Jump to content

User talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Almost definitely a bad idea, but…

Regarding your comments in the Arb discussion, which is already giving me a headache, and from which I hope to stay away as much as humanly possible, despite my temptation to do otherwise. This is slightly inspired but some of the debates in and around the discussion, so credit goes to whoever wrote the ideas first :) Maybe this is both overcomplicated and a bad idea, but what about a “content board”, with elected 5 editors, 2 from each ‘faction’ and one uninvolved administrator, which can be involved to litigate complicated content decisions (as in, writing sentences for the article). The board would require a 4/1 majority for the content they create, and the solution would be subject to a yes/no RfC, with the special alteration that consensus against is required to prevent implementation. The voting requirements might help remedy this real-world problem, the fixed balance would make sock-puppets significantly less effective, the bickering about RfC options might be lower than it is now, and it gets additional legitimacy in case of media scrutiny. In addition, this sort of process is almost impossible to disrupt, because much of the “outrage”-based issues are harder to apply against a panel, the benefit to impacting voting for members of the panel does very little because the desired balance is already set, and trying to sock-puppet your way into consensus against a solution (instead of a no-consensus or normal talk page disruption/edit warring) requires a lot more effort. The only problem I still have is how to figure out who can vote for and be a member of each “faction”, particularly with those editors (to be fair, pretty rare in this area) without at least a mild POV. The main draw-back is speed, but many of those edit wars are months or years in the making, so I’m less concerned about that. What do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I have a bad ideas machine in my head that never shuts up, a constant intrusive stream of 'what if...' nonsense, with a good original idea that actually works about once a decade. I look forward to age quietening it down. So, it's always a relief to look at someone else's bad ideas. However, on first read, I think this might be a good idea. I'll have a proper look tomorrow. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, you got one too? Always nice to meet members of the club.
Thank you very much, I’m looking forward to it! FortunateSons (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks like I'll need to let this marinate for a while. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Don’t worry, I’ll be spending the next days running through multiple cities, no problem at all if it takes a while :) FortunateSons (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
No pressure at all, but do you have any new thoughts? Or are we taking more about a Dry aging-timeline? ;) FortunateSons (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
My mind is very slow. I got stuck on the '2 from each ‘faction’'. This started me thinking about the potential effects of skewed editing being both allowed and common. Then I got stuck on thinking of editors with opposite valence in PIA as conjugate pairs, and the set of conjugate pairs making PIA into a kind of autocatalytic set where the fixing someone else's bias involves creating a disposable account and it never ends. None of this is helpful at all. I like the idea of a content board to decide complicated content decisions when discussion start to strongly resemble an ant mill. But I don't like the idea of elevating Wikipedia's apparent acceptance of bias, and 'factions', to even higher levels. This is because it's probably one of the main drivers of instability in the topic area. I get stuck on what seems like an inconsistency to me. On the one hand we have the code of conduct that doesn't allow "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", and on the other we have reality where "systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view", whether intentional or unintentional, is pretty much standard operating procedure for many editors, especially socks, in the topic area. If there were a content board, I think it might be better if the members were disinterested, and only focused on policy compliance, if that's even possible. And media scrutiny isn't a factor for me because it's not part of the content decision procedures. Anyway, that's all I've got for now. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
You: “my mind is very slow”
Also you: provides high-level analysis based on a variety of risks, factors and ethical evaluations ;)
Memes aside, I understand what you mean (after reading about the Autocatalytic sets). I’m glad you like the idea for the envisioned use case in general. Based on the Zionist boards/subreddits/discussion spaces I occasionally read, the common sentiment seems to be that en.wiki is hopeless pro-Palestinian, and that joining is either hopeless or to be considered the sort of partisan work where deception is acceptable or even desirable. That perception may or may not be true, but as long as it exists, it’s likely that we’ll get many pre-jaded editors from the pro-I side, and to the best of my knowledge, the same dynamic exists in pro-P spaces as well. Anything to point towards for the benefit of “proving lack of bias” might be a good way of avoiding that flavour of disruption, with the same applying to media scrutiny, where I consider a negative perception of wiki to be harmful to its encyclopaedic purpose (and to our ability to attracting skilled and motivated volunteers).
The unfortunate issue with creating a “disinterested” board is that they may not understand some of the more complicated nuances of any specific decision, and why certain phrasings are basically a provocation for one or the other group of editors. That is an issue that can be remedied through excellent knowledge of the underlying material, but I haven’t encountered anyone who has thought and read in depth about the topic and remained unbiased, but perhaps that’s just the size of my sample.
Regarding in effect rewarding factions, yes, that’s an unfortunate consequence, and one I wish we could avoid. I must admit to somewhat liking the “TNT-esque” idea about the topic area, but that’s of course easy to say as an alleged member of the faction with a current numerical disadvantage among the more active editors. Part of the issue is that people feel like they are not creating bias, but counteracting it, as well as the collective inability to agree on the same set of basic facts. In addition, actually sanctioning severely biased editors would rid us of many of the WP:Unblockables, which also happen to produce a significant percentage of the content. An argument can be made for a sort of Decimation targeted at the worst contributors on one or both sides, but that’s unjust, ineffective, or arguably both, if imposed as a meta-level punishment.
Not to add complexity to an already complex idea, but perhaps having a “binational” board (split 2/2) (Pun very much intended) and a neutral board with 3 editors, with majorities required in both, might alleviate the concerns about basically endorsing the bias? You have my gratitude for the detailed response!FortunateSons (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, the other thing that always confuses me is whether the so-called wisdom of crowds is a) real and b) whether it ever applies to PIA content (perhaps over long timescales). Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
That’s a fascinating question. Unfortunately, I seem to be unable to come up with an answer that would be of any use. FortunateSons (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons I'm not Sean, but as someone stopping by with a different matter - if ARBCOM won't opt for my preferred solution, I actually think the above idea is one of the better alternatives I've heard. If Wikipedia can't get rid of the factions entirely and start from scratch, it might as well regulate them to its advantage. The Kip (contribs) 03:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I’m glad you like it! FortunateSons (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Input on potential sleeper/sock

