence we are currently aware of, the Committee has opted to hear these motions in public. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

{{ivmbox|For violations of WP:NPOV, likely violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Presumption of coordination,{{efn|{{tq|When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions}}}} {{user|Smallangryplanet}} is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.}}

{{notelist}}

{{ACMajority|active=13|abstain = 1|motion=yes}}

Support:

1. If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves. With the crossover with editors we know are coordinating I think a topic ban is reasonable. As well as the SPI, there's situations where one can't decide which of the responses is an editor banned for off-wiki coordination or an editor that consistently supports one side of a conflict, e.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_attack&oldid=1277752785#Requested_move_3_November_2024]{{pb}}{{tq|Strongly support Tel al-Sultan massacre, Rafah massacre, or Tent Massacre, with a preference for Tent Massacre as that is what RS are calling it.}}{{pb}}{{tq|Support massacre with no preference for the rest (I've seen the place being referred to as Rafah more often, but haven't done a proper analysis so maybe that's just my impression). Per nom and other comments, there's not a lack of RS using the term.}}{{pb}}{{tq|Strong support for massacre in the title, with a preference for "Rafah Tent Massacre". I concur with @Makeandtoss, @Abo Yemen et al. that the term 'massacre' is employed by reputable sources}}{{pb}}We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV, and that {{tq|When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions}}. We know there is off-wiki coordination, we want the topic area to be better, and we say that CTOPs/AE allow admins to take these actions, so let's show them we mean it. We can't expect an admin or four to stick their necks out if we're not willing to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :To clarify, per my response below, simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. As per my comments internally last month, I agree with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FMotions&diff=1287770623&oldid=1287761673 SFR's comments here] as to how to weigh the collection of evidence as a whole against the relevant outcomes. My views around this were strengthened with the recent action we took against two other editors. The discussion below, while very extensive and worthy of careful consideration, has not dissuaded me from this position. Daniel (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
4. I find myself answering Eek's question in the discussion below with "yes". Primefac (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
5. While the private evidence we have received does not directly and unambiguously show that these two editors have engaged in off-wiki coordination, it does show a pattern and timing that, when combined with their activity on-wiki, shows that they highly likely to have engaged in off-wiki coordination. Enough is enough. - Aoidh (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Having strong views on the conflict is fine, of course, but editing in a consistently-slanted way is not. If you can guess with ~100% accuracy how someone will land in a discussion based solely on which "side" they are on, they are bringing little value to such discussions. Combining that with circumstantial evidence of coordination is enough to land here. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I guess I'll say at the outset that if these motions pass, I won't be losing any sleep over the fact that Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 will be topic-banned from ARBPIA. Like Elli, I'm not exactly convinced that they're contributors devoted to constructing a neutral encyclopedia, and were I looking at their records as an individual admin, I could definitely see a battleground-based case for a balanced editing restriction or a topic ban. But that's not the case that was made here, and as a result, the hurdles that due process demands of a fair system haven't been cleared. In particular, I take strong issue with the case made by some in the support section above: {{tq2|ScottishFinnishRadish: If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves. With the crossover with editors we know are coordinating I think a topic ban is reasonable. {{pb}} Elli: Having strong views on the conflict is fine, of course, but editing in a consistently-slanted way is not. If you can guess with ~100% accuracy how someone will land in a discussion based solely on which "side" they are on, they are bringing little value to such discussions. Combining that with circumstantial evidence of coordination is enough to land here.}} In other words, it doesn't really matter if the evidence on the off-wiki coordination charges aren't ironclad, because we know that there's off-wiki coordination out there somewhere, these people look suspicious, and it's probably for the best that they get topic-banned anyway, so let's skip the boring paperwork. {{pb}} That argument deprives Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 of the chance to actually defend themselves against the charges they're up against a topic ban for. Two arbitrators have decided that the editing history of these two editors renders them partisans who are not in this topic area to edit constructively, an assertion that has been at all litigated here at ARM or in private. No concrete evidence is presented in support of it. It's somewhat based on the fact that the selected sample of votes shown here consistently align with a certain point of view, which is not the same thing as proving that those editors prioritize their ideology over policy and guideline. Also, as long as we're talking about partisanship, there's the other elephant in the room: the filer of that SPI happens to be on the opposite side of the aisle of the four people they're gunning for. I wish editors in this area were willing to police people they agree with ideologically, but it basically never happens, which contributes a lot to the feeling that there are two entrenched camps attempting to break each other by any means necessary.{{pb}} Aoidh and others do argue in the support section that the off-wiki coordination case is, in and of itself, compelling enough for a topic ban. I respect that argument, but looking at the facts of the case here, I don't agree with the conclusion. Yes, we know SAP, Lf8u2, GeoColdWater, and Isoceles-sai all started increasing their participation around the same time Tech4Palestine was born, but there's a pretty reasonable case that that's just a coincidence given that Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 were not, to our knowledge, part of T4P. Yes, we know that Isoceles-sai, GeoColdWater, and Lf8u2 voted in a lot of the same discussions that Smallangryplanet (the most experienced of the four here) did, but some of the evidence doesn't hold up here – the most plausible coordination fact-pattern would be that the three less experienced editors were taking cues from SAP, but SAP cast a decent number of their votes after the less experienced editors. Also, there would have to be some unknown server that links all four of these editors that started around the same time as T4P, so while it's tough to dismiss this as a coincidence – the overlap does seem higher than what I'd expect, even for PIA – the fact pattern for it being not being a coincidence also feels bizarre. The wording of the votes in question don't at all look similar to me, aside from the fact that they're all supporting the same thing. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they were all coordinating, but there's just not enough to go on. {{pb}} Partisanship is something ArbCom should be stamping out. If we had made this case about how these editors' (and others'!) activities put ideological interests above the integrity of the encyclopedia, we'd be setting a wonderful example for AE admins and the community on how to draw lines of clearly unacceptable conduct. Instead, frustratingly, the sloppiness of the argument not only prevents me from voting in favor of something that I think is probably net positive in and of itself, but that it hampers ArbCom in doing exactly what many supporting arbitrators would like it to do, which is to lay out a clear, consistent philosophy of partisan editing that AE admins can rely on in making controversial decisions. Circumstantial evidence about one charge plus unsubstantiated assertions about another does not equal a slam-dunk case, and I think that the precedents we're setting here about what constitutes improper editing and standards of evidence are out of step with what the community expects from us as a methodical, deliberative, and reasoned body. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox|For violations of WP:NPOV, likely violations of Wikipedia's policies on Wikipedia:Canvassing and off-wiki coordination, and per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Presumption of coordination,{{efn|{{tq|When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions}}}} {{user|Lf8u2}} is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed.}}

