Pro-Israeli Canvassing 'n' Meatpuppeting at Arbcom

[Tarc]

Arbcom motion to ban pro-Israel editors over canvassing. Not canvassing per se but being canvassed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Canvassing

Not the first time this has come about.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying (T-H-L)

Though at least then, much of the deliberations were out in the open.

[nableezy]

Last I checked, which I admit was not recently, even "proxying for a banned user" was not in itself prohibited.

WP:PROXYING

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.

[rnu]

Either way, I'd love to hear the explanation as to why that edit was made with that edit-summary shortly after an email was sent out requesting it.

I thought one of them (possibly Mr. Melech himself?) already stated he was worried the request was coming from an Israeli military (or whatever) official, in which case they could be arrested for not doing what the person essentially ordered them to do? (Assuming Mr. Melech is an Israeli citizen, that is. Perhaps he can clarify that for us...)

From what I gather, Israel has been criminalizing all sorts of online activities lately, not limited to merely visiting certain banned or proscribed "enemy" websites. That obviously creates a culture of paranoia, so maybe that explanation isn't as far-fetched as it might seem to people in countries where they don't do that sort of thing.

The idea that EytanMelech made edits because he felt pressured/threatened comes from ToBeFree's good cop routine:

EytanMelech, as far as I understand, the e-mails you refer to made you feel compelled to do something instead of ignoring them. They made you feel as if you're required to do what you have been asked for, or to provide an excuse whenever you're not doing so. You have my sympathies for this, and my respect for admitting this. Now – if I see correctly – your situation is as follows: You have made proxy edits for a banned editor, you felt compelled to do so, and admitting this final piece of yet-unadmitted behavior requires you to say that most of your previous responses were just a wordy attempt to avoid admitting this. To me personally, that would however be the most valuable and reasonable thing you can do if the accusation is correct. Think about it for a while perhaps. ArbCom's task is not to punish but to prevent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Eytan merely said that he sometimes avoided telling canvassers where to stick it (my paraphrase) because he wanted to stay nice.
ToBeFree is trying -- rather clumsily and transparently, I would say -- to twist this into an admission of guilt.

[charliemouse]

Arbcom motion to ban pro-Israel editors over canvassing. Not canvassing per se but being canvassed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... Canvassing

Not the first time this has come about.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying (T-H-L)

Though at least then, much of the deliberations were out in the open.

Also involving emails, but it looks like "Electronic Intifada" managed to get them. I wonder how. Was that ever revealed? I also wonder if they've counterattacked in more recent years and used similar tactics.

[lonza leggiera]

"An .EML file is, in the simplest terms, an email saved in plain text."

Just a smidge more than that.

Well, no, not really. That addresses different issues - email spoofing (or pretending to send as someone else) & modification of email in flight.

It doesn't address the issue that I have mentioned above - email saved in plain text format can be edited. Such editing can include changes to the sender, recipient or content.

DKIM doesn't care about the content of emails that have been exported to .eml format. They're no longer emails being sent through a mail server; they're just text - easier to edit than Wikipedia.

... [snip] ...

It's not nearly as easy as that to do it undetectably. If the .eml file contains a purported DKIM signature (and I've checked that Gmail doesn't strip them out when you ask it for the original source of an email), then that will contain the name of the domain supposedly responsible for adding the signature, and a selector for the record in which the domain's name server stores the public key needed to authenticate it. If you can successfully retrieve that public key and use it to authenticate the signature, then the only reasonably plausible explanation is that the email was sent from (or relayed by) that server at the time indicated by the DKIM time stamp, and that the body of the email has not been altered from what it was when it was signed.

The headers which the DKIM signature indicates as having been included in the signature, however, are all converted to lower-case before being so included, so it's possible for some subsequent trivial alterations to them to remain undetected. If the from header in the .eml file were '"icewhiz@somewhere.com" , for instance, it could have been changed undetectably from something like "IceWhIZ@sOMEwhere.com", but not from anything like "nableezy@somewhereelse.com". The latter change would definitely result in the .eml file's failing the authentication procedure.