Account created in 2009, had just three total edits in that 15-year span (including an ECR violation from March), and, as of today, has suddenly taken a great interest in making some rather POV edit requests on the talk page of Kidnapping and killing of Hersh Goldberg-Polin. My alarm bells are ringing - as something of the sock czar, what do you think? The Kip (contribs) 03:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Kip, I have no idea really with so few edits, but if I had to pick a potential sockmaster, I would probably pick this guy for the following reasons
I'm not sure if I agree with that sockmaster - the POV in question appears to be the opposite, given that from NoCal's LTA page, they appear(ed) to be aggressively pro-Israeli and/or islamophobic, while the possible sleeper here is complaining of pro-IDF/anti-Hamas bias in the article (unless NoCal ever tried false-flagging). Appreciate the insight, however - I'll keep you in the loop if anything further pops up. The Kip (contribs) 05:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure, opposite valence, but that could be just be kabuki theater. I'm skeptical of the dance with The Mountain of Eden, an account that I believe for technical reasons could possibly be a sock of Plot Spoiler (that registered the same day as their last sock Loksmythe was blocked). Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

<- Nableezy is the NoCal expert so might be able to shed some light on the matter. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Your SPI tool

I'd love to know more about the tool you used to do that analysis on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Irtapil. RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith Me too. It's still a mysterious and confusing work in progress with highly questionable (or let's say unquantified) resolution and reliability for me. Broadly speaking, it looks at vector representations of stuff in the database. There's so much information in there that you can make various metric spaces then look at the relationship between vectors. Since these are quite high dimensional spaces, I have no idea what is going on in them...I can barely cope with 2 dimensions and get lost quite often. The Irtapil socks have interested me for a while because I don't really understand how it's making the connection. And I'm highly skeptical. The test dataset is relatively small, and results can be contradictory and clearly wrong in some cases. Still, it seems to be doing something, sometimes. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I should also mention that it's not just vector representations of data from the database. I also inject a large number of synthetic signal and noise vectors into the spaces, often more than the stuff coming out of the databases. Broadly, you can think of the left side of the plot as information about signal and the right side as information about noise. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't really understand what your thingie does beyond that it looks at various metrics and says how similar they are, so forgive me if this is a stupid, obvious, or way off base question: does the thingie work for smaller groups of accounts? Say I got a group of 20 or 30 accounts, and they're all similar but I want to know which are more similar to some than others, like whether they cluster into sub-groups, or which sock goes with which master. Can your tool help with that? Levivich (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe, it depends, but the problem is I don't really understand what it depends on. I do know that sample sizes and dimensionality matter a lot, in both directions, too little and too much. I don't know how much information is needed to produce sensible results. I don't have a clue. For example, I left something out of those ABHammad plots, the fact that some functions linked it to another of the sockmaster's accounts, Jujubird, even though that account only made 66 edits. Seems suspicious/too good to be true/a coincidence. I assume results for low edit count accounts are probably very unreliable. Anyway, I usually just try stuff and see what happens, so feel free to mail the account list and I can have a look. It's not really designed to look at clustering because I decided to focus on comparing a single reference account to all the others in the dataset, although I can probably see info for all accounts to all accounts comparisons if I look. It might help in my quest to discover the ignition temperature of my processors, which seem to get a bit toasty doing this stuff. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Regarding I don't know how much information is needed to produce sensible results, I've looked at a few attempts to do automated sock analysis and it often comes back to this. We've got a few 10's of thousands of known sock accounts. By machine learning standards, that's a small data set. By way of comparison, email spam detection models can train on 100's of billions of emails per day. So while I'm interested in these sorts of tools, and sometimes use them, they're not a magic sock detector wand. RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Certainly not a magic wand, but perhaps a guide when the search space is already relatively small, contentious topic area small. On machine learning in general to detect socks in Wikipedia, I was actually very surprised at how well one system performed. I would have expected noise to swamp signal. Years ago, I read a paper, I think it was this one, and it got stuck in my mind, because the system is clearly detecting features. 'What are they' is the question that got stuck. Maybe you can find them in lower dimensional spaces is what I thought. It is one of those annoying unresolved puzzles. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, actually I should mention this, because this is the most important point of all. My preferred solution to sockpuppetry is to lower the barrier for checkuser tool usage in contentious topic areas to a set of simple triggers - like edit warring, receiving a block, resembling a topic banned/blocked user in any way whatsoever, anything that counts as "disruptive editing", the intriguingly fuzzy phrase used in the checkuser policy. In a perfect world I would like to just request a checkuser and its done, no questions asked. Then I probably wouldn't be looking at the issue at all. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Stating The Obvious

