Pro-Israeli Canvassing 'n' Meatpuppeting at Arbcom

[Randy from Boise]

Do those same privacy considerations prevent you from showing the evidence to the affected parties? Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something because it seems like we obviously couldn't show the parties the emails we've received. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, how do you mount a defense against accusations that you cannot see?

How can you not see what that looks like?

ThisThreadIsTrying.png

Happy to help.

t

[Vigilant]

ARBCOM/WMF are using the email system as both a sword and a shield.

Sword: You have no expectation of privacy when you use this system and we can look at it and use what we find to punish you.

Shield: We cannot divulge the content of these private emails to allow the community to see what's going on or the defendants to defend themselves.

[Vigilant]

I don’t really get the objection or the comparison to FRAMBAN, that was about a body completely unaccountable to the community imposing an unappealable, even unchallengeable, sanction when we had processes that were perfectly capable of being used. But ArbCom has always had as part of its mandate the deciding cases privately when the evidence cannot be publicly shared. And they are accountable to the en.wp community with every election. Should ArbCom at least share something like on 14 October at 12:00 an email was sent asking this edit be made and this edit summary used, you made that edit with that edit summary at 12:20? Yeah, I think so, but I also think they could have decided this behind closed doors and just announced bans for proxying with as much fanfare as a normal CU block (that is, with none at all).

Be careful.

The monster in the fable always turns on its creator.

Leopards, faces, etc.

[nableezy]

Be careful.

The monster in the fable always turns on its creator.

Leopards, faces, etc.

Vig I’m on record saying that processes matter and that basic fairness should always be considered, but people *are* being told what they are accused of, if not with the level of specificity that I would prefer. But the FRAMBAN comparison misses the very basic difference that this decision is being made by the body the community elected to make such decisions, not imposed upon us by an unaccountable body not of that community. But I already agreed more information should be shared. Should the actual emails? No, because those emails include more than one email address and at least one of those people didn’t volunteer to have their personal information shared. Should something redacted be shared? Yes, I think so. Is it strictly speaking necessary? Nah, this could have been handled as a CU block the end imo, and those also never have the evidence for it shared. But we are where we are and at this point id favor something like I said above, such and such email was sent with these instructions and you did as directed a half hour later. What is your explanation for that?

[rnu]

This all sounds suspiciously like "we can't give you the information you must already have unless we're wrong because we have to protect your privacy".

[Vigilant]

Be careful.

The monster in the fable always turns on its creator.

Leopards, faces, etc.

Vig I’m on record saying that processes matter and that basic fairness should always be considered, but people *are* being told what they are accused of, if not with the level of specificity that I would prefer. But the FRAMBAN comparison misses the very basic difference that this decision is being made by the body the community elected to make such decisions, not imposed upon us by an unaccountable body not of that community. But I already agreed more information should be shared. Should the actual emails? No, because those emails include more than one email address and at least one of those people didn’t volunteer to have their personal information shared. Should something redacted be shared? Yes, I think so. Is it strictly speaking necessary? Nah, this could have been handled as a CU block the end imo, and those also never have the evidence for it shared.

It is entirely beside the point which body is doing the shanking.

Either the emails are private or they're not.
You can't have it both ways.

Either present everything with just the ancillary PII redacted (for example, replace the underlying email with the user's wikipedia username) or don't use it.

We've already seen one arb say, "Oh, dear me. It's just TOO MUCH WORK to provide redacted evidence to the accused. Fetch my smelling salts!"

The comparisons to FRAMGATE are really clear to me.

But we are where we are and at this point id favor something like I said above, such and such email was sent with these instructions and you did as directed a half hour later.

I see that as a positive step, but it's still not clear that the people who are accused of canvassing are being afforded even a rudimentary ability to defend themselves.

What is your explanation for that?

I'm not sure what you mean?



Just to be crystal clear, I don't care if some or all or none of these people are banned.

I would simply like to see people who pretend to be the highest deliberative body on en.wp follow the simplest rules of fairness, for a fucking change.

Almost every bad thing that flows from en.wp and the WMF is as a result of ethically challenged dipshits trying to take a shortcut to get the result they KNOW IN THEIR HEART IS RIGHT.

[nableezy]

What is your explanation for that?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Sorry that was part of my supposed ArbCom presentation of evidence to the accused. Did not mean it as a question to you, rather as a question that would be posed while offering the evidence that could, imo, be shared.