[Ryuichi]

It's not nearly as easy as that to do it undetectably. If the .eml file contains a purported DKIM signature (and I've checked that Gmail doesn't strip them out when you ask it for the original source of an email), then that will contain the name of the domain supposedly responsible for adding the signature, and a selector for the record in which the domain's name server stores the public key needed to authenticate it. If you can successfully retrieve that public key and use it to authenticate the signature, then the only reasonably plausible explanation is that the email was sent from (or relayed by) that server at the time indicated by the DKIM time stamp, and that the body of the email has not been altered from what it was when it was signed.

Happy to be edified.

Do we agree that if provided solely with the emails in .eml format, assuming that DKIM signatures are included, that verification would be an active step - a thing that would need to be actively done. That email readers do not necessarily perform this verification; though some do or can be configured to do.

And so, the presence of DKIM signatures in the .eml is not in itself verification of the emails.

For mine, "Did the current ArbCom verify the emails by comparing against the body hash and DKIM signature?" is an interesting question.

If not, is this something they should, would or could do?

If so, is it something that would be best mentioned by ArbCom publicly?

I wonder if anyone will ask.

[lonza leggiera]

It's not nearly as easy as that to do it undetectably. If the .eml file contains a purported DKIM signature (and I've checked that Gmail doesn't strip them out when you ask it for the original source of an email), then that will contain the name of the domain supposedly responsible for adding the signature, and a selector for the record in which the domain's name server stores the public key needed to authenticate it. If you can successfully retrieve that public key and use it to authenticate the signature, then the only reasonably plausible explanation is that the email was sent from (or relayed by) that server at the time indicated by the DKIM time stamp, and that the body of the email has not been altered from what it was when it was signed.

Happy to be edified.

Do we agree that if provided solely with the emails in .eml format, assuming that DKIM signatures are included, that verification would be an active step - a thing that would need to be actively done. That email readers do not necessarily perform this verification; though some do or can be configured to do.

And so, the presence of DKIM signatures in the .eml is not in itself verification of the emails.

Yes. Until you've actually performed the proper procedure for authenticating the signature then you have no compelling evidence for its authenticity. The mere presence of a DKIM signature in the .eml file doesn't provide any such compelling evidence.

For mine, "Did the current ArbCom verify the emails by comparing against the body hash and DKIM signature?" is an interesting question.

If not, is this something they should, would or could do?

Yes, it's an interesting question, and if there are any DKIM signatures in the .eml files it's certainly something that they could easily do and, in my opinion, should have done.

If so, is it something that would be best mentioned by ArbCom publicly?

It has apparently taken those emails as sufficiently compelling evidence of wrongdoing by various parties to warrant them being sanctioned. For any competent body to do such a thing, it should go without saying that they've carried out every reasonable precaution to ensure that those emails are genuine, so I wouldn't consider it necessary for them to acknowledge publicly that they've done so, although I can't see what harm it would do either.

I wonder if anyone will ask.

Ditto.

[nableezy]

It has apparently taken those emails as sufficiently compelling evidence of wrongdoing by various parties to warrant them being sanctioned. For any competent body to do such a thing, it should go without saying that they've carried out every reasonable precaution to ensure that those emails are genuine, so I wouldn't consider it necessary for them to acknowledge publicly that they've done so, although I can't see what harm it would do either.

I wonder what changed between the initial responses of the evidence isn’t enough to that same arb saying I can’t figure out how not to support a site ban? Personally, I had no idea what a DKIM was prior to a few days ago. Nice thing to know about now though.

[Arishok]

The evidence shows that emails went out and then, shortly after, the exact requested edits were made. We are talking in some cases word for word copies. For all three users named, this happened enough times to consider sanctions.

For the "some cases" of genuinely word-for-word copies Guerillero mentions, I would consider this essentially irrefutable evidence of proxying and easily enough grounds for an appropriate sanction.

However, IMO, the evidence gets dramatically weaker the further away the alleged proxying is from "word for word". "SImilar-in-substance" seems to me to be weak evidence in a current-events topic on a contentious issue.

[No Ledge]

Then there should be a public disclaimer that your emails on en.wp are not protected and not private and may be used against you at any point for any purpose.

This is just so slimy.

Something like

A private log will record that your email has been sent, and this log can be inspected by certain privileged users in order to prevent abuse. This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of your email (though in cases of extreme abuse, Wikimedia Foundation staff can verify the recipient account). Wikipedia makes no guarantee of confidentiality for messages sent by this system. Do not send information by email that you would not want published on the internet.

lol, is that already in there?

