Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Lf8u2 topic banned

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=12|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)

Oppose:

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=12|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)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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