[Vigilant]

What is your explanation for that?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Sorry that was part of my supposed ArbCom presentation of evidence to the accused. Did not mean it as a question to you, rather as a question that would be posed while offering the evidence that could, imo, be shared.

Ah.

Could you do me a favor and try to use more line breaks and paragraphs?
I am interested in your opinion, but your current writing style makes it more difficult to comprehend what point you're trying to make.

[rnu]

I understand why all folks want to see all evidence. But there is a reason that there are only something like 50 or so CUs and far fewer arbs. These are members who have gained the trust of the community and must deal with privacy issues. Further, CU techniques, although hardly secret in the tech field, should not be broadcast. I am also uncomfortable with claims that we, the hoi polloi, must know exactly what info and by whom was provided as that brings up scary incidents IRL. WP in not a democracy. Barring an insurrection, I think we need to trust presented info as far as it goes. Of course possible contrary evidence can be presented. (Albeit as an editor in PIA I have seen nothing in the general facts that is surprising.) Side comment: A horizontal rule would be useful between the four major sections. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
(emphasis added)

You heard the man!

[Vigilant]

I understand why all folks want to see all evidence. But there is a reason that there are only something like 50 or so CUs and far fewer arbs. These are members who have gained the trust of the community and must deal with privacy issues. Further, CU techniques, although hardly secret in the tech field, should not be broadcast. I am also uncomfortable with claims that we, the hoi polloi, must know exactly what info and by whom was provided as that brings up scary incidents IRL. WP in not a democracy. Barring an insurrection, I think we need to trust presented info as far as it goes. Of course possible contrary evidence can be presented. (Albeit as an editor in PIA I have seen nothing in the general facts that is surprising.) Side comment: A horizontal rule would be useful between the four major sections. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
(emphasis added)

You heard the man!

Another 'good German' on en.wp.
What a surprise.

[rnu]

ToBeFree trying the good cop routine:

Marokwitz (20:00, 6 Jan) and EytanMelech (15:02, 5 Jan), thank you very much. EytanMelech, you write: "Examples include requests for me to do reverts of edits or to change existing information in articles based on conflicting sources". You also write that you have ignored or replied to these in an "avoidant" way. If I understand correctly, you're saying that you never did what you have been asked for. Is this correct? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

EytanMelech, I'm not asking for evidence in this specific case here anymore as I've received enough for the support vote above. In case you are genuinely unaware of having made proxy edits, whether for the username you provided or whomever, I encourage you to have a close look at the e-mails you have received again, and to check if you have really never done exactly what you have been asked for. Perhaps that is an awakening experience; if it is, maybe you could provide a few diffs from your list of contributions that surprise you in hindsight. Unless that happens, I won't comment further on this motion here as everything has been said from my side. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

[Randy from Boise]

Almost every bad thing that flows from en.wp and the WMF is as a result of ethically challenged dipshits trying to take a shortcut to get the result they KNOW IN THEIR HEART IS RIGHT.

Oh, I'm nicking that!

t

[nableezy]

What is your explanation for that?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Sorry that was part of my supposed ArbCom presentation of evidence to the accused. Did not mean it as a question to you, rather as a question that would be posed while offering the evidence that could, imo, be shared.

Ah.

Could you do me a favor and try to use more line breaks and paragraphs?
I am interested in your opinion, but your current writing style makes it more difficult to comprehend what point you're trying to make.

Will do, a lot of this is just written on my phone without thinking about formatting. But I’ll try, anything for you.

[Vigilant]

What is your explanation for that?

I'm not sure what you mean?

Sorry that was part of my supposed ArbCom presentation of evidence to the accused. Did not mean it as a question to you, rather as a question that would be posed while offering the evidence that could, imo, be shared.

Ah.

Could you do me a favor and try to use more line breaks and paragraphs?
I am interested in your opinion, but your current writing style makes it more difficult to comprehend what point you're trying to make.

Will do, a lot of this is just written on my phone without thinking about formatting. But I’ll try, anything for you.

I appreciate it.

[rnu]

Maybe the clearest outline of the allegations so far:

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. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

[MrErnie]

I’m sorry but I just still don’t see the problem in that. Andres could have socked and made the edits himself, then when they were reverted for whatever reason the editors in good standing could have inserted them back themselves and taken ownership. If the goal is quality edits, and they are / were, who cares? Aren’t we supposed to be always improving?

Email alerts to conversations and RFCs and controversial discussions happen all the time.

[Vigilant]

Maybe the clearest outline of the allegations so far:

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. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

So, as suspected, there really is no need to have a secret tribunal with secret evidence that nobody else can see.