{{notelist}}

{{ACMajority|active=13|abstain = 1|motion=yes}}

Support:

1. If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves. With the crossover with editors we know are coordinating I think a topic ban is reasonable. As well as the SPI, there's situations where one can't decide which of the responses is an editor banned for off-wiki coordination or an editor that consistently supports one side of a conflict, e.g.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tel_al-Sultan_attack&oldid=1277752785#Requested_move_3_November_2024]{{pb}}{{tq|Strongly support Tel al-Sultan massacre, Rafah massacre, or Tent Massacre, with a preference for Tent Massacre as that is what RS are calling it.}}{{pb}}{{tq|Support massacre with no preference for the rest (I've seen the place being referred to as Rafah more often, but haven't done a proper analysis so maybe that's just my impression). Per nom and other comments, there's not a lack of RS using the term.}}{{pb}}{{tq|Strong support for massacre in the title, with a preference for "Rafah Tent Massacre". I concur with @Makeandtoss, @Abo Yemen et al. that the term 'massacre' is employed by reputable sources}}{{pb}}We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV, and that {{tq|When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions}}. We know there is off-wiki coordination, we want the topic area to be better, and we say that CTOPs/AE allow admins to take these actions, so let's show them we mean it. We can't expect an admin or four to stick their necks out if we're not willing to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
2. :To clarify, per my response below, simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
3. Per commentary above. Daniel (talk) 03:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
4. I find myself answering Eek's question in the discussion below with "yes". Primefac (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
5. Per my comment above. - Aoidh (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
6. Per above. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I ain't writing all of that a second time, see above :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I don't at all agree that consistently editing in support of one side is a violation of NPOV if the individual edits aren't NPOV violations. What if someone consistently focuses on articles that are skewed towards one POV when the consensus of reliable sources supports another? I think it would be inconsistent with NPOV and WP:VOLUNTEER to require that someone include false balance in their editing. Misinterpreting sources due to carelessness is an issue; misinterpreting sources in ways that emphasize or advance one POV is unacceptable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :SFR does say elsewhere that {{tq|Simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine.}} I do agree with that, and wish it was clearer in their vote above. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{yo|MarioGom}} Picking the brain of an expert here :) you were the patrolling clerk at the original SPI thread, where you closed for lack of evidence: {{tq|When evaluating sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry at SPI, we have to decide whether strength of evidence raises above the expected background noise of each signal in certain topics. That background noise here is very high. That's usually the case for overlaps in broad contentious topics.}}
• ::In light of the fact that two of the editors in the report have now been ArbCom banned for off-wiki coordination, would you say your analysis has changed significantly? On the one hand, it'd be odd for Isoceles-sai and Geocoldwater to be on two separate off-wiki coordination venues together, one of which we don't know about and has SAP and Lf8u2, the other of which we do know about and has Ivana. On the other hand, the high overlap with people who were weighing in mostly on discussions that were targets of off-wiki coordination is somewhat suspicious. Do you think the new evidence changes the calculations here? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• As I understand it, the question before us is: based on circumstantial evidence of collusion of Lf8u2 & Smallangryplanet with Isoceles-Sai & GeoColdwater, and concrete evidence of off-wiki misconduct by Isoceles-Sai and GeoColdwater, is that circumstantial connection enough for us to assume that Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet were also involved in off-wiki misconduct, such that a topic ban is warranted? These motions were originally proposed in private, but given that we found no private evidence of misconduct, I suggested that it would be more transparent for us to handle the matter in public. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Like @Lf8u2 I am...confused as to why this motion was brought when it has already been stated that there is no evidence that we were part of any coordination, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#c-MarioGom-20250413083200-Clerk,_CheckUser,_and/or_patrolling_admin_comments this is why the SPI case was closed as well]. If there was to be any follow up on that case I frankly would have expected a case to be brought against the user who falsely accused myself and Lf8u2 of rather extreme things without evidence...