Egg meet face.

That message is at MediaWiki:Emailpagetext (T-H-L), which is edited by volunteer administrators, not by developers or the Wikimedia Foundation.

[nableezy]

Personally think Marokwitz is a few posts away from meriting the MVBW treatment for ineffective counsel.

[rnu]

Personally think Marokwitz is a few posts away from meriting the MVBW treatment for ineffective counsel.

He seems to have given up his "evidence, what evidence?" stance and instead advocate for the "a full ban is too harsh" position (which seems to imply an acknowledgement that the evidence is sufficient).

[Zoll]

It's so ironic, that off all people who could be exposing this, I, a banned "sockpuppet" was the cause for probable bans of other editors even after being blocked.

[Zoll]

It proves that the edit summaries were dictated by the banned editor. It proves that they were doing as they were told.

These editors were set up.

More cynical minds might wonder which came first - the email or the edit?

According to Mr. Nableezy, the e-mail preceded the edit by 6 minutes or so — you could argue that an e-mail server's timestamp is less reliable than a Wikipedia server's timestamp, but we don't know who's running the e-mail server. If it was a Gmail account, or almost any other significant third-party provider, that's probably just as reliable as a Wikipedia server as far as keeping the correct time is concerned.

More to the point, it seems like Mr. Mouse is suggesting that enemies of Israel may have engineered this incident to discredit the pro-Israeli WP users, taking advantage of their fear of Israeli-government action against them for non-compliance. That might also explain how and why the Arbcom folks found out about it.

Do I have that right? It sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory, but he does have a point about why the instigator(s) might have wanted them to use those (exact?) edit summaries. Like I stated earlier, Israel is becoming a culture of paranoia— if it wasn't one already — and such things are at least possible under such conditions.

The Email was sent at 2:11 AM, don't know from which timezone, but I think google adjusts the time by the timezone it was received in. I received it at 2:11 Germany time Oct.29, funnily, Oct.29 was also the day that day time saving ended, at 2 AM (but when it ended the clocks jumped to 3 Am) in Germany.

Anyone want to calculate which came first, the edit or the email? Does Gmail adjust timing of emails for Daytime saving and ending? Or does it stay the same?

And Google aka Gmail was running the servers

[Zoll]

More cynical minds might wonder which came first - the email or the edit?

According to Mr. Nableezy, the e-mail preceded the edit by 6 minutes or so — you could argue that an e-mail server's timestamp is less reliable than a Wikipedia server's timestamp, but we don't know who's running the e-mail server.

Emails are text. Timestamps are text. Text is creatable. Text is editable.

The chain of evidence from ostensible sending of email to ArbCom seems ... suboptimal.

NOTE: I do not suggest that any specific individual editors there, or contributors here, have been involved in any such creative endeavours.

Would you prefer visual evidence instead?

[rnu]

Instead of telling Dovidroth what evidence they have against him arbs are now asking him to provide the evidence.

@Dovidroth: I would still like us name specific edits we're concerned about. But nothing in that would stop you from providing us the canvassing emails you have received. I'd encourage you to forward them to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Before voting on this and the other remedies, I want to see Dovidroth do what Barkeep has asked. Moneytrees(Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

[EytanMelech]

Instead of telling Dovidroth what evidence they have against him arbs are now asking him to provide the evidence.

@Dovidroth: I would still like us name specific edits we're concerned about. But nothing in that would stop you from providing us the canvassing emails you have received. I'd encourage you to forward them to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Before voting on this and the other remedies, I want to see Dovidroth do what Barkeep has asked. Moneytrees(Talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm so confused by this. I tried sending in my own evidence, and was told that it was not wanted. I'm not sure if they're evaluating my case differently because I'm American, or because I was not involved in nearly as many talk page votes as Dovid? I really have no idea how much evidence they have at this point if they're asking for him to give them the evidence that they allegedly already have timestamped in EML format.

[nableezy]

I'm so confused by this. I tried sending in my own evidence, and was told that it was not wanted. I'm not sure if they're evaluating my case differently because I'm American, or because I was not involved in nearly as many talk page votes as Dovid? I really have no idea how much evidence they have at this point if they're asking for him to give them the evidence that they allegedly already have timestamped in EML format.