Because some people apparently don't comprehend the obvious. The status of Wikipedia pages is not enforced by editors. It is enforced systematically. Unless you are visually impaired, the status of the Terrorism page is noted by the gray padlock: "Semi-Protected." Nothing else. Please stop mindlessly edit-warring. The result may be than an admin will block your account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnadams11 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Johnadams11, people are volunteers here. Don't waste their time with this childish nonsense. You are free to ignore my advice. Perhaps you will learn a valuable lesson about entitlement and listening to advice. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know what circles you travel in, but your assertions are weightless without evidence. One of us is seeking to engage, the other has adopted some mindless high-handedness and name calling. Waste of time indeed. Johnadams11 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
When parts of an article are covered by sanctions you are responsible for following sanctions you have been made aware of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Mass creation of sockpuppet user pages in mainspace

Hello. I've noticed that you've created numerous sock userpages in mainspace, but shouldn't they all be moved to userspace instead? I honestly don't get why they were created in mainspace. CycloneYoris talk! 07:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked your account to stop the mass creation spree, which is suggestive of a possible compromise. If there's another explanation, you can request an unblock with {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Sean.hoyland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I'm trying to make sure the category graph for a particularly prolific sockmaster is complete...apparently in the wrong namespace. Not sure how I managed that major error. Sorry about that. Maybe I can move the pages. Sock detection machine learning projects appear to rely on the completeness of category graphs so I was trying to have a look at what would be involved in completing a graph for one sockmaster. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked, and I'll delete the mainspace pages. I would suggest discussing this somewhere (maybe WT:SPI) before continuing in AWB; the choice not to tag is often deliberate, and mass editing needs consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, good advice, I'll hold off, maybe reread WP:NOTLAB, and raise the issue for discussion somewhere. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hezbollah

Hezbollah has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. It is a wonderful world (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Suspend WP:SOCK?

Can you explain what you meant here? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean remedies and rules should reflect reality rather than be merely aspirational. I think there is little point having rules that either can't be enforced for technical reasons or that people are unwilling to enforce for wiki-cultural reasons (mostly to do with privacy concerns as far as I can tell). My thinking on this issue has changed a lot over the years because I see the same ban evading individuals over and over again and the amount of energy that goes into preparing and processing SPI reports. I still think that in an ideal system, PIA should be run like a surveillance state with checkusers being carried out routinely, but that's never going to happen. My views are mostly described in the Being realistic/know your limits section of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Sean.hoyland, together with the section responding to The Kip below that. My main concern is that ban evasion produces 2 classes of actor with asymmetries in the payoffs and penalties for socks vs non-socks, and in this kind of system deceptive actors have a fitness advantage because sanctions have zero cost for disposable accounts. Suspending WP:SOCK for a subset of articles would flatten these 2 classes into a single class. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Graph of edits by socks

Is it possible to compare that with total edits to the same pages over the same time periods in order to determine what portion of edits are by socks? Levivich (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible, but I've been trying to avoid getting hate mail from the wikimedia cloud people. It's on my to-do list. I can probably do it in bite sized chunks that aren't too annoying for the servers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I should add a couple of things
  • Presenting the ban evading data separately was a deliberate choice because, for me,
    • the absolute numbers matter regardless of the relative numbers - just one ban evading actor on a talk page or edit warring is often enough to start a fire as they have nothing to lose by being blocked
    • the total edit counts will obviously include lots of unblocked hard working ban evading actors
  • I'm pulling data at a per actor per month resolution and staging it in a local DB so there's quite a lot of data.
  • The ban evasion data used for the plot (including sockmaster info from the woefully incomplete sock category graph) is available here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for putting that together! Another question: Is it easy to run the analysis for a small subset? I wonder what's it look like just for one article, or "top" articles, like Israel-Hamas war, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian conflict? BTW, I agree with you that absolute numbers matter, and also that edit count is a pretty poor metric anyway in terms of influence or disruption. (One well-placed revert or RFC vote can influence NPOV way more than 1,000 typo fixes, as I'm sure you already well realize.) But this is interesting data anyway, at least to check my own assumptions about how "widespread" socking is. (Less than I thought!) Levivich (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should be easy to run it at the article level. I'll have a look. It's hard to say how widespread socking is. Socks tend to only make a relatively small percentage of their edits in the topic area compared to outside. Whatever it is, it's presumably much less than the honest folk, I would hope anyway. It's not encouraging when you read the literature and see ban evasion detection rates in other systems as low as 10%. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it was Georgia Tech that noticed that ban evading accounts are statistically much less likely to swear than normal editors. So, it might be worth suspending the WP:NPA policy in PIA temporarily to help identify all the suspiciously polite ban evaders. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Great idea. Maybe we could trial run it for a day or a week or something. At the very least, it would be cathartic for all of us. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Sean.hoyland can you cite me the research that socks are less likely to swear than non-socks? VR (Please ping on reply) 19:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Vice regent, I think it was https://doi.org/10.1145/3485447.3512133 from a couple of years ago. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Levivich, finally got around to looking at this.
  • Some plots at the article level.
  • I wasn't sure which articles to pick, so these are articles in the Top-importance and High-importance categories for both the Israel and Palestine projects i.e. the intersection of the list of Top and High-importance articles for those projects.
  • There seems to be some weirdness and randomness in there as far as which articles have been designated as Top and High importance and some of them seem to have been merged into other articles at some point (leaving a talk page behind).
  • I've included pageview data for interest (including views from redirects as the direct pageview counts can be a bit of an undercount at times).
  • To keep the plots roughly the same width and make it easy to scroll through them, they all start from the year 2000 regardless of when the article was created. I also included a few vertically oriented plots for the newer articles e.g. here.
  • If the article is extended confirmed protected, the padlock is plotted to show when...in theory anyway...although I've just noticed that there is no padlock on the Arab–Israeli conflict plot despite it apparently being EC protected. No idea what's going on there...
Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Apparently, there are multiple ways to log extended confirmed protection, so I missed a couple. Plots replaced. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Since the intersection between the 2 projects misses so much (e.g. Nakba) I'll probably generate plots for the remaining 53 Top-importance Palestine project articles and maybe some or all of the 92 Top-importance Israel project article that the intersection misses, just out of curiosity. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Sean -- sorry, I just remembered that I never replied to this. Thanks, again, for putting it together. Looks like you were right, it's not a huge proportion of all edits, but that tells me that the edits are quite targetted. A few socks, a few well-placed reverts or votes, is all it takes? Levivich (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Noticeboard Notice (October 2024)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Has this image appeared earlier on Wikipedia? Also, are those numbers real? Many of them look impossibly high. Zerotalk 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Zero0000, not as far as I'm aware. Actually, that is one of the few interesting things in the article for me because it says something about the stupidity and/or dishonesty of the source or the author or both. Getting things right does not appear to be something the author cares for. I think the stats are accurate, and fairly recent, but the description is misleading. The numbers are page intersection counts, any kind of page, article, talk, user talk etc. So, for example, 'Surtsicna' and 'Dimadick' currently have 8134 page intersections, a couple more than when that crosstab was generated. Here's 5 examples; 3rd_Spanish_Armada, 10th_century, 10_Downing_Street, 1269_Cilicia_earthquake, 1002_German_royal_election. It goes on like that for thousands and thousands of articles nothing to do with pro-Hamas editors hijacking Wikipedia. Trying to tell that kind of story using raw page intersection data like that seems unusually stupid and/or dishonest to me. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Honesty is not the intention, of course. Now that Elon Musk has tweeted it, millions have seen it. Zerotalk 11:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
That's great news for the author. Only the engagement matters. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Off meds