I’m not sure how to give evidence proving something that doesn’t exist and I will again point to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#c-Smallangryplanet-20250412113000-Smallangryplanet_2 my reponse] to @Chess, and add that any overlap between myself and the three other editors – who, if we're being honest, appeared to be randomly chosen since there is the same degree if not higher of overlap between myself, them and others as @VR [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#c-Vice_regent-20250413055000-Vice_regent pointed out] – is entirely incidental.

Additionally on a more abstract policy point I continue to believe that it is not a violation of any rules to agree with people in a shared area of interest in a talk page discussion. I don’t know why other users were banned, and I think there is a distinction between inappropriate POV pushing and articulating well sourced information in pursuit of consensus, as I have consistently done. I also think it potentially creates a dangerous and easily-abused standard to suggest that finding consensus with other editors is somehow de-facto suspicious. On a purely personal note I should add that this case has been filed during a two week period in which I’m not able to edit Wikipedia very often, so responses may be sporadic until next week/early May and I ask for some patience. Thank you. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Okay, hello. I've found some time to look at the discussion, and there's nothing but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&curid=23968567&diff=1288251124&oldid=1288219037 speculative and very weak misrepresentations of data points] that, as @Zero0000 noted, appear significant only if one accepts the assumption of guilt for the initial – and crucially, disproven (as written by SPI admin) – charge. Then I read something @Theleekycauldron [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#c-Theleekycauldron-20250502164800-Theleekycauldron-20250428030300 raised] which I am not sure even they fully grasped the significance of, and realised the situation is even more egregious than I initially thought, namely: {{tq|On the one hand, it'd be odd for Isoceles-sai and Geocoldwater to be on two separate off-wiki coordination venues together, one of which we don't know about and has SAP and Lf8u2, the other of which we do know about and has Ivana.}}

:The motion and the entire case by @Chess is self-referentially incoherent, and the stronger he appears to make it based on arbitrarily assembled (and misrepresented) data points – the more it is proven to be so.

:Let me explain: Two of the editors who were part of the original SPI case, @Isoceles-sai and @GeoColdWater, have now been banned based on evidence provided to Arbcom [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Off-wiki_misconduct_in_Palestine%E2%80%93Israel_topic_area_II proving their membership of an off-site canvassing and coordination group]. The same evidence was found not to exist for the editors this motion is about, yours truly and @Lf8u2, even though it was alleged that we are all part of the same coordination group.

:Again and again and again and again, I have to point out that this is self-contradictory. If we are all part of the same coordination group, the same evidence would by necessity exist for all of us. That's the entire point of the accusation against us, that we are all part of the same coordination group. The same applies to our alleged membership of the "T4P" group, for which also no evidence has been presented, just more of the same idle speculation based on data points regarding overlap and timing that only have any significance if our guilt is assumed, and @Zero0000 has shown that those data points were misleadingly presented to create the appearance of significance while in fact they are entirely ordinary for any active editor editing in any CTOP where editors align with the same general perspective. Whew.

:So. Every data point assembled as evidence of coordination on our part with the banned editors or one another is purely arbitrary speculation based on the presumption of membership of a group that was conclusively disproven when these coordination efforts were exposed as we were shown to not be part of the group in question!

:This means that the overlaps and other data points assembled as proof of coordination in fact disprove Chess' allegations, since if there were such a thing it would have shown up in the same batch of incontrovertible evidence for the T4P bans and the recent bans of the two other editors. @Chess has masterfully made the case for why there isn't coordination by myself and Lf8u2 despite the non-significant overlaps and other data points, and in a frankly delightful and simultaneously very frustrating irony the more data points he assembles the more he proves our innocence of his own charge.

:I want to again thank @Theleekycauldron for raising this crucially important point that definitively exonerates myself and @Lf8u2 from the frivolous charge against us: {{tq|On the one hand, it'd be odd for Isoceles-sai and Geocoldwater to be on two separate off-wiki coordination venues together, one of which we don't know about and has SAP and Lf8u2, the other of which we do know about and has Ivana.}}

:...to which I've gotta say: Yes, exactly! This point exonerates both myself and LF8u2. Both coordination groups were uncovered with actual direct evidence, the latest two just recently, so if we had been part of it all along as is alleged, the same would be true of us!

:I suspect the folks at Arbcom are aware of the fundamentally contradictory nature of the allegation(s) against us, and so they are requesting a topic-ban instead of a site-wide ban, which as far as I can tell is the historically appropriate sanction for the allegation of off-site canvassing and coordination. It seems like the admins not only know there is no evidence for any misconduct as they have stated in the motion, but also that the evidence that was found conclusively disproves it (as I explained), so they downgraded the potential sanction to make it seem more palatable. I argue that the appropriate response when something is conclusively disproven is to not to bring motions against editors to have them sanctioned at all, rather than to try to appease the accuser by proposing a downgraded version of a sanction!

:Turning back to Chess now, all this makes what happened with the original SPI case all the more outrageous. Based on the facts we can all verify, not idle speculation, we know or at least can assume that Chess had evidence of off-site coordination on the part of the two now banned editors, and instead of bringing it to Arbcom directly so they could take the appropriate action, he decided to cast aspersions with a guilt by association SPI case and extend it to myself and Lf8u2.

:Also, after @Zero0000's probing of his ever-shifting allegations and exposure of the misrepresented data points to create the appearance of significance, Chess let the truth slip: {{tq| I'm sorry that we don't have a detailed confession made in a publicly accessible Discord server that several newspaper articles spent months reporting on. Smallangryplanet and Lf8u2 have better opsec than that.}}

:This only confirms the self-referentially incoherent and just plain contradictory nature of his own charge, and that he was aware of it yet still persisted in making what he must have known was a false charge against us, for if we were part of the same coordination group our op-sec would be identical. He had hoped no one would notice this, but thankfully Theleekycauldron did.