Release the redacted emails (again, replace emails and/or IRL names with the wikipedia user name) and provide the onwiki diffs to show a convincing timeline to Teh Communitah and the defendants.

Get a clerk to do it if you're too soft handed for even that little bit of drudge work, but do your fucking job, ARBCOM!

[rnu]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien (General facts)

Given that much of the information surrounding this motion is not accessible, I've compiled some statistics. I evaluated participation in the 15 listed discussions, tabulating it in my sandbox. At a minimum, I've found strong evidence of severe WP:BATTLEGROUND violations. There are eight editors who participated in a majority of the discussions, and not one of them ever "broke ranks", always agreeing with the same editors. Of the three named editors in this motion:

EytanMelech participated in 4/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time.
Dovidroth participated in 11/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time.
Homerethegreat participated in 14/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time.

Only Arbcom has the evidence to determine whether canvassing took place, but there are undeniably concentrated efforts to impose certain points of view in violation of Wikipedia policies. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Here's the table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1194063146

[EytanMelech]

Hey y'all.

One of the accused here. I can confirm that Andres (or as I knew him until recently, Fagerbakke/Andy-Academia) did email and message me many, many times incessantly asking me to make edits. Because of his harassment, I complained to a fellow Wikipedian who I found had also been harassed by him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... y_Academia

I have offered to provide the ArbCom committe with over a dozen emails proving that I declined his requests and sometimes straight up ignored them over the course of more than a month. Of course, I was told that they were not accepting evidence from me, even though I could not see the evidence they had stacked against me. ToBeFree seemed to have already made up his mind about my guilt before I really had a chance to defend myself. I cannot speak for DovidRoth and Homere however, although they also were wayyy more active in conflict pages than I have.

Under statistics taken by user:thebiguglyalien, "EytanMelech participated in 4/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time."

I don't deny the fact that I voted in favor of Israel (in fact, most of my Wikipedia activity in general these days has pretty much been about Israel and its founding, although not necessarily surrounding the Palestine conflict). Anyways, I basically have been star-chambered with no ability to see the alleged checksum proof they have that proves me, an editor who made my own, original, sourced edits on the 2023 war articles prior to even voting in a single talk discussion that they claim I have participated in, is guilty of doing another user's edits because clearly he didn't want to edit about Israel on his own. (An editor who focuses on Judaism/Israel articles voting in 4 talk discussions over the course of over 2 months (23 October - 26 December) is not unusual behavior imo. That's about 1 vote every 2 weeks. This is also including the fact that I wrote 4 articles for enwiki about the conflict (for example, Killing of Yuval Castleman was written almost entirely by me).

Only 2 votes have been given on my specific case rn, although both are in favor of permanently banning me from Wikipedia, which will definitely suck considering I've spent hundreds of hours writing 150 articles for the site over 6,000 edits. I may have to find a new hobby.

[Randy from Boise]

Almost every bad thing that flows from en.wp and the WMF is as a result of ethically challenged dipshits trying to take a shortcut to get the result they KNOW IN THEIR HEART IS RIGHT.

Oh, I'm nicking that!

t

[nableezy]

Hey y'all.

One of the accused here. I can confirm that Andres (or as I knew him until recently, Fagerbakke/Andy-Academia) did email and message me many, many times incessantly asking me to make edits. Because of his harassment, I complained to a fellow Wikipedian who I found had also been harassed by him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... y_Academia

I have offered to provide the ArbCom committe with over a dozen emails proving that I declined his requests and sometimes straight up ignored them over the course of more than a month. Of course, I was told that they were not accepting evidence from me, even though I could not see the evidence they had stacked against me. ToBeFree seemed to have already made up his mind about my guilt before I really had a chance to defend myself. I cannot speak for DovidRoth and Homere however, although they also were wayyy more active in conflict pages than I have.

Under statistics taken by user:thebiguglyalien, "EytanMelech participated in 4/15 discussions, agreeing with the pro-Israel stance every time."

I don't deny the fact that I voted in favor of Israel (in fact, most of my Wikipedia activity in general these days has pretty much been about Israel and its founding, although not necessarily surrounding the Palestine conflict). Anyways, I basically have been star-chambered with no ability to see the alleged checksum proof they have that proves me, an editor who made my own, original, sourced edits on the 2023 war articles prior to even voting in a single talk discussion that they claim I have participated in, is guilty of doing another user's edits because clearly he didn't want to edit about Israel on his own. (An editor who focuses on Judaism/Israel articles voting in 4 talk discussions over the course of over 2 months (23 October - 26 December) is not unusual behavior imo. That's about 1 vote every 2 weeks. This is also including the fact that I wrote 4 articles for enwiki about the conflict (for example, Killing of Yuval Castleman was written almost entirely by me).

