Jump to content

User:Huldra/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recruitment

[edit]

Canvassing

[edit]

WP:CANVASS:

AfD

[edit]

Socks

[edit]

Other

[edit]
  • Interiew
    • Mehdi Hasan: There’s also the issue, of course, of really, really contentious issues that people feel strongly about on lots of different sides. A few years ago, I believe, an Israeli lobbying group was accused of encouraging its members to become Wikipedia editors so that they could control the narrative on the Israeli conflict. How, then, can I take any pages on Wikipedia seriously about Israel-Palestine?
    • Jimmy Wales: There's one model people have of how Wikipedia should work, which is a battleground. So the battleground is: Wikipedia will get to neutrality because people from different sides will fight it out until they somehow have to come to a compromise. We reject that approach. That approach is not healthy. That approach just leads to endless conflict. Instead what we like to say is, “Look, Wikipedia - every Wikipedia editor has a responsibility to try to be neutral. To try to take into account different perspectives on an issue, and if there is no one…” (source: [1])

Remedies?

[edit]

Semi-protect all ARBPIA ?

[edit]
  • minimum requirement?
  • The definition of "all" in this instance is potentially problematic, because so many things relate at least tangentially to the topic and, even if they never suffer any problematic edits, would be potentially eligible for sp as a result. Maybe a more mildly worded statement, maybe to the effect of semi-protection of any page within the ARBPIA topic area is considered reasonable and acceptable, and that indefinite sp of such articles is also considered reasonable. Basically, it would just make it easier for individuals to get protection, so it wouldn't contradict anything else, but a ruling to this effect linked to in the request for protection would I think go a long way toward getting protection more quickly implemented. John Carter (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
What about semi-protect all articles which have an {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} on the talk-page? (All articles in the area are eligible for that, but only a minority -typically the more controversial- has it), Huldra (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That would probably work. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I must say I am not a fan of blanket semi-protection, because it will deter bone fide new editors that we need.
What may work better is a much lower threshold to semi protect, or even better, allow all experienced editors to choose to semi-protect {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} as and when needed. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

500 edit limit for new users?