:Why did Chess, who it seems had actual evidence of off-site coordination on the part of Isoceles-sai and GeoColdWater that was supplied to Arbcom and led to their ban, knowing full well that it excluded myself and Lf8u2, decide to ignore that fact and instead make a case that implicated us?

:What appears to have happened is that Chess found the evidence of coordination on the part of the two now banned editors and opted to use them as a weapon to go after myself and Lf8u2 by using what he knew were misrepresented data points, and having implicated us, he could extend the net ever farther and wider. He pursued all this despite knowing full well that the evidence he had proving the two now banned editors were part of a coordination effort excluded us, thereby proving that we were in fact not part of the alleged collaboration group.

:I noted [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smallangryplanet/Archive#c-Smallangryplanet-20250412113000-Smallangryplanet_2 in my reply] to the SPI case, and others like @Parabolist [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#c-Parabolist-20250501072300-Chess-20250501043600 have noted it here as well], that Chess has a history of making frivolous accusations against editors in this CTOP who are, as he says, {{tq|Pro-Palestinian}}. The insistence on all of us being members of a group called T4P – which, conveniently, those of us who aren't cannot ever disprove to his liking as it is based entirely on speculative inference from misrepresented overlaps – is a useful tool for proposing and expanding an ever-larger and sinister network, where anyone who disagrees with Chess is defacto a malicious entity. This is certainly the attempt being made here, now.

:This is again truly outrageous behaviour, and it's only getting worse the more @Chess assembles selective data points and draws inaccurate or spurious conclusions between them, using the ghosts of previously banned editors to imply that editors who find consensus in a particular CTOP must be coordinating because if they weren't...well, why would anyone have these opinions otherwise? NPOV dispute makes it clear that these kinds of accusations are a last resort, and I will once again say that it creates an extremely dangerous precedent to suggest that consistently disagreeing with someone, or several someones, should seemingly automatically trigger accusations of misbehaviour. I will be extremely vague to avoid OUTING myself here but in my off-wiki life I work in a sometimes contentious role where I am often having to work things through with my colleagues, and when some of us agree and some of us disagree, this is seen as normal and indeed beneficial to the task at hand, since it produces better results because, as on Wikipedia, we need to investigate our own preconceptions and other sources and come to a satisfactory consensus to move forward. Sometimes we emerge from these discussions believing more strongly in our original proposition, sometimes our notions change.

:(Apologies for possibly overstepping various word count limits - I had a small period of time in which to respond to a sprawling conversation. I should be more normally around later this upcoming week, and once again ask for and appreciate your patience. Please let me know if you have any questions and if there is anything I can expand upon.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I remain perplexed as to why this motion was brought against me, particularly given the confirmed finding that no evidence was discovered to support the accusation of coordination and sockpuppetry in my case. As no evidence exists, I do not know on what basis a case proceeds, nor exactly what I am expected to say concerning something that is patently false except to reiterate that it is.

At this juncture, there is one point I feel compelled to address. @ScottishFinnishRadish extended beyond the initial SPI case which found no evidence of misconduct on my part and introduced an additional justification for supporting a topic ban, namely: {{tq| If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what, we should be willing to do it ourselves.}}

{{tq| Simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. The evidence for these two editors is circumstantial and involves a judgement call. After considering the evidence and the factors I mentioned, as well as the Arbcom precedent noted in the motion, in my judgement there is enough likelihood that they were involved in the off-wiki coordination that I'm comfortable with a topic ban.}}

I must underscore that this POV-pushing in supposed violation of NPOV reasoning is unrelated to the initial now disproven accusation of coordination and sockpuppetry; thus, I am unclear as to why @ScottishFinnishRadish cited it as grounds for supporting a topic ban originating in that disproven claim. I am entirely in agreement with @Sp, {{tq| I also have problems with the "our investigation did not reveal direct evidence of off-wiki misconduct" but still bringing these motions forth. If there were real problems, a case should have been brought forth and/or an WP:AE}}

Moreover, I do not know how one can determine whether a position "benefits the Palestinian point of view" and is therefore suspicious when the argumentation provided for it is based on RS and policy, as is the case with my edits and votes. As pointed out by @Zero0000, subjective characterization of positions benefitting a Palestinian or Israeli point of view or the Israeli can only be demonstrated via objective criteria, such as misrepresenting RS and making policy-violating edits to push a particular POV. Instead there is only an appeal to the disproven SPI coordination sockpuppetry case. In regards to the cited previous RfC regarding Nuseirat and the use of the term "massacre," it was noted that I supported the use of that term. However, I have presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#c-Lf8u2-20250321161900-Closetside-20250306054800 extensive argumentation] grounded in RS and NPOV principles, which was not referenced. Furthermore, my arguments were distinct from those of other editors active in the RfC, and I consistently strive to offer a unique perspective in discussions.