Hi Sean, in this comment, are you calling David someone off their meds with paranoid dreams of anti-editor pogroms? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary, I guess you are referring to this comment. No, not David, I'm referring to the author of the article who made defamatory (and profoundly dumb and dishonest) claims about me and many other editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed blocked

Curious how your 2024 numbers compare to 2022 (so as to remove any of the current Israel/Palestine conflict) if this is something you could run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the numbers I posted at SPI (that I seem to have got a bit wrong at first because my understanding of the data model is apparently still full of holes), I'm still thinking about what to do. I was just curious whether there is any relationship between how long an account takes to become EC and whether they are eventually blocked for ban evasion. I wasn't expecting to see so few accounts even making it to EC. I'll try to have a look at the stats over the years when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Barkeep49, well, this has turned into a bit of a rabbit hole, but in the meantime, here's some data for interest.
  • This is for all of Wikipedia rather than the PIA topic area. I'll try to see if stats for the subset of accounts with edits in PIA are different from Wikipedia in general when I have time.
  • These are monthly stats for accounts that were granted the EC privilege. The block_sock_count column gives the number that were blocked as socks (based on the presence of one of the following terms in the block log - "checkuser", "sock", "multiple accounts", "evasion", "proxy").
  • Just looking at accounts that registered this year skews the picture as it seems that most grants for extendedconfirmed are to accounts that took more than a year to acquire the privilege.
  • 2016 is unusual presumably because that was the year the privilege was rolled out.
  • The percentage of EC accounts blocked as socks seems to vary quite a lot.
Extended content
ec_year ec_month non_sock_count blocked_sock_count total_new_ec sock_percent
0 2016 4 14079 324 14403 2.25
1 2016 5 3479 58 3537 1.64
2 2016 6 2002 40 2042 1.96
3 2016 7 1420 29 1449 2.0
4 2016 8 1239 33 1272 2.59
5 2016 9 971 35 1006 3.48
6 2016 10 826 25 851 2.94
7 2016 11 768 21 789 2.66
8 2016 12 703 24 727 3.3
9 2017 1 729 40 769 5.2
10 2017 2 607 23 630 3.65
11 2017 3 590 26 616 4.22
12 2017 4 496 34 530 6.42
13 2017 5 503 27 530 5.09
14 2017 6 430 20 450 4.44
15 2017 7 454 23 477 4.82
16 2017 8 488 19 507 3.75
17 2017 9 397 22 419 5.25
18 2017 10 409 11 420 2.62
19 2017 11 399 30 429 6.99
20 2017 12 379 20 399 5.01
21 2018 1 420 28 448 6.25
22 2018 2 393 26 419 6.21
23 2018 3 391 19 410 4.63
24 2018 4 400 17 417 4.08
25 2018 5 372 35 407 8.6
26 2018 6 322 35 357 9.8
27 2018 7 370 19 389 4.88
28 2018 8 364 19 383 4.96
29 2018 9 325 18 343 5.25
30 2018 10 337 21 358 5.87
31 2018 11 296 25 321 7.79
32 2018 12 323 25 348 7.18
33 2019 1 396 31 427 7.26
34 2019 2 307 22 329 6.69
35 2019 3 302 30 332 9.04
36 2019 4 332 25 357 7.0
37 2019 5 327 17 344 4.94
38 2019 6 334 25 359 6.96
39 2019 7 289 34 323 10.53
40 2019 8 330 32 362 8.84
41 2019 9 328 33 361 9.14
42 2019 10 321 25 346 7.23
43 2019 11 294 23 317 7.26
44 2019 12 302 29 331 8.76
45 2020 1 334 29 363 7.99
46 2020 2 281 27 308 8.77
47 2020 3 312 24 336 7.14
48 2020 4 351 34 385 8.83
49 2020 5 376 41 417 9.83
50 2020 6 354 43 397 10.83
51 2020 7 392 32 424 7.55
52 2020 8 312 29 341 8.5
53 2020 9 312 23 335 6.87
54 2020 10 335 37 372 9.95
55 2020 11 301 30 331 9.06
56 2020 12 356 36 392 9.18
57 2021 1 373 35 408 8.58
58 2021 2 349 33 382 8.64
59 2021 3 386 32 418 7.66
60 2021 4 385 37 422 8.77
61 2021 5 361 29 390 7.44
62 2021 6 372 29 401 7.23
63 2021 7 300 28 328 8.54
64 2021 8 352 44 396 11.11
65 2021 9 307 42 349 12.03
66 2021 10 296 52 348 14.94
67 2021 11 326 26 352 7.39
68 2021 12 300 33 333 9.91
69 2022 1 310 29 339 8.55
70 2022 2 279 29 308 9.42
71 2022 3 330 34 364 9.34
72 2022 4 260 25 285 8.77
73 2022 5 340 29 369 7.86
74 2022 6 310 29 339 8.55
75 2022 7 280 34 314 10.83
76 2022 8 307 28 335 8.36
77 2022 9 281 27 308 8.77
78 2022 10 307 28 335 8.36
79 2022 11 254 24 278 8.63
80 2022 12 285 27 312 8.65
81 2023 1 351 26 377 6.9
82 2023 2 282 16 298 5.37
83 2023 3 307 24 331 7.25
84 2023 4 267 29 296 9.8
85 2023 5 274 21 295 7.12
86 2023 6 291 24 315 7.62
87 2023 7 292 18 310 5.81
88 2023 8 286 20 306 6.54
89 2023 9 299 22 321 6.85
90 2023 10 290 26 316 8.23
91 2023 11 290 32 322 9.94
92 2023 12 297 27 324 8.33
93 2024 1 351 24 375 6.4
94 2024 2 321 21 342 6.14
95 2024 3 313 26 339 7.67
96 2024 4 319 15 334 4.49
97 2024 5 355 20 375 5.33
98 2024 6 288 11 299 3.68
99 2024 7 339 21 360 5.83
100 2024 8 328 12 340 3.53
101 2024 9 328 14 342 4.09
102 2024 10 309 5 314 1.59
103 2024 11 76 3 79 3.8