Only 2 votes have been given on my specific case rn, although both are in favor of permanently banning me from Wikipedia, which will definitely suck considering I've spent hundreds of hours writing 150 articles for the site over 6,000 edits. I may have to find a new hobby.

As far as I'm aware I'm not bound by any code of silence here, so I'll give you an example. On 29 October at 01:11:12 UTC, an email went out with the subject Edit request. It said

Hi. Please revert this and write in edit summary:

Highly disputed phrase, supported by one biased source but not mainstream ones (such as Morris). Doesn't belong here.

The url doesnt work anymore, but back then it would have led directly to the edit window to undo this. You made the requested revert at 01:28 with that edit summary. That was your first and only edit to that page.

[charliemouse]

Hey y'all.
<snip>
<snip>
Only 2 votes have been given on my specific case rn, although both are in favor of permanently banning me from Wikipedia, which will definitely suck considering I've spent hundreds of hours writing 150 articles for the site over 6,000 edits. I may have to find a new hobby.

As far as I'm aware I'm not bound by any code of silence here, so I'll give you an example. On 29 October at 01:11:12 UTC, an email went out with the subject Edit request. It said

Hi. Please revert this and write in edit summary:

Highly disputed phrase, supported by one biased source but not mainstream ones (such as Morris). Doesn't belong here.

The url doesnt work anymore, but back then it would have led directly to the edit window to undo this. You made the requested revert at 01:28 with that edit summary. That was your first and only edit to that page.

That's interesting. How nice of him to write the edit summaries for them. Nice long edit summaries, with a parenthetical!

Now why would this banned editor specify the precise phraseology he wants his meatpuppets to employ in the edit summaries?. What difference do the edit summaries make? What function does it perform to specify their exact wording?

Any ideas?

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.

[nableezy]

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.

Or the less absurd explanation, which is that somebody obsessive enough to make 288 confirmed sockpuppets, along with 102 suspected ones, and use countless IPs to continue edit-warring at the periphery of the subject area where extended-confirmed isnt employed, is also obsessive enough to add edit summaries to make it easier for people to justify their reverts. 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.

[Midsize Jake]

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.

[Ryuichi]

That's interesting. How nice of him to write the edit summaries for them. Nice long edit summaries, with a parenthetical!

Now why would this banned editor specify the precise phraseology he wants his meatpuppets to employ in the edit summaries?. What difference do the edit summaries make? What function does it perform to specify their exact wording?

Any ideas?

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?

[Midsize Jake]

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.

[Ryuichi]

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.

[Volunteer Marek]

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.

Again, ya'll are reading too much into this.

From Eytan's (and other meatpuppets) point of view, maybe they weren't aware these were mass emails with canned edit summaries so they didn't expect that this would be the way they got caught (which to some extent mitigates their actions, making them patsies rather than conspirators)

From Yaniv or Icewhiz or whoever's point of view, what do they care? Having had to deal with this in the Poland topic area, it was obvious that they were willing to use and discard anyone (almost, I think they have a few trusted friends on there) to regain some, even indirect, ability to influence Wikipedia. The patsy made the edit and was useful as long as they didn't get caught, but if they did... just send out more mass emails and look for the next one. Keep in mind that these guys, Icewhiz in particular, are straight up sociopaths (not hyperbole) who generally only see others in instrumental ways.

99% sure this happened with Buidhe. She got canvassed and made some questionable edits which she then had trouble defending, up to and including discussing non-existent sources or sources which obviously someone told her about but she didn't have access to (I'm sure they promised it really said that!) and that got her in some hot water at which point she (probably) cut off the communications figuring out that she was being used.

[Volunteer Marek]

Some of these, like this one

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1&dir=prev

look more like straight up sleeper socks rather than meat puppets. Which makes sense. If you're hell bent on getting your message through why not pursue multiple strategies at once?

[EytanMelech]

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.

On this specifically I feel is most important to address on this forum. I believe you are thinking of someone else? I never mentioned Israeli military or anything of the sort in my defense. Perhaps you are thinking of Dovid? He's the one who lives in Israel. I'm American, and have never been within 4,000 miles of the country, and have maybe spoken to at max 12 Israeli people in my entire life. You can check my Wikipedia page years back and it clearly states that I live in Philadelphia.