[edit]
  • Or; should your 1RR a day not count when you undo "newbies" with <500 edits?
  • FWIW, I would tend to not count such as within 1RR, as they would qualify as test/vandalism, at least potentially, and very possibly as sockpuppetry. I cannot think that there is any valid reason to allow sockpuppeteers to, potentially, create a whole slew of new accounts, which might well revert to that one individual's previous edit under another name, and prevent other editors, not violating policies or guidelines in that way, from acting responsibly simply because they, unlike the socker, are adhering to policies and guidelines. I would myself favor this, if possible, allowing for immediate reversion outside of the 1RR if the edit is considered to be problematic in any way by any editor who doesn't have 500 or more other edits. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well, presently there are plenty admins who would count it as that. Btw, I have broken the 1RR today, against yet another Telstra-sock. Yes, admit it! I have broken our precious rules ---against what is most likely the same who has threatened to kill or rape me countless times the last month or two. This to me indicates that "our rules" presently are totally f...ed up. Huldra (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for my lack of specificity in my first comment. What I meant to say is that what I think matters here is whether the Arbs would, and, if there is sufficient evidence that there are repeated sockers in the field, I would tend to think that they would probably draft a remedy indicating it doesn't necessarily count. There is also, unfortunately, the probability that yet another sock might complain about such a reversion, and there is an obvious implicit requirement that the older editors on both sides agree on the status of the alleged sock, which they probably won't. But the arbs might be able to draft a proposal taking that into account, somehow. John Carter (talk) 23:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we should keep the 1RR for everybody but few editors, those for whom the community would agree to leave this to 3RR. They would have to be nominated and contributors with sensitivies from both sides nominated. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Pluto: I don´t think this would work. Firstly, "The community" would favour certain editors who would not even "watch" many Palestinian subjects. Take Mandatory Palestine (where I broke 1RR yesterday, against another Telstra-sock,) or rv all the Cablevision, Argentina-socks: Technically I break the 1RR when reverting these guys: it really should not be like this. Huldra (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • If there is an edit-count-based threshold put in place, I would like it to include a recent-edit requirement as well, in order to deal with WP:SLEEPERs. Most of the most insidious socks in IP are sleepers, not plain new accounts. For example, we could require >100 edits in the last three months. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That sounds really good, actually. If sleepers are a big part of the problem, and it seems they can be, then removing them up front could be very beneficial. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I think you underestimate the adaptation of these guys.
On wp:fr we have seen a few months before an ArbCom election new accounts being created and who started adding categories or comas and "spaces" in articles to reach the 500 edits limits. WP:RCU were unrelevent given they used proxies.
I think we should consider a solution where "community" can interfere in order to prevent anybody to "game the system".
That's the idea behind my proposal :
  • 1RR for everybody
  • 3RR for some respected contributors with the mission to prevent misuse (eg of civil pov pushing).
Pluto2012 (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt you in the least what you say above about editors trying to make 500 the easy way, and, honestly, wouldn't necessarily mind your proposal, which, at least to me, looks organizationally like maybe establishing a "contentious topic editor" user right. Having said that, I can't see any real objections to in addition to that establishing some sort of stricter baseline for anyone, particularly noobs. Yeah, it isn't that hard to get 500 edits to qualify for the 1RR threshold, with, considering you mentioned the other language wikipedias, could presumably allow long term editors there just starting in English to be grandfathered in.
I actually wouldn't mind working toward such a user right, if a reasonable system could be established for selection. I imagine admins would be probably automatically given the right, but others might not. If that were to be proposed, what sort of minimum requirements would be seeking? Just 500 edits, or maybe something more, like an election of some sort, or after a significant editor review, or something of that sort? And, I suppose, about how many editors would be required to be able to do that without problems? John Carter (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, new editors, and even IPs make useful edits at times. Here, at Nimrin a couple of days ago is just one example. And I´m sure it is not a big problem, getting up to 500 edits; but at least it would slow the sock-masters down? Lets face it, until we have a situation where every editor identifies to the WMF: we will never completely root out socking. I just want to stem the sock-tsunami..... What if we could revert at will, any editor with less than a total 500 edits, and over 100 the last 3 months? Any "new" editor, or even IP, making constructive edits, would obviously not be reverted, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Automatic CU of all editors blocked as socks?

[edit]

Indeed, this should be automatic. It would also be great to have a second check a week or two later. Zerotalk 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Presently, there is a total no-no-policy an "fishing" expeditions w.r.t. CU; should we rather make it compulsory-for up to 3 months? Huldra (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see a Paradigm shift wrt the "no fishing" policy of CU, at least when it comes to "problematic editors" Huldra (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Like everyone else, I don't know the secrets of CU, but I have always understood they cannot resolve the issue of socks using proxy servers, particularly those using dynamic proxy servers (at least not without a great deal of judgement). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Oncenawhile: I believe you are correct. But only a minority of socks are that knowledgable. Obviously, people like NoCal, who work in the computer industry in RL could escape such CU. (If he wants to!) But others would not. I´m 99,9 % sure that Gilabrand was back within days of her being indeffed. Yes, I know her new account (one of them!), but I only realised it was her over 3 months after the had registered. (But obviously, pr. WP:ASPERSIONS I cannot name the editor.) However, CU checking of banned socks would have caught her, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I confirm and cfr here above. It is even strange that WP:RCU works here. It is so easy to game it...
Could you please email me ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Automatic CU of all "new" editors on ARBPIA?

[edit]