The standard @ScottishFinnishRadish is applying to me to justify a topic ban appears particularly curious to those familiar with the subject area, or any subject area as noted by @Sp. Numerous editors engage exclusively in edits and votes that could be characterized as "benefitting an Israeli point of view," many of whom became notably active after October 7, often cast brief, one- or two-line votes supporting the Israeli perspective, employ similar verbiage, while participating in discussions that have been the subject of documented off-site coordination and sockpuppetry (as @Smallangryplanet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#Ongoing_canvassing_campaign_targeting_this_topic_and_RfC demonstrated] regarding the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#c-Smallangryplanet-20250316125200-Closetside-20250306054800 Nuseirat RfC], and this also applies to others). Moreover, the degree of overlap among these editors is the same or greater than what has been demonstrated in my case. As @Sp observed, this is entirely to be expected given the nature of how subject areas work. Active editors in them tend to overlap and align when they share general perspectives.

Nevertheless, no editor has been banned, nor has any case been initiated against them for engaging in the behaviors @ScottishFinnishRadish now cites as justification for supporting a topic ban in my case.

I share @Sp's grave concerns with @ScottishFinnishRadish's behavior, and I shall extend that to @Chess, the editor who made the initial accusation against me that was found to be without evidence. I do not know why they have not been reprimanded or sanctioned for doing so, and instead a motion was made against me.

If it is to become standard practice to question or sanction editors based on such criteria, then it is essential to establish a clear, uniformly applicable policy outlining these expectations. Furthermore, precise definitions of what constitutes "benefitting a Palestinian or Israeli point of view" must be articulated, rather than relying on subjective assessments by individual administrators. Then apply it consistently to everyone who meets these criteria.

I must reiterate: none of these alleged POV-pushing arguments pertain to the initial, proven-to-be-unsubstantiated accusation of coordination brought against me in the SPI case. Consequently, I remain at a loss as to why a motion was initiated against me when it has been demonstrated that no evidence supports the initial charge.

Should the administrators require any further information or clarification from my side, I would be pleased to provide it. Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Lf8u2 (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Chess states: {{tq| I dug through most of Lf8u2's talk !votes before filing the SPI. The most obvious behavioural trait is !voting the same way in requested moves in Israel-Palestine.}}

:{{tq|The largest inconsistency with policy is when adding "massacre" to article titles. WP:NCENPOV says "massacre" is appropriate if it is part of the WP:COMMONNAME or a "generally accepted word used to identify the event". However, editors in this cluster will !vote to add "massacre" based on only a few reliable sources.}}

:So, @Chess disagrees with my talk page contributions and !votes, which once more I must reiterate are always based in RS and policy and I always endeavor to make insighftul. Chess disagrees specifically with my support for the addition of "massacre" in the Nuseirat case, even though I presented [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#c-Lf8u2-20250321161900-Closetside-20250306054800 detailed argumentation for it] which are entirely in line with the RS standard and policy, as observed by @Thryduulf.

:If it is considered sufficient to bring a case against me on such a basis, then it must logically follow that cases should also be brought against virtually every other active editor in this subject area since the alleged "behavioural traits" are neither unique nor policy-violating.

:We must begin with bringing a case against all those who agree with my position in the Nuseirat case to include the use of "massacre": @M.Bitton, @Rainsage, @Skitash, @Cdjp1, @Genabab, @Raskolnikov.Rev. We must also look at the previous RfCs for anyone who supported the same position, and also support a ban on them.

:And those who believe like me that supporting the use of "massacre" in other instances where @Chess believes it is a violation of WP:NCENPOV must also be banned per the same logic. This includes the editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rafah_paramedic_massacre#Requested_move_23_April_2025 in this ongoing RfC] where Chess has proposed the removal of "massacre" citing the same rule: @Darouet, @The Great Mule of Eupatoria.

:We must also find the percentages of overlap between editors in votes and ban them if they are at the same level if not higher than @Chess pointed out in my case.

:I can keep going, but I hope the point is made. @Chess wants to apply a standard to me that will result in the banning of most if not all editors in this and other subject areas if it were to be applied equally to all.

:If @Chess brought a case against me or anyone else in AE on these grounds, it would be dismissed out of hand for being a frivolous content dispute case, and I assume a sanction would also be imposed.

:Instead, @Chess elected to link me to three other editors as part of an unfounded and evidence-free allegation of coordination and sockpuppetry, and it was found to be without evidence.