massacres

Hi, I think that there are 1783 articles with "massacre" in the title, but how do I restrict it to ARBPIA articles? I know a little bit of SQL but I'm a novice on the WP database. Zerotalk 07:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have the data for that already - I can upload it in a couple of hours unless Sean also has it handy. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I never have anything handy including my hands. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I ended up doing it slightly differently than I planned, and adapted an old quarry query. Results are here BilledMammal (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Different SQL, same results, plus the 3 redirects. Disappointing. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

<- Still, I can never miss the opportunity presented by 2 people doing the same thing and potentially producing inconsistent results. This is what I get, limited to article namespace but including redirects.

Extended content
page_title page_namespace page_is_redirect
0 1929 Hebron massacre 0 0
1 1938 Tiberias massacre 0 0
2 1956 Rafah massacre 0 0
3 Abu Shusha massacre 0 0
4 Aishiyeh massacres 0 0
5 Al-Dawayima massacre 0 0
6 Al-Kabri massacre 0 0
7 Alumim massacre 0 0
8 Arab al-Mawasi massacre 0 0
9 Balad al-Shaykh massacre 0 0
10 Be'eri massacre 0 0
11 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre 0 0
12 Coastal road massacre 0 0
13 Damour massacre 0 0
14 Deir Yassin massacre 0 0
15 Dolphinarium discotheque massacre 0 0
16 Eilabun massacre 0 0
17 Ein al-Zeitun massacre 0 0
18 Ein HaShlosha massacre 0 1
19 Flour massacre 0 0
20 Flour Massacre 0 1
21 Hadassah medical convoy massacre 0 0
22 Haifa Oil Refinery massacre 0 0
23 Hula massacre 0 0
24 Island of Peace massacre 0 0
25 Kafr Qasim massacre 0 0
26 Kfar Aza massacre 0 0
27 Kfar Etzion massacre 0 0
28 Khan Yunis massacre 0 0
29 Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war 0 0
30 Kiryat Shmona massacre 0 0
31 Kissufim massacre 0 0
32 List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine 0 0
33 List of massacres during the Israel–Hamas war 0 1
34 List of massacres in Israel 0 0
35 List of massacres in Jerusalem 0 0
36 List of massacres in the Palestinian territories 0 0
37 Lod Airport massacre 0 0
38 Ma'ale Akrabim massacre 0 0
39 Ma'alot massacre 0 0
40 Massacre in Lydda 0 1
41 Massacre of pensioners in Sderot 0 1
42 Mossad assassinations following the Munich massacre 0 0
43 Munich massacre 0 0
44 Netiv HaAsara massacre 0 0
45 Nova music festival massacre 0 0
46 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 0 0
47 Passover massacre 0 0
48 Psyduck music festival massacre 0 0
49 Qana massacre 0 0
50 Qibya massacre 0 0
51 Ras Sedr massacre 0 0
52 Sa'sa' massacre 0 0
53 Sabra and Shatila massacre 0 0
54 Safsaf massacre 0 0
55 Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre 0 0
56 Tantura massacre 0 0
57 Tel Aviv central bus station massacre 0 0
58 Yakhini massacre 0 1
Much obliged. Zerotalk 11:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Missed 3 redirects because of the binary collation that I always forget. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
ARBPIA articles with "massacre" in the title
year title victims
1929 1929 Hebron massacre Jews
1938 1938 Tiberias massacre Jews
1956 1956 Rafah massacre Palestinians
1948 Abu Shusha massacre Palestinians
1976 Aishiyeh massacres Lebanese
1948 Al-Dawayima massacre Palestinians
1948 Al-Kabri massacre Palestinians
2023 Alumim massacre Jews
1948 Arab al-Mawasi massacre Palestinians
1948 Balad al-Shaykh massacre Palestinians
2023 Be'eri massacre Jews
1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre Palestinians
1978 Coastal road massacre Jews
1976 Damour massacre Lebanese
1948 Deir Yassin massacre Palestinians
2001 Dolphinarium discotheque massacre Jews
1948 Eilabun massacre Palestinians
1948 Ein al-Zeitun massacre Palestinians
2024 Flour massacre Palestinians
1948 Hadassah medical convoy massacre Jews
1947 Haifa Oil Refinery massacre Jews
1948 Hula massacre Lebanese
1997 Island of Peace massacre Jews
1956 Kafr Qasim massacre Palestinians
2023 Kfar Aza massacre Jews
1948 Kfar Etzion massacre Jews
1956 Khan Yunis massacre Palestinians
1948 Killings and massacres during the 1948 Palestine war both
1974 Kiryat Shmona massacre Jews
2023 Kissufim massacre Jews
1920-1948 List of killings and massacres in Mandatory Palestine both
1954-2023 List of massacres in Israel both
66-2014 List of massacres in Jerusalem both
1953-2024 List of massacres in the Palestinian territories both
1972 Lod Airport massacre Jews,tourists
1954 Ma'ale Akrabim massacre Jews
1974 Ma'alot massacre Jews
1972 Munich massacre Jews
2023 Netiv HaAsara massacre Jews
2023 Nova music festival massacre Jews
2024 Nuseirat refugee camp massacre Palestinians
2002 Passover massacre Jews
2023 Psyduck music festival massacre Jews
1996 Qana massacre Lebanese
1953 Qibya massacre Palestinians
1967 Ras Sedr massacre Egyptians
1948 Sa'sa' massacre Palestinians
1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre Palestinians
1948 Safsaf massacre Palestinians
2023 Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre Palestinians
1948 Tantura massacre Palestinians
2003 Tel Aviv central bus station massacre Jews