They are giving him, and you, and opportunity to come clean and avoid a site ban. My guy, I promise you that the emails they have show you and him making the exact edits requested by Andres, repeatedly, and the choice you have at this point is pretend like people will believe you when you say it isn’t true, when it provably is, or send them all the emails from Mr Academia you have and admit your involvement and move forward with the understanding of what you did wrong and a commitment not to do it again. You clearly have a lot to offer, you clearly care about the topics that you edit, I have no idea why you would toss it away for somebody who has never given a shit about you besides your ability to provide a revert. You can still absolutely avoid a ban here, you may even get off with a topic ban anyway, but if you want to ensure it then, and this is my honest advice as somebody who knows you are guilty of what you are accused of, send whatever emails from Andres you have to arbcom.

[Vigilant]

"We have deemed you guilty without a public trial and will give you this one chance to inform against your alleged conspirators after which we will execute you slightly less painfully."

[EytanMelech]

I'm so confused by this. I tried sending in my own evidence, and was told that it was not wanted. I'm not sure if they're evaluating my case differently because I'm American, or because I was not involved in nearly as many talk page votes as Dovid? I really have no idea how much evidence they have at this point if they're asking for him to give them the evidence that they allegedly already have timestamped in EML format.

They are giving him, and you, and opportunity to come clean and avoid a site ban. My guy, I promise you that the emails they have show you and him making the exact edits requested by Andres, repeatedly, and the choice you have at this point is pretend like people will believe you when you say it isn’t true, when it provably is, or send them all the emails from Mr Academia you have and admit your involvement and move forward with the understanding of what you did wrong and a commitment not to do it again. You clearly have a lot to offer, you clearly care about the topics that you edit, I have no idea why you would toss it away for somebody who has never given a shit about you besides your ability to provide a revert. You can still absolutely avoid a ban here, you may even get off with a topic ban anyway, but if you want to ensure it then, and this is my honest advice as somebody who knows you are guilty of what you are accused of, send whatever emails from Andres you have to arbcom.

This is not correct. They are not "giving him and you" a chance. I was not given a chance. That discussion specifically occured in Dovid's section, and I was declined any opportunity to forward emails to the arbitration committee. To quote User:ToBeFree,

I'm not asking for evidence in this specific case here

It's also quite interesting when you say "My guy, I promise you that the emails they have show you and him making the exact edits requested by Andres". You then tell me to forward whatever I have to ArbCom, which I was denied the opportunity to do so directly by them. I openly stated I had 14 sets of emails by Andres (who I suspect may be @afagerbakke (Andreas Fagerbakke) on Twitter) ready to be sent, but I guess ArbCom doesn't care what I have to say. You are essentially asking me to admit to everything they have accused me of to avoid a ban, when I doubt anything I could say or provide would lead to anything less than a topic ban. I have no idea what you mean by "throw it all away". I didn't make any edit to please anybody. I edit articles related to Israel because I care about the conflict and I wanted my voice to be heard.

[nableezy]

It's also quite interesting when you say "My guy, I promise you that the emails they have show you and him making the exact edits requested by Andres". You then tell me to forward whatever I have to ArbCom, which I was denied the opportunity to do so directly by them. I openly stated I had 14 sets of emails by Andres (who I suspect may be @afagerbakke (Andreas Fagerbakke) on Twitter) ready to be sent, but I guess ArbCom doesn't care what I have to say. You are essentially asking me to admit to everything they have accused me of to avoid a ban, when I doubt anything I could say or provide would lead to anything less than a topic ban. I have no idea what you mean by "throw it all away". I didn't make any edit to please anybody. I edit articles related to Israel because I care about the conflict and I wanted my voice to be heard.

I gave you an example earlier of you performing an edit, with the edit summary, that was requested by email by Andres shortly after the email went out, and that’s with a DKIM verified authentic email. You ignored it entirely. If you want another one I can give you that too. If you think you aren’t caught red handed then you can keep playing the who me card I guess, but you are and I can’t imagine that anybody who has seen the evidence will be convinced by it. They are more likely to think you’re lying and give you the boot.

[Vigilant]

Shades of "The Hammer" email.

Have a fully public case.

