Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

What this page is for:: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.
What this page is not for:: To request arbitration, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. For information on the Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. To report a violation of a Committee decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by .

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II

Original announcement

Noting that Baderdean was renamed to ChottGuebli back in January. Some clerking might be needed to move the notification to the renamed account's talk page. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks for the note :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 19:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the ~250 pages "dossier", they identified ~250 edits done -in total- by the TfP editors. I can do that in a day. A temptest in a teapot comes to mind? Huldra (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your numbers are wrong. That total was for the inactive editors that they didn’t take action on. The two banned had 2,000 edits, and other editors named that had been previously blocked or topic-banned had over 17,000 edits. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My numbers are from p. 3 (out of 244): "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles.(link) (bolding in the original) Huldra (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lesson for those guys is that, for the PIA topic area, and perhaps in general, off-wiki collaboration is less effective and has higher risks than simply using sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think off-wiki collaboration and socking are mutually exclusive in the way this lesson would imply. CMD (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't intend to suggest that they are mutually exclusive, merely that one strategy has been much more effective than the other. Last time I looked, ban/block evading actors were responsible for between 6 to 8 percent of revisions in the topic area. I don't think we have seen off-wiki collaborations that can out-perform the numerous dedicated individual ban evading actors that have always been a significant part of the topic area's editing community, not yet anyway. Maybe that will change when the AI agents get a bit better. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What this doesn't tell us if there are any more competent off-wiki collaborations going on - we may not be always able to rely on tipoffs and dossiers of evidence for Arbcom etc to review.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I think the chance that non-public collaborations become public significantly increases with time and group size. A more effective strategy appears to be to do it openly in public using partisan media and via social media. That's seems to be a pretty effective way to find partisan actors susceptible to influence and send them here. Most of them won't survive, but some will. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does "The two banned had 2,000 edits" tell us about their impact on the topic area? Not very much. From the perspective of the imperfect, but better than nothing, model of the 'topic area' used for statistical purposes in the ArbCom case, GeoColdWater made 23 edits to the topic area, Isoceles-sai made 96, and what I regard as an account that resembles an unreported sock that commented in a move discussion started by GeoColdWater has made 451 edits in the topic area. If GeoColdWater, Isoceles-sai or any of these people had not been involved in an off-wiki group, had used sockpuppetry if blocked or topic banned, they would likely still be editing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someonefighter banned

Original announcement

I'm not surprised. Was this based on private evidence? Zero^talk 13:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was a checkuser run on the account? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware of their work in the PIA, so I was surprised by this. They did a lot of work over at WP:URA. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four out of five of their top edited artcles were in the zone, tbf. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Noleander

Original announcement