I added a column for years and victims. I removed redirects and the one about assassinations as that only incidentally had massacre in the title (but feel free to put it back). There are two about Palestinians killing Syrians or Lebanese and I'm not sure they belong but I left them in. Zerotalk 11:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem. You can update the table any way you like. For future reference, about restricting selections to the topic area, the SQL (without formatting) I ran is below. You can see there are a couple of common table expressions, 'pia_titles' and 'pia', to get all of the article titles in the approximation of the topic area, then you can join to 'pia' selection. The query takes 0.422 sec to execute through an SSH tunnel to the enwiki.analytics.db.svc.wikimedia.cloud database server from my laptop.
with pia_titles as (
select 
p.page_title
from linktarget lt
join templatelinks tl on tl.tl_target_id = lt.lt_id 
join page p on p.page_id = tl.tl_from
where lt.lt_namespace = 10 -- Template
and lt.lt_title in ("ArbCom_Arab-Israeli_enforcement", "Contentious_topics/Arab-Israeli_talk_notice")
and page_namespace = 1
union
select page_title
from page
join categorylinks israel on page_id = israel.cl_from and israel.cl_to = "WikiProject_Israel_articles"
join categorylinks palestine on page_id = palestine.cl_from and palestine.cl_to = "WikiProject_Palestine_articles"
where 
page_namespace = 1
),
pia as (
select p1.page_id, p1.page_title, p1.page_namespace
from 
pia_titles pt
join page p1 on p1.page_title = pt.page_title and p1.page_namespace = 0 
)
select
concat('[[',convert(replace(p.page_title, '_',' ') using utf8mb4),']]') page_title, 
p.page_namespace, 
p.page_is_redirect
from page p 
join pia on p.page_title = pia.page_title
where
p.page_namespace = 0
and convert(p.page_title using utf8mb4) like '%massacre%'
order by 1

Historic cu data

Hi - I've come here because that particular SPI probably isn't the best place to discuss general stuff about cu data - better to keep the archive uncluttered.

The short answer is that there is no way for non CUs to tell how much historic data is available, if any. Even administrators and SPI clerks can't see it - you need the CU flag in order to have any access to the places where it's visible. I won't go into too much detail about the types of info that are available, but in broad terms there is almost always some information available about accounts which have been checked in the past.