[nableezy]

I gave you an example earlier of you performing an edit, with the edit summary, that was requested by email by Andres shortly after the email went out, and that’s with a DKIM verified authentic email. You ignored it entirely. If you want another one I can give you that too.

In an email on 20 Oct 2023 21:27:48 with the subject "Please revert this vandal" with this as the body:

Please revert this and write in edit summary:

Unexplained removal of pertinent sourced content

You made the edit, with that edit summary at 21:29, 20 October 2023.

[Ryuichi]

and that’s with a DKIM verified authentic email.

In making this portion of your statement, are you confirming that you, personally, have both a) obtained the public key for the DKIM signatory and verified the DKIM signature matches the content of the DKIM headers; and b) confirmed that the body hash in the DKIM signature matches that which would be expected for the body text?

[nableezy]

and that’s with a DKIM verified authentic email.

In making this portion of your statement, are you confirming that you, personally, have both a) obtained the public key for the DKIM signatory and verified the DKIM signature matches the content of the DKIM headers; and b) confirmed that the body hash in the DKIM signature matches that which would be expected for the body text?

Yes, I used this checker that takes in the entire .eml file and outputs the SPF/DKIM/DMARC/DomainKey/RBL verification. All passed.

I also tested the checker by modifying one word in the body of the email, that resulted in a DKIM fail.

[Ryuichi]

In an email on 20 Oct 2023 21:27:48 with the subject "Please revert this vandal" with this as the body:

Please revert this and write in edit summary:

Unexplained removal of pertinent sourced content

Is that timestamp verbatim from the email or has it been manually adjusted to UTC? IF verbatim, what is the timezone? I ask only because the emails received by me at gmail are all timestamped in PST (UTC-8).

[nableezy]

In an email on 20 Oct 2023 21:27:48 with the subject "Please revert this vandal" with this as the body:

Please revert this and write in edit summary:

Unexplained removal of pertinent sourced content

Is that timestamp verbatim from the email or has it been manually adjusted to UTC? IF verbatim, what is the timezone? I ask only because the emails received by me at gmail are all timestamped in PST (UTC-8).

The header has Fri, 20 Oct 2023 14:27:52 -0700 (PDT) for received at time, and this for the sent at time:

Code: Select all

Received: from PH8PR19MB6620.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:510:1cf::9)
 by BL3PR19MB6443.namprd19.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:3b2::22) with
 Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
 cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.6907.23; Fri, 20 Oct
 2023 21:27:48 +0000

[rnu]

I see a clear difference in the treatment of the three accused editors by some arbs. True, there seems to be a general sense that all three are guilty and should either be banned entirely or topic banned. But there is a distinct undercurrent in all three cases.
For EytanMelech (T-C-L) it is "you are guilty, if you confess you may get away with a tban".
For Dovidroth (T-C-L) it is "defend your actions".
For Homerethegreat (T-C-L) it is "I am not convinced, I want more evidence".
Since we aren't given the evidence I have no idea to what degree (if any) these differences are based on differences in the evidence.

[Vigilant]

I see a clear difference in the treatment of the three accused editors by some arbs. True, there seems to be a general sense that all three are guilty and should either be banned entirely or topic banned. But there is a distinct undercurrent in all three cases.
For EytanMelech (T-C-L) it is "you are guilty, if you confess you may get away with a tban".
For Dovidroth (T-C-L) it is "defend your actions".
For Homerethegreat (T-C-L) it is "I am not convinced, I want more evidence".
Since we aren't given the evidence I have no idea to what degree (if any) these differences are based on differences in the evidence.

All of which demonstrate why a full case with public evidence is necessary.

[Vigilant]

This seems like a fly in the ointment.

Statement by Marokwitz (Dovidroth)

I reviewed the WP:PROXYING policy and was surprised to learn that proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Therefore, I think @User:Dovidroth should be given an opportunity to explain their independent reasons for each edit and to demonstrate their productivity. If they provide sufficiently good answers, a warning would be sufficient. Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

Hmmm...

[Vigilant]

EEML stuff

[rnu]

This seems like a fly in the ointment.