:Thus, I must once again question why I am the subject of a motion, rather than the editor who made baseless accusations that were found to be unsupported by evidence, and who is now attempting to retroactively recast the matter as a content dispute — one that could equally be applied to many if not most other editors active in this and other subject areas. Lf8u2 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• There's one question I have about {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}'s vote: {{tq|We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV}}:
• One of the things I should do as a good faith editor to show I am not violating WP:NPOV is to !vote in ways that don't help my particular side but is still consistent with my interpretation of the rules.
• In this particular case, the fact that 100% of Lf8u2's 16 !votes (out of 17 !votes to all talk pages) relating to the Palestine-Israel conflict benefitted a Palestinian point of view indicated a violation of WP:NPOV.
• This would be true even if every individual !vote had a consistent interpretation of our policies.
• If the pattern of Lf8u2 exclusively supporting Palestinian viewpoints didn't exist, would you have voted differently? Or were there other considerations? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• :There are a number of things that informed my vote in this situation. Simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction, and absent other factors is generally fine. In this situation there is a lot more to look at. We have editors that have become active or resumed activity after the current escalation in the conflict, edit in support of one side of the conflict, take part in discussions that have been the target of off-wiki coordination, !vote in-line with and with similar verbiage to editors banned for off-wiki coordination, and since their return to editing have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict. The evidence for these two editors is circumstantial and involves a judgement call. After considering the evidence and the factors I mentioned, as well as the Arbcom precedent noted in the motion, in my judgement there is enough likelihood that they were involved in the off-wiki coordination that I'm comfortable with a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} The difficulty here is that you're trying to set an example for WP:Arbitration Enforcement, but I don't think you're showing a generalizable example here for a topic ban because it's so fact-specific.
• ::I think Smallangryplanet is extremely suspicious (I reported them, after all) because there's 3 accounts found by ArbCom to engage in offwiki canvassing and also spent most of their time supporting Smallangryplanet (CoolAndUniqueUsername [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive343#CoolAndUniqueUsername who I reported at AE, later EC-revoked], Isoceles-sai , and GeoColdWater). Lf8u2 has the same behavioural traits as well. But it's unclear what general lessons you want administrators at AE to take from this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I forgot to mention this at the SPI, but the the Tech 4 Palestine Discord introduced Ivana as the "resident Wikipedia expert" in April of 2024.[https://archive.is/ZqHRu] Smallangryplanet, Lf8u2, Isoceles-sai, and GeoColdWater all have activity changes in that month or the month immediately after.
• :*Smallangryplanet went from 10 edits in April of 2024 to 117 in May of 2024.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Smallangryplanet] May 2024 was also the month Smallangryplanet made their first talk page !vote.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=Smallangryplanet&offset=20240521190614&limit=500][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1224685642] This was to the same discussion as Ivana at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel
• :*Lf8u2 made their first contribution to a talk page in May of 2024 to Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=&namespace=1&start=&tagfilter=&target=Lf8u2&offset=&limit=500][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1224880473] This was reverted, but they came back to !vote for real on the same article the next month.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1229496664]
• :*Isoceles-sai created their account in April of 2024.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=161436773]
• :*GeoColdWater went from 4 edits in March of 2024 to 24 edits in April of 2024.[https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/GeoColdWater]
• :In response to Lf8u2's point that my logic is applicable to other editors: I'm aware. Most of the editors Lf8u2 listed have long histories before the October 7 attacks. However, some of the editors mentioned do share behavioural characteristics with Lf8u2. I only picked the strongest for the initial SPI report, though. I'll pick the second editor Lf8u2 mentioned because I don't want to look through all of M.Bitton's talk page contributions. Rainsage began editing in April of 2024, then their first three !votes were to agree with Lf8u2, Ivana, and Smallangryplanet.
• :* Rainsage began editing in April of 2024

{{cot|title=Analysis of Rainsage's !votes}}

• :* Their first !vote was to the requested move at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, citing Lf8u2, Smallangryplanet, and Ivana. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_in_the_October_7_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1230044731]
• :* Their second !vote was to Talk:Gaza genocide, at an RfC. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1230443716] Ivana and Smallangryplanet were at that discussion and !voted the same way.
• :* Their third !vote was to Talk:Gaza Strip famine.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_Strip_famine&diff=prev&oldid=1233547856] This took the same position as Ivana and Lf8u2.
• :* Their fourth !vote was to Talk:Hosni Mubarak.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hosni_Mubarak&diff=prev&oldid=1234517045] No interaction with anyone in T4P.
• :* Their 5-10th !votes had no interaction with anyone in T4P.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Defamation_League&diff=prev&oldid=1234527521][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arab_citizens_of_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1236713925][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Shuja%27iyya_incursion&diff=prev&oldid=1240187937][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder&diff=prev&oldid=1241257020][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Ay%C5%9Fenur_Eygi&diff=prev&oldid=1244852296][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lady_Gaga&diff=prev&oldid=1248529794]
• :* Their eleventh !vote was to support Lf8u2, Smallangryplanet, Isoceles-sai at Talk:November 2024 Amsterdam riots.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:November_2024_Amsterdam_riots&diff=prev&oldid=1258090439]
• :* Their twelfth !vote didn't have overlap with T4P.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_invasion_of_Syria_(2024%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=1269306736]
• :* Their thirteenth !vote didn't have overlap with T4P.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_hostage_deal_protests&diff=prev&oldid=1269669197]