That being said, from the couple of Israeli people I have spoken to since the war started, a lot of them are pretty pro-Palestine and regularly visit websites I believe you may proscribe as "banned". Like, I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. You're speaking about Israel like it's Iran or something.

[nableezy]

…

So no response to the evidence of proxying at all? Cool.

[nableezy]

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.

Hotmail to Gmail and the emails I have are the .eml files with full headers.

[EytanMelech]

…

So no response to the evidence of proxying at all? Cool.

I think accused of being an Israeli asset is the more outrageous thing to address, especially considering I've aleady wrote like a dozen paragraphs on ArbCom's page about the proxying/meatpuppetry accusations.

[jf1970]

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.

Wikipedia's "email this user" logs have a timestamp.

[nableezy]

…

So no response to the evidence of proxying at all? Cool.

I think accused of being an Israeli asset is the more outrageous thing to address, especially considering I've aleady wrote like a dozen paragraphs on ArbCom's page about the proxying/meatpuppetry accusations.

You have been asking for evidence and I just gave it to you. Evidence that shows your dozen paragraphs to be diversionary and dishonest. Whatever though, I did my part to make this as fair as it can be.

[Ryuichi]

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.

Wikipedia's "email this user" logs have a timestamp.

But, as we are informed above, they don't log the recipients or the content of emails.

... and the following suggests that the Wikipedia email system was not used.

Hotmail to Gmail and the emails I have are the .eml files with full headers.

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

And so back to "the emails, either whole or in part, are repudiable" and "the chain of evidence is suboptimal".

[charliemouse]

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 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.

My theory explains how arbcom got the emails. They were spammed to "friendlies" and to "non-friendlies" who could be counted upon to blow the whistle. If this was a dedicated pro-Israel fanatic, why would he send incriminating emails to people who have a history of editing contrary to his desires? You can say "oh, sloppiness" but I understand that this "sloppy" guy created several dozen sockpuppets, indicating serious intent. Serious intent is inconsistent with sloppiness.

I can find no other lotical explanation for the peculiar behavior of the canvasser.

[charliemouse]

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.

Or the less absurd explanation, which is that somebody obsessive enough to make 288 confirmed sockpuppets, along with 102 suspected ones, and use countless IPs to continue edit-warring at the periphery of the subject area where extended-confirmed isnt employed, is also obsessive enough to add edit summaries to make it easier for people to justify their reverts. 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.

Assuming that's the case (that he created 288 socks), I think such a person, investing so much time into creating sockpuppets, would carefully vet who he's canvassing. A glance would show that he's canvassing somebody who will turn him in. It's my understanding that he canvassed multiple "unfriendlies."

[nableezy]

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

Just a smidge more than that.

[charliemouse]

I see that "My Very Best Wishes" posted in a similar vein to my theory, perhaps because he read my post. However I do not understand him. Perhaps he could clarify it here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ral_facts)

[Ryuichi]

"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.

Again, I don't suggest that anyone did edit them; and certainly not anyone involved in this discussion.

But, if the ostensible handling of them was something like: Email sent -> Recipient saves as .eml -> Recipient sends .eml to you -> You send .eml to ArbCom; then there's nothing to guarantee that what was received by ArbCom is actually what was sent.

If, however, you were one of the original recipients, rather than an intermediary, then I think, perhaps, the mouse is onto something.

[nableezy]

…

At least you fixed your original post saying it didn’t detect changes to the message. And anybody who reads this thread from the start will see I am not the original recipient of the emails. But, and more to the point, you can intimate but deny that I am making this shit up, I don’t really care. I think I have an established track record of not making shit up, and if I were to do that why would I go after EytanMelech? The man has like a couple of dozen edits that I’ve ever even noticed, why would I fabricate evidence against him? Why not Marokwitz or Andrevan or BilledMammal or or or. Why would I go through this level of effort to get rid of an editor I barely even noticed? My self-respect is worth more than avoiding a sanction or getting one placed on another user.

Also, my initial report to ArbCom said that this came from a user who himself is banned so they can take it with the size grain of salt they think they need to. I see no reason why they would make any of it up either, and fabricating that many emails and that many timestamps seems like a lot of effort for no real benefit. Plus, as far as I can tell, he is more ideologically aligned with that group than he is with me.

[jf1970]

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.

Wikipedia's "email this user" logs have a timestamp.

But, as we are informed above, they don't log the recipients or the content of emails.

... and the following suggests that the Wikipedia email system was not used.