If you have suspicions about an account, I'd urge you not to factor whether the old accounts are likely to be stale into your decision about whether or not to report - if you have behavioural evidence, report it. We would need that evidence anyway to justify a check if the data is available, and if it's not, behavioural evidence can be strong enough to block an account without the need for a cu hit. Hope that's helpful. Girth Summit (blether) 13:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, that's very helpful. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Can we make Sean an admin just so he can better explore CU stuff? BilledMammal (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: - Sean can request adminship in the usual way (or I guess I should say one of the usual ways, now that we're in the era of admin elections), if he's interested, of course. As I said though, admins can't see any of this stuff either unless they have the CU bit. The fastest way for anyone to get that just now would probably be to get elected onto Arbcom, the candidates list is rather short at the moment...
@Sean.hoyland: - as an afterthought, I'd like to add that the possibility of them running multiple accounts in parallel did occur to me. I always check for them, but I looked more carefully than I might otherwise have done, in light of the previous cases. All I can say is that some of their editing (but not the majority) comes from a shared IP address, and there are a few other accounts on that IP, any of which might be them, but based on a combination of technical and behavioural observations, I think that unlikely. Certainly, none of them are interested in any of the same subject matter, none of them get involved in discussions or articles that the others are involved in, and it looks for all the world to me like they're all innocently using an institutional internet connection that multiple people have access to. Most of their editing is coming from private IPs, which do not have any other traffic on them. Now, there's no way that CU could detect someone using multiple accounts if they are careful to use different devices and internet connections for each one; all I can say is that if they're doing that, they're being a lot more careful about it now than they have been in the past. Girth Summit (blether) 15:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
The way I look at it is that if I'm willing to waive anonymity, I should have access to the private information currently redacted from the databases for the other 48 million accounts. There might be a flaw in this logic, but I'm just not seeing it. Thanks for the extra details, interesting. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Me too! Unfortunately, it's not unfettered access. Every time I run a check on an account, or an IP, that action is permanently logged, and other CUs can see what I'm up to. They even audit my activity (the cheek!) If I run inappropriate checks, some pesky ombud or arb will come along and take my fancy permissions away. It's so unreasonable! Girth Summit (blether) 22:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

New article out

Noe we also have:

by Neil Seeman and Jeff Ballabon,

data on github:

They have used South Africa's genocide case against Israel as an example. I am trying to work through it. AFAIK, if an editor uses certain words (such as: genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, war crime, massacre, occupation, colonialism, oppression, terrorist, regime propaganda, racist, extremist, radical, militant, conspiracy), or phrases, they are deemed to be partisan

Among the 27  "highly biased users"  are Drsmoo, Eladkarmel ....and Nableezy ;... No wonder they didn't publish who the 27 "suspects" were ...and looking through the methology: this seems like a prime example of the GIGO-principle: garbage inn, garbage out Huldra (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people are willing to spend bulk time on projects like this that show nothing at all. If I understand the methodology, "Hamas is terrorist", "Hamas is not terrorist" and "Israel says Hamas is terrorist" all get the same score because use of "terrorist" shows "strong ideological or political bias". This is pseudoscience at its most pathetic. Incidentally, BilledMammal got a higher "strong bias" score than Nableezy, but poor me only got a score of 0. Zerotalk 05:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is my understanding, too. I am not surprised to see that people are trying to find a connection, what I am surprised over, is that they in reality publish that there is no connection, and that they then claim that this shows an "anti-Israel" bias(!) Chutzpah, I think it is called, Huldra (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Meh. Can't be bothered to read that. They're wasting their time. If they write something about the per capita cheese consumption vs death by entangled bedsheets question I might read it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I quite understand you. But the sad thing is that there are people who take it seriously, That is what reading Mein Kampf taught me: I just thought that book was so silly and stupid I just wanted to laugh. But then I recalled all the horrors that book (and its beliefs) caused...and my laughter died, Huldra (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree, not just sad, it seems to be alarmingly easy to nudge people into seeing patterns and causality, structures they presumably want to be there to make sense of things. We seem to be quite lazy if-then superstition machines by nature, ready to accept any old nonsense as an explanation as long as it's a good story. Saves a lot of time and effort, I guess. Maybe one of the reasons these kinds of stories about Wikipedia work is that they can make the reader feel part of the victimized in-group and move the out-group further away, and people seem to like that. Laughing at the absurdity works for me, but it's not for everyone. When I pointed out recently that someone, a journalist no less, has been "reading" my copy of Maus longer than it took the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust, it was not well received... Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
This is something I have professional publications on, but I won't out myself. Creating "patterns" by selectively choosing from a random pool is a standard device of both naive and malicious actors. Zerotalk 03:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thinking aloud: data for the upcoming case.

If I understand correctly, one of the reasons of the upcoming arb.com case is that the admins are "at their wits end" with the disruption in th IP area.

My 2 cents: never in my nearly 20 years here has there been such activity in the area as after 7 oct. Just an example: I have 11k + on my "watch-list", I silly large amount, yes, but I (used to ) manage, as most of them are tiny places which typically gets less than 10 views pr day.

After 7 oct, I have struggled to keep up with the changes, as views pr day have gone through the roof, and so has number of edits. Take one of the most "viewed" one: Israeli occupation of the West Bank here up from 8-10k pr month before oct 7, 300+k in oct, still 20-30 k views after one year

I wonder if we could present some data on that? Say, number of views (pr month) of all articles in IP, number of edits pr month, number of editors pr. month? Huldra (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

There's some plots in here for interest. It was produced as part of this discussion with Levivich. It includes pageviews (direct and from redirects) and revision counts (but not unique actor counts) for many PIA articles.
I think the list of articles ended up being...
  • Articles in the Top-importance and High-importance categories for both the Israel and Palestine projects i.e. the intersection of the list of Top and High-importance articles for those projects.
  • + Top-importance Palestine project articles and Top-importance Israel project articles that the intersection above missed.
Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Zero's https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Zero0000/PIAstats#General_Statistics clearly show the jump in activity levels. But what "disruption" are we actually talking about? There were a couple AE cases the admins said they couldn't handle and escalated to Arbcom, and that has turned into a case, is that it? Selfstudier (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that and a lot of external pressure/publicity.
My thinking was: if there is a great uptick in views/edits: no wonder there is a lot more work. It takes lot more resources to "police" a city with 3 mil. inhabitants, than it takes to "police" a city with 300 000 inhabitants. That doesn't mean the city with 3 mil. inhabitants is "more" criminal than the one with 300 000. But I would like some "easy charts" to show this uptick in views/edits, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
I just updated the ban evasion stats back to 2020 to incorporate stats from socks discovered in the last few months, some of which have been around for a while. Yikes! Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was feeling, intuitively, nice to see the evidence. Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
And an updated plot all revisions in the PIA topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I will try to look at pageviews too. There is a REST API to get pageviews and I have a class that talks to it. The catch is that it does so on a per article basis which might exceed a request limit. Or maybe there is another API or a different way to do it. Anyway, I'll have a look to see whether it is possible to produce something for the entire topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Hamas 1988 Charter Talk Page Discussion