Statement by Marokwitz (Dovidroth)

I reviewed the WP:PROXYING policy and was surprised to learn that proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Therefore, I think @User:Dovidroth should be given an opportunity to explain their independent reasons for each edit and to demonstrate their productivity. If they provide sufficiently good answers, a warning would be sufficient. Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Marokwitz is all over the case from "there is no evidence", via "even if there is evidence it doesn't prove guilt, because [wiki-lawyering]" to "even if there is guilt a full ban is too harsh". Exactly what you would expect from a totally neutral observer.

[Vigilant]

This seems like a fly in the ointment.

Statement by Marokwitz (Dovidroth)

I reviewed the WP:PROXYING policy and was surprised to learn that proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Therefore, I think @User:Dovidroth should be given an opportunity to explain their independent reasons for each edit and to demonstrate their productivity. If they provide sufficiently good answers, a warning would be sufficient. Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Marokwitz is all over the case from "there is no evidence", via "even if there is evidence it doesn't prove guilt, because [wiki-lawyering]" to "even if there is guilt a full ban is too harsh". Exactly what you would expect from a totally neutral observer.

I doubt there is anybody neutral on en.wp in this topic area unless they're a train/road/pokemon nut.

[rnu]

This seems like a fly in the ointment.

Statement by Marokwitz (Dovidroth)

I reviewed the WP:PROXYING policy and was surprised to learn that proxy editing is permitted (as an exception) if the editor is "able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." Therefore, I think @User:Dovidroth should be given an opportunity to explain their independent reasons for each edit and to demonstrate their productivity. If they provide sufficiently good answers, a warning would be sufficient. Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Marokwitz is all over the case from "there is no evidence", via "even if there is evidence it doesn't prove guilt, because [wiki-lawyering]" to "even if there is guilt a full ban is too harsh". Exactly what you would expect from a totally neutral observer.

I doubt there is anybody neutral on en.wp in this topic area unless they're a train/road/pokemon nut.

So about half?

[Guido den Broeder]

Does anyone want to increase their credibility in front of ArbCom or Admins?

If yes, then boy do I have the story for you.

User:יניב הורון (T-H-L) contacted me by email in Early 2023 under the sock account User:Melvin Jansen (T-H-L). He asked me to make changes for him since he was a sock, I refused, but since the war began, he's been sending a lot of emails, at first I thought he was only sending them to me, but then I found it, he emails a bunch of Editors who meatpuppet for him.

So far I've been able to confirm 4 editors who're obviously his meatpuppets, but the actual number could be higher. The ones I've confirmed are User:דוב (T-H-L) User:EytanMelech (T-H-L) User talk:Joemb1977 (T-H-L) and User:Dovidroth
(T-H-L).

I can forward anybody the emails (as long as you keep the email address of יניב הורון private and all) if you want to take it up with ArbCom and ban them for meatpuppetry.

One would think that having the US government as a meatpuppet would be enough, but apparently not.

[Midsize Jake]

One would think that having the US government as a meatpuppet would be enough, but apparently not.

Well, the US Government has never been especially good at hiding its IP address and UserAgent tag.

[nableezy]

Votes are coming in, and from the comments it seems as though Dovid took the opportunity given to respond to ArbCom privately, and did so unconvincingly. Eytan seems to have gone as silent there as he has here when confronted with evidence. Personally, think both of them could have ended up with just topic bans if they had forwarded on the emails they have and not just tried to bluster there way out of admitting guilt to what they both are provably guilty of. Still might end up that way though.

[rnu]

Votes are coming in, and from the comments it seems as though Dovid took the opportunity given to respond to ArbCom privately, and did so unconvincingly. Eytan seems to have gone as silent there as he has here when confronted with evidence. Personally, think both of them could have ended up with just topic bans if they had forwarded on the emails they have and not just tried to bluster there way out of admitting guilt to what they both are provably guilty of. Still might end up that way though.

Dovid and Eythan may still end up with full bans, but there are now majorities to tban both (unless they are fully banned). Homere is in serious danger, but for some reason some arbs have not yet voted on him despite voting on the others.
Barkeep has brought up the possibility of having a full ban and a tban at the same time to allow for the possibility to lift the full ban later while leaving the tban in place.(*) He himself has voted for tbans for all three.