{{cob}}

• :There's more but I got bored and they continue sinking Rainsage's overlap percentage. It's kind of suspicious that Rainsage started at the same time as the T4P Discord and !voted the same way, but they don't have the same 10-month long !voting pattern overlap Lf8u2/Smallangryplanet do in which they mostly support each other and do not generally !vote outside of helping each other out.
• :If Rainsage at some point was in T4P, they probably left a while ago, and stopped performing tasks for the group before it was exposed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 08:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• I have grave concerns with SFR's statement about banning someone for holding a specific POV and supporting it via !votes. I can name 20-30 editors in a number of areas that do just that, including in CTOPs. Yet these two are being singled out. I also have problems with the {{tq|"our investigation did not reveal direct evidence of off-wiki misconduct"}} but still bringing these motions forth. If there were real problems, a case should have been brought forth and/or an WP:AE. spryde | talk 16:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Aghast that this is apparently solely based on having a specific, consistent point of view. If no misconduct was discovered, what the fuck are we doing here? Human beings have consistent beliefs. Parabolist (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::A lot of factors apparently affected SFR's vote, so much so that his second comment hardly even resembles his first. Is this a MEAT issue, or is this an NPOV issue? Going from {{tq|If we expect single admins, or the three or four admins that work AE, to topic ban people for NPOV sticking to one side no matter what,}} to {{tq|simply supporting one side of a conflict isn't nearly sufficient for a sanction,}} isn't a clarification, it's a pivot. No evidence of collusion or canvassing is presented, only evidence of the (now not an issue, apparently) "NPOV" issues. If this motion is purely vibes based, say it outright. Otherwise, present real evidence. Parabolist (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Parabolist}} It's always been a WP:MEAT issue (the discussion got sidetracked), as the person who originally started the SPI thread at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Smallangryplanet. I've dug through all of Smallangryplanet, Lf8u2, and now Raskolnikov.Rev's !votes to talkspace. The important thing is all of these editors started spiking in their activity after April 2024 (when Tech 4 Palestine started) and 70%+ of all of their !votes anywhere in Talkspace agree with Smallangryplanet, who doesn't have that many !votes. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{re|Chess}} I'm very aware of your obsession with the Tech4Palestine case, and the multiple times it has caused you to try to coyly OUT editors in public forums instead of submitting evidence to Arbcom. Your dogged pursuit of those editors is causing you to see patterns here that are simply explained by the fact that the situation in Gaza (and the associated media coverage) drew many people to (or back to) wiki articles. You need distance from this. Parabolist (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::What was the point of making this public, if none of the arbs are going to bother engaging with any of the commentary? Oh great, your votes are based on private evidence. We found no miscounduct but the vibes are bad, and these posters were consistent with their views. NPOV is found by voting the opposite way you think is correct every now and then, just to seem impartial. Here's some incredibly reasonable RFC votes as evidence. Genuinely embarassing, and describing articles on an active genocide (and massacres!) as having teams is disgusting. For shame. Parabolist (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Parabolist}} I agree, honestly. It's unclear what the principles are that ArbCom wants the enforcing administrators to extract. Did any of the evidence I presented actually convince the arbs? What was or wasn't helpful? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As a general comment, I think it's better to dispense with the 'have made a large portion of their edits about the conflict' way of thinking about editors. The portion of edits in the topic area doesn't seem to tell me anything useful because it has nothing to say about the edits themselves, which is supposed to be what matters. We already know that ban evading actors active in PIA only make, on average, about a fifth of their revisions in the topic area. Even the Wikipedia account possibly used by zei_squirrel didn't have a large portion of their edits in the topic area. The monthly max was around 10%, but it was normally much less. I should caveat this by saying that although I've been told an account name, and it's plausible-ish, I've not been able to validate it and I've not seen the evidentiary basis for the claim. I don't know if any of the media sources have published an account name with evidence to support the claim. Maybe Chess knows. If they have, don't link it here, but I would be interested the article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{re|Sean.hoyland}} I would be surprised if Zei_Squirrel got to WP:500/30 because it appears to me she did little work, delegated to others, and took credit because she's a well-known influencer in the pro-Palestinian community. I'm unaware of any Wikipedia account linked to her.

:::::You're right that "edits made in the conflict area" aren't a useful signal. The best signal is a lack of disagreement on anything, because of strong peer pressure from the outside group and consensus being made offwiki. This was present at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, in which even minor disagreement over which photos to choose were not tolerated.

:::::A Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• I am intentionally not commenting on these two particular editors and I haven't looked at their contributions. I just want to address this: {{tq|"We consistently say that editing in support of one side of a conflict is a violation of NPOV."}} NPOV is a requirement of the content of articles; WP:NPOV doesn't even mention talk pages in this context. In contentious topics, NPOV is achieved by means of negotiation between editors with different POVs. It is hardly ever achieved through editors sometimes supporting one side and sometimes supporting the other. To first approximation, the latter type of editor doesn't exist. Violations of editorial standards arise when an editor refuses to compromise, refuses to discuss, misrepresents sources, edits against consensus, etc. etc., not just by virtue of having a POV. Expressing an opinion and then accepting the consensus is not an NPOV violation even if this is repeated multiple times. Zero^talk 02:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Editing consistently on one side of an issue could also be a way of ensuring articles meet NPOV. For example, K.e.coffman was noted for fixing a lot of existing bias in Wikipedia articles, but that was because she was consistently editing them to be neutral instead of pro-German. Seems too close to arbitrators interfering in content decisions, which they supposedly refuse to do. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{re|buidhe}} I would recommend looking at the SPI evidence and the diffs I've presented. The suspicious factor is they all started editing when Tech 4 Palestine started and most of their !votes on all of Wikipedia are in agreement with Smallangryplanet. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::If so that's a problem unrelated to whether their edits could be construed as supporting one side of an issue. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Question - Which of Smallangryplanet's and Lf8u2's !votes are true statements/consistent with policy, which statements are false statements/inconsistent with policy, and which are somewhere in between? Who "benefits" does not strike me as a valid metric because our decision procedures don't care who benefits. Timecards for accounts named in the SPI case are available [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B9dPx23iqRIw8WQJXeWlYWVG_CwkxICQ/view here]. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{re|Sean.hoyland}} I dug through most of Lf8u2's talk !votes before filing the SPI. The most obvious behavioural trait is !voting the same way in requested moves in Israel-Palestine.
• :The largest inconsistency with policy is when adding "massacre" to article titles. WP:NCENPOV says "massacre" is appropriate if it is part of the WP:COMMONNAME or a "generally accepted word used to identify the event". However, editors in this cluster will !vote to add "massacre" based on only a few reliable sources. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Without commenting on this specific case (because I haven't looked at the details), if multiple reliable sources independent of each other use the term "massacre" in relation to the event, is that not evidence of it being a "common name for the event" and/or "a generally accepted word used to identify the event"? Certainly it's almost always going to be good enough for there to be a redirect at that title. Thryduulf (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I don't think !voting the same way in requested moves in Israel-Palestine is a useful signal. I'm lazy so I have only extracted strings for 3 of the discussions involving these 2 accounts cited in the SPI. There are many !votes and the choice is pretty much binary, so I have a hard time convincing myself that correlations between these 2 particular accounts' !votes are significant.