(1.) If you're going to assert that my pointing out of the fact that the section was opinion and not neutral was not in compliance with the standards, you should explain why you think so. I disagree. It was fully compliant. It was specific, sensible, "necessary" (in the sense of the standards you linked), and it should have been uncontroversial. The fact that the section was not neutral, and the fact that non-neutrality is against Wikipedia standards is not controversial. I can't see the old version on the history for some reason so I can't get specific examples any more. (2.) If you're going to criticize me, you might as well criticize various other people on that talk page of the same thing, because the section I critiqued was in fact quite a bit more plainly unencyclopedic than various other sections that were critiqued (and I believe those critiques are fine to be on the talk page, personally). (3.) I don't see anything in the user access page supporting your assertion that I can't make critiques of articles without having 500 edits on this account[1]. (4.) My request was, to quote you, "simple and straightforward" -- my suggestion was to delete the section and move the last sentence elsewhere. It was "evidence-based", as the section in question was right there for everyone to see. It's now gone so I can't get you specific examples. (5.) Please assume good faith. Your ultimatum to archive the section of the talk page is unwarranted, unnecessary, impolite and arguably premature. I was acting in good faith, and my concerns were ultimately vindicated pretty clearly. Anyway this is moot now since the section I flagged was overhauled. Perhaps my language ("fallacious cherrypicking") was too blunt, but I was correct, and my critique was in obvious absolute compliance with the standards. I did not make an edit template. Consensus was reached. Your ultimatum to archive the section of the talk page does not have support in the language of the rules[2]. Isonomia01 (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I only need to do one thing, implement the WP:ARBECR policy. If you read it you will see 'Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.' You didn't do anything wrong, and in this case, there was a positive outcome. It is an important rule that needs to be enforced, ideally by a machine, but there is no machine to do it right now. I assume nothing about motive, neither good nor bad faith, I don't care either way. And I try to avoid making subjective value judgements about the contents of the talk page comment. I just ask the question 'Is this an edit request or something that closely resembles an edit request' regardless of whether a template was used. There is some wiggle-room around what constitutes an edit request, but non-extendedconfirmed user cannot participate in consensus forming discussions. If the answer is yes, I normally leave it to others to handle. If the answer is no and no one has replied to it, I delete it. If the answer is no and someone has replied to it, I will do what I did in this case, explain what the editor needs to do and if they do not comply, I enforce the rule through deletion or archiving. I understand that you may disagree with the rule or not like the rule, you are not alone, but I choose to not care in full knowledge that there will be occasional instances of collateral damage, so that the rule is enforced as if by an uncaring machine because the rule needs to be enforced. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Re: "non-extendedconfirmed user cannot participate in consensus forming discussions." -- I believe the Rules do not state this. I provided a link already. "Assume good faith" is an official Wikipedia standard. My section on the talk page was in compliance, and was vindicated as valuable. The rules that you linked have 4 standards, and the section I added on the talk page met all the standards, per the language of the rules that you linked. You're making assertions without support from sources, about Wikipedia standards. The standards that you claim give you an exception or justification do not support your assertions. I already provided links. Also I did not participate in consensus discussion after I flagged the section. Consensus was reached (which vindicated my critique) without my participation. Isonomia01 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The rules don't say anything about whether you can eat cheese while editing the talk page either. They say what you can do, they don't enumerate the infinite set of things that you can't do. You can submit an edit request. If an extendedconfirmed editor asks you for clarification you can respond. If you find this rule too restrictive you can simply edit any of the millions of other articles that are not covered by the rule. If you would like further information, you can ask an admin like ScottishFinnishRadish. AGF is a behavioral guideline. Assuming nothing is, in my view in the PIA topic area, a less error-prone approach grounded in the statistics of the topic area. From your perspective which method is used makes no difference because you can't see inside the minds of editors. Yes, your participation produced a good outcome. It could also have produced a bad outcome. It is not possible to know in advance, hence the rule for non-extendedconfirmed users. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Re: "You can submit an edit request. If an extendedconfirmed editor asks you for clarification you can respond." I didn't do anything other than this. My edit was in compliance. It was confirmed. This is overly dramatic. It is moot, because my edit request was confirmed. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
You are creating drama. You did nothing wrong. No one is accusing you of doing anything wrong. Your comment was sufficiently distant from WP:EDITXY in my view to trigger action to make sure that you and others there understand the constraints imposed on non-extendedconfirmed users and reduce the risk of the discussion moving even further away from the objective of WP:ARBECR. You are entirely free to disagree with my assessment, but it won't change anything. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Okay. But I explained quite clearly why my contribution was in absolute, not-reasonably-disputable compliance with WP:EDITXY. My points are not being refuted. I am allowed to contribute to talk pages on restricted pages to make edit requests. My edits were clearly in good faith, and valuable contributions. Thank you for your understanding. Isonomia01 (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I added a slightly more informative notification to your talk page that contains useful links. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users
  2. ^ https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Archived_edit_requests
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_17&oldid=1261544338"