I don't think this is workable; the CUsers would go on strike due to the workload. However, I propose a weaker version: it should be that a valid reason for requesting CU that a new user appears already familiar with Wikipedia editing. The CUser can decide whether the evidence provided for "already familiar with Wikipedia editing" is adequate. Zerotalk 12:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On wp:fr, familiarity with wikipedia editing is a valid reason for a RCU on contentious topics. If positive, this leads to an immediate block.
More, even if not positivie, new contributors, with single-purpose accounts and familiar with wikipedia may are blocked if engaged in controversial discussions or editrs war on controversial topics. The reason given is "not there to contribute constructively". Block is one week or undefinite according to the nature of the edits and comments.
Pluto2012 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the Arbs might be willing to draft something along the lines of newer editors or IPs editing in this extremely problematic area who display a degree of familiarity with wikipedia policies and guidelines one does not ordinarily expect of newbies can be considered reasonable grounds for CU. They might however something to the effect that other editors should at least talk to him or her first, or maybe invite them to the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but if they keep doing the same thing, possibly even with a single edit, that might be grounds for CU. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
And no wonder, that socks repeatedly return to Wikipedia: Wikipedia rewards them! Look at Carlos Latuff: back in early June, 2015, there was nothing about alleged anti-semitism in the lead. That was when a User:Wlglunight93-sock added it, then, with great help of a couple of Nocal-socks (User:All_Rows4 and User:Brad_Dyer): it is now in the lead.
Socks: 1 Wikipedia: 0,
A rule which stops editors aiding and abetting obvious socks would be nice. Say, undo their work? Huldra (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Edits by confirmed socks can already be undone at will, given the nature of rules regarding socks. The question of "suspicion" could probably be abused, but it would certainly, I guess, be at least possible for instances of strong suspicion, but the problem that arises is whether "the other side" might disagree about the sock status, or support the edit on its own, or something like that. Personally, I think it might be possible to propose that any admin can revert any edit of a suspected sock and allow other edits to discuss on the talk page whether the change would be an improvement or not. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
As a community and in a project clearly defined as "in perpetuous progess", we should forbid the "support of banned editors". I mean: even if the edit is wise and good, but made by a cheaters, it should be prevented to take this for oneself. We need to support the good climate of collaboration (4st pillar) and demoralize pov-pushers (from all sides). Pluto2012 (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Zero made a good point, though: some of those "new" editors with a great familiarity with Wikipedia *might* actually *be* new editors, who have been trained in one of the above "recruitment"-drives. But in that case, shouldn´t they be counted as WP:MEAT? Huldra (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
They should~be counted as such, for sure. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

NPoV enforcement

[edit]
  • single-sided editors should be warned and after some time forbiden to write new edits in one direction before have made a given numbers in the other direction. That could be made under the supervision of the 1RR-free-editors. Pluto2012 (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence page

[edit]

Results

[edit]

Interestingly, of all the investigations being done on Wikipedia content, none (AFAIK?) has centered on the results of "nationalistic" editing. Take two areas: Israel/Palestine and Cyprus (North/South), where the North have been Turkish/Turkish-Cypriot majority since 1974 war.

A couple of "theories to test": over representation of Pro-Israel (vs pro-Palestinian) editors, and over-representation of pro-Greek/Greek-Cypriot (vs pro- Turk/Turkish-Cypriot ) editors.

Can we see/measure how, if any, such over-representation of editors has tilted the content of Wikipedia?

  1. : Names: how are they chosen? Typically, Israeli towns were given new Hebrew names when their Arab population was kicked out in -48: Wikipedia follow the new Hebrew names. (Lydda --> Lod, Ramlah --> Ramla, Beisan --> Beit She'an, Biʾr as-Sab -->Beersheba ). North-Cypriot towns were given new Turkish names when their Greek inhabitants were kicked out in -74: Interestingly, Wikipedia still follows the pre-74 Greek spelling. So we have Kyrenia (and not "Girne"), Karavas (and not "Alsancak"). Pr Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and WP:COMMONNAME : "Girne" "outguns" "Kyrenia" massively, also on books.google
  2. : Victims: compare the number of victims in the conflict, with A: the number of articles on those victims. B: the average amount of space (measured in words, or KB) given to each victim (yeah, that is taken from this)
  3. : Keeping in mind Zeq´s old advice: Every time you see a Hamas person makes an outragous statements [..] you write a small article about that peroson (google his name to find more ) and bring the quote from memri. why doing all that ? because google is wikipedia friend - 3 days after you created the article google the person's name again and voila your article will be the #1 in google for that name. How can we measure the effects of such campaigns?
  4. : Other ways of measuring tilted, skewed material? Suggestions welcomed! Huldra (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

MY DRAFT (note to other editors: Please edit above this line, *not* below it)

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Huldra

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Huldra/sandbox&oldid=846309117"