[charliemouse]

Votes are coming in, and from the comments it seems as though Dovid took the opportunity given to respond to ArbCom privately, and did so unconvincingly. Eytan seems to have gone as silent there as he has here when confronted with evidence. Personally, think both of them could have ended up with just topic bans if they had forwarded on the emails they have and not just tried to bluster there way out of admitting guilt to what they both are provably guilty of. Still might end up that way though.

Yes three down. Congratulations!

Arbcom have indeed been trying to get a confession from all these dudes. But either way a Tban would do the trick to get them out of the way.

[nableezy]

Yes three down. Congratulations!

Not sure why youre congratulating me, Id just as soon not have to deal with this shit at all.

[charliemouse]

Yes three down. Congratulations!

Not sure why youre congratulating me, Id just as soon not have to deal with this shit at all.

Condolences then.

[rnu]

There are now majorities for full bans for Dovid and Eytan and a topic ban for Homere.

[charliemouse]

There are now majorities for full bans for Dovid and Eytan and a topic ban for Homere.

Taking out three pro-Israel editors is a clear victory in the war of attrition. Congratulations to all concerned(and condolences to Nableezy, who is an uninvolved observer who is just oh so tired of the whole thing)!

[rnu]

It's official:
Dovidroth (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
EytanMelech (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
Homerethegreat (T-C-L) is topic banned.

[charliemouse]

It's official:
Dovidroth (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
EytanMelech (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
Homerethegreat (T-C-L) is topic banned.

Did they ever resolve if they were going to show the emails to the accused? Nothing stands out in the million words on the motion page. Looks like they shrugged it off.

[rnu]

It's official:
Dovidroth (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
EytanMelech (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
Homerethegreat (T-C-L) is topic banned.

Did they ever resolve if they were going to show the emails to the accused? Nothing stands out in the million words on the motion page. Looks like they shrugged it off.

They didn't share the evidence with the accused. Not only did they not show them the emails, they didn't even tell them which of their edits were alleged to violate rules.

[nableezy]

It's official:
Dovidroth (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
EytanMelech (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
Homerethegreat (T-C-L) is topic banned.

Did they ever resolve if they were going to show the emails to the accused? Nothing stands out in the million words on the motion page. Looks like they shrugged it off.

They didn't share the evidence with the accused. Not only did they not show them the emails, they didn't even tell them which of their edits were alleged to violate rules.

Barkeeps vote about Dovid seems to counter that latter bit.

[rnu]

It's official:
Dovidroth (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
EytanMelech (T-C-L) is banned and topic banned.
Homerethegreat (T-C-L) is topic banned.

Did they ever resolve if they were going to show the emails to the accused? Nothing stands out in the million words on the motion page. Looks like they shrugged it off.

They didn't share the evidence with the accused. Not only did they not show them the emails, they didn't even tell them which of their edits were alleged to violate rules.

Barkeeps vote about Dovid seems to counter that latter bit.

Indeed. I overlooked that. It seems to only apply to Dovid.

I find myself very relcutantly here. We've now shared a number of edits with Dovidroth. In some of the situations his explanation make sense and wouldn't on their own concern me and may not even concern me even in context. However, his explanations for other edits don't make as much sense and have unexplained pieces that make it seem far less likely than the simpler explanation: he made the edits because a banned editor got him to make them. So far this makes him roughly as culpable as the other two editors, for whom I've supported topic bans. I also take seriously Maxim's comments about when a site ban is appropraite. The part I'm stuck on, is that Dovidroth has basically said the evidence against him is made-up/forged (it's not), was only able to supply 1 email of being canvassed, despite claiming to have multiple, and has otherwise attempted to forge dissension in the community this. The evidence that he canvassed is strong and the number of instances is beyond a one time (or two time or three time) occurrence. These aggravating factors against him aren't ultimately enough for me to move beyond a topic ban. That's because I'm ultimately inclined to try to be as preventative as possible rather than punative. If there was a reasonable lever for me to pull that would let me say that I find Dovidroth's conduct worse, both in canvassing and in responding to the allegations of it, worse than the other two I'd be pulling it. I certainly can't justify opposing the site ban and so will instead abstain there. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
(Emphasis added)

[Black Kite]

Someone asked me in a different thread about editors who were obviously an issue regarding ARBPIA, and I refused to answer them per WP:BEANS. I think I can say now that two of them were EytanMelech and Homerethegreat. The third is still unblocked, but hasn't edited for a while.