{{collapse top|indent=6.4em}}

Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel/Archive 4 - Requested move 4 June 2024
:support - See WP:PRECISION for
:oppose -- both mean quite differen
:Support - even to the extent that
:Oppose. While I appreciate the mor
:Support The page even documents


Oppose for now, as this article is
Support per nom. There's very litt

:*Oppose per the arguments regardin

Support. The current title is pend
Support to avoid [[WP:OVERPRECISIO
Oppose for the same reasons as For
Oppose - Sexual and Gender Based V
Oppose per FortunateSons, Ïvana, L

:Oppose I agree with what Fortunate
:Initial support but with adding "a
:Support: per WP:CONCISE and pr
:Oppose. [[SGBV|Sexual and gender-b
:Oppose It's important to match the
Oppose. The title "Sexual and gende
Oppose. The term Sexual and Gender-
Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre/Archive 2 - Proposed merge of Nuseirat refugee camp massacre into 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
:Support: UN sources which I need
*Oppose – This article is re
:Support: Merge the articles into
:Oppose – Responding to orig
:Support This is precisely what I
:Support — Many sources note the e
:Strong oppose I agree that there
:Oppose. What was the purpose of t
:Oppose, The main topic here is, o
:Strong support Clearly, the rescu
:Support merging, but weak oppose
*Oppose per WP:NCENPOV, POV im
*Weak support, although a title li
*Support, although I agree with th
*I agree because there was no mass
*I agree for reasons I provided on
*oppose. For the same reason i sta
*Wait Until things are clea
*Agree The articles should be merg
* Oppose, there is widespread refe
::I strongly agree that there shou
*Support merging the articles and
*Oppose and agree with Dylanvt. Th
*Agree - most of the killings were
* Support: It is the same operatio
*Agree - This article is an embarr
*Support. This is an obvious [[WP:
*Oppose, or support merging
*Support merger of the article on
*Support merge. The latter is part
*Support merger of two articles ''
*Oppose merge. With over 274 death
*Support, in my opinion this is a
* Oppose per Dylanvt, the massacre
* Support per IOHANNVSVERVS and Ti
*Oppose per Dylanvt an others. Whi
*:::That's what I suggested... see my pr
*Support merging. The events are i
* Support The main event here is t
*Support, per WP:POVFORK. [[Us
* Support. Both pages describe the
:Support. [[User:KronosAlight|Kron
* Oppose per Dylanvt. See {{Cite w
* Wait until more information is r
*Oppose/wait: The information is s
*Agree per WP:POVFORK. As of n
*Support. [[User:MarshallBagramyan
*Support We're talking events that
*Strongly oppose: the massacre tha
*Strongly oppose. We have an artic
*:Support. The massacre was an asp
*Support: They both cover the same
*:Support of a merger under a new
*Strongly oppose: The sheer number
*Support merge into this article:
:Oppose: The hostage rescue has go
:Support per WP:POVFORK and [[
*Support: one event happened becau
*Support: seems like a sort of acc
*Support merging under a neutral t
*Oppose: I think both articles pas
*Support to a neutral title, such
* Support since this is a clear ca
* OPPOSE merge - keeping it as two
* Support {{tq|since this is a cle
*Strongly Oppose/ disagree I concu
* Support – The idea that it
:'''Weak support but keep the massacre w
: Conditionally oppose. I'm not su
:Support merge, also per {{ping|Dy
:Support merge. These are POV fork
:Strongly oppose: As stated earlie
:Support The two articles overlap
*Support Per @[[User:KronosAlight|
*Obvious support as there is absol
*Strong oppose, and I rarely use t
*Agree - POV fork [[User:Bluethric
Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion/Archive 21 - RFC on inclusion of Forensic Architecture in lede

Oppose. Reliable sources are in
Support Forensic Architecture i
Oppose. The bottom line on this
Support. For the reasons @[[Use
Support - I do not find this mat
Oppose The problem is not just t
Oppose. Forensic Architecture i
Support - this has already been
Support - and all the complaints
{{s|Support - We have [[Talk:Al-
Support - Agree with Nableezy's
Oppose. Lacks weight and reputat

:Strong support The False Balance
::I'm also in support for this re

Oppose. In their reports publis
Oppose following the views of Bi
Oppose BUT  The entire sentence
Support I by in large agree with
Oppose. The current wording impl
Strong support. It's unhelpful t
Support leaving in lede Having t

{{outdent|:::::::::::}}Not sure if there's a word limit here but please be mindful of bludgeoning in this discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|result=Motion adopted. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

{{ivmbox|1=In line with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment%2FHeader&diff=1255388543&oldid=1245603703 updates to procedural documentation] made in November 2024, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Format of requests for amendment is amended by motion with the following change:

{{hab}}