Suspicious !votes on Israel-Hamas genocide RfC

[JDiala]

See link, Six consecutive !votes within 4-hour period on 22 February after the RfC was quiet for relatively a month.

Obvious coordinated hasbara attempt is obvious. What should be done about this?

Option D Politicized accusations should not appear on lede. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The whole article is about politics, since wars are politics, and lead must reflect body. — kashmīrī TALK 11:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Option D Because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool. Article should be restricted to facts, nothing else. Hogo-2020 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
If you think Wikipedia covering accusations of genocide including a preliminary ruling from the ICJ is propaganda, I'd suggest you either don't understand what Wikipedia is or don't know what propaganda is. AusLondonder (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Option D. Unfortunately this term is now applied to nearly every conflict. While we can't stop it as we need to follow the sources, we shouldn't run ahead them either. For now it's an accusation, and Hamas has been credibly accused of genocidal intent, with their atrocities and charter. I suppose that once the ICJ rules on this it will receive widespread coverage and we'll add it then. Alaexis¿question? 20:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's an accusation, and that's much more meat than there exists for Transgender genocide – and that article doesn't even use the term "accusation". Removing the mention of Gaza genocide from lead would feel like censorship. — kashmīrī TALK 11:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Option D Not the job of Wikipedia to decide on this. With so much bias one way or the other, this is best left out at least for now.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Option D I don't have much to add to the mountains of claims that were written above. If needed, I'll add the main arguements that convinced me. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 21:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Option D - The hyperbolic accusation is undue for lead, although if the ICJ rules that the war constitutes genocide, then it's a different story. But I doubt South Africa will be able to prove that Israel's intention is to exterminate the Gazan population rather than destroy a terrorist group and get their hostages back. We'll see, but it's too soon to add this to lead. –BanyanClimber(talk) 23:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
If you're destroying a terrorist group, why would you kill more than 12,000 children? More than 1% of the children in Gaza. How is that part of destroying a terrorist group? AusLondonder (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

[Ryuichi]

Well, probably AusLondonder needs a stern talking from an admin about WP:FORUM.



But really, obvious canvassing is obvious, as are obvious low quality votes. A closer worth tuppence would discount or downweight many of the votes above. And many of the other votes in the RfC; including some of those in favour of each of the options.

Now, finding a tuppence worthy closer is a different question.

[AndyTheGrump]

The solution is obvious. If two consecutive votes agree with each other, delete the second to remove the possibility of canvassing.

[nableezy]

One of those users was blocked as a confirmed sock of AndresHerutJaim, the person responsible for the canvassing campaign that resulted in bans for Dovidroth and EytanMelech. It appears that ArbCom didn't quite solve that problem entirely, whodathunkit.