Where above? Arbcom said at least some of the emails were sent using the email system. Whether arbcom actually looked at email logs who knows.

[Ryuichi]

…

... And anybody who reads this thread from the start will see I am not the original recipient of the emails.

That was my recollection, but I didn't fancy going back through two pages to confirm, and so covered both bases.

But, and more to the point, you can intimate but deny that I am making this shit up, I don’t really care. I think I have an established track record of not making shit up, and if I were to do that why would I go after EytanMelech? ...

I think I've been quite clear that I don't believe that you're "making this shit up".

... My self-respect is worth more than avoiding a sanction or getting one placed on another user.

Hmm... well... good.

[MrErnie]

The Arbitration Committee asks the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse.

Arbcom is asking the WMF to strip away editor privacy protections so they can, do what exactly? Prevent people from sending emails to each other? Block editors who receive emails from blocked editors?

Arbs, think about what you are asking for, and what the usually incompetent WMF would deliver.

[Ryuichi]

Where above? Arbcom said at least some of the emails were sent using the email system. Whether arbcom actually looked at email logs who knows.

ArbCom doesn't have access to email server logs. ArbCom has access to CU logs.

From the first page of this thread:

I believe that checkusers can check if an account has sent an email using the internal Wikipedia email system, but I don’t know if it shows the recipient and it doesn’t show the contents.

I don’t know if a checkuser can check an account to see if they have received an email or if it will show the sender - we would need a CU to confirm but I doubt they’d give away any of their secrets.

So some people on Wikipedia can see who sent an email, but only people at WMF can see who received an email?

I also seem to recall seeing some CU output from one of the Lourdes palavers, which showed only that email had been sent by the user. Perhaps the Athenaerea/TNT one?

EDIT:
Actually, email recipients are explicitly documented as not visible to CUs.
See: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CheckUser. Search for configuration option: $wgCUPublicKey

Used with an associated private key to encrypt certain data that is not shown to CUs but stored in the cu_changes or cu_private_event table. Currently this is only the recipients of emails. Without a valid public key the data will not be stored.

[charliemouse]

The Arbitration Committee asks the Wikimedia Foundation for assistance creating technical measures to prevent the ongoing abuse.

Arbcom is asking the WMF to strip away editor privacy protections so they can, do what exactly? Prevent people from sending emails to each other? Block editors who receive emails from blocked editors?

Arbs, think about what you are asking for, and what the usually incompetent WMF would deliver.

They already know if banned editors, or any editors, are sending emails using the internal system. What more do they want to do? How else can they "prevent the ongoing abuse" without actually reading the emails? I thought they were such privacy fanatics that they want to deny people the evidence used to ban them?

[jf1970]

Where above? Arbcom said at least some of the emails were sent using the email system. Whether arbcom actually looked at email logs who knows.

ArbCom doesn't have access to email server logs. ArbCom has access to CU logs.

Arbcom can ask the WMF to check the server logs.

You're right if this is all based on emails forwarded from somebody then it's a total joke. That's why I presume (maybe wrongly) that they corroborated against email server logs. Maybe someone should ask arbcom for clarification.

[Bezdomni]

It appears that "war in Gaza" (found on 152 pages) is still edging out "war on Gaza" (found on 109 pages) in mainspace...

[Emptyeye]

Arbcom is asking the WMF to strip away editor privacy protections so they can, do what exactly? Prevent people from sending emails to each other? Block editors who receive emails from blocked editors?

Arbs, think about what you are asking for, and what the usually incompetent WMF would deliver.

Yeah, the initial way this was presented on-wiki did read very much like "We're voting on banning a bunch of people whose crime was being the target of canvassing". That's just frightening, and while that doesn't appear to be what the actual votes are for, if this iteration of ArbCom is going to be this bad at explaining what's actually going on, then....yikes, I worry about the next year of ArbCom cases.

Even with the clarifications (Which was "Nonono it's not just that they were targetted it's that we're pretty sure they acted on it"), though, I find myself agreeing with you. Last I checked, which I admit was not recently, even "proxying for a banned user" was not in itself prohibited. Basically, you (general you) take over the responsibility for the edits, including any consequences if the edits turn out to be bad. Were these edits bad? I don't know (I am very much ignorant of the topic area in question), but if my understanding of policy re: banned user edits is still correct, there's been not-even-close-to-enough discussion on this on the motion voting pages.

(It's very possible the proposed edits are bad, incidentally. If so, consequences should follow on that basis, independent of the canvassing/being canvassed to make them.)