User talk:BilledMammal/ARBPIA activity statistics complete - Wikipedia


3 people in discussion

Article Images

Odd that Kentucky Rain24, Izzy Borden, Red Slapper, and any other known socks are not listed under their sockmaster -- NoCal100. Of course the pseudos of each sockmaster should be listed underneath that sockmaster with the data associated with each one for tranparency... As it is the data is pretty random: e.g. which 16 in the list are socks of Dolyn? Which 85 are the socks of AndrsHerutJai霉? Why isn't O.maximov counted in the Icewhiz socks?

As usual, one wonders why the data on sockpuppets is so randomly presented according to different rules... One also wonders why there isn't a calculated row named "all known sockpuppets" for comparison... -- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 10:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see that you have now disappeared Kentucky Rain24, Izzy Borden and Red Slapper entirely from your list. Please add a first line to your chart "all known sockmasters", which by manual calculation have made 15,802 edits to PIA (i.e. more than any other editor).
nb: this does not include the 442 changes to PIA made by either O.maximov, nor UnspokenPassion, blocked socks which are not listed in red in your chart or identified in any way as socks. -- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 11:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was an issue with sockpuppets with spaces in their name. That issue has been addressed.
I've also added a list of sockpuppets under each master; unfortunately, I can't provide details beyond this unless we want to split the sockpuppets out. BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, so the data that did appear for Kentucky Rain24, Izzy Borden and Red Slapper prior to your edit was permanently destroyed by your edit? -- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 11:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have the information, I just don鈥檛 have a way to display it - I might be able to put something together, but it would take considerable work, far beyond the value of the data. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm puzzled. You're saying that it would take considerable work to display the data that you were displaying until a few minutes ago? -- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 12:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
They鈥檙e now collapsed under their masters. To display the details while being consistent with that requires considerably more work than displaying them separately. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
O.maximov and UnspokenPassion were identified after September 2. When I next update the data that will be addressed; I'll do that in a few days. BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
You've also missed Onlineone22 (blocked in July) and MurrayGreshler (blocked in Dec 2022). There are also a couple of ArbCom blocks, copyvio blocks, personal attacks blocks and vanished users that you might consider grouping... -- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 11:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
They鈥檙e not in sockpuppet categories; there is no way for me to identify that they are sockpuppets, or who the masters are.BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I suppose this is obvious, but all you need to do is list those blocked for sockpuppetry with red backgrounds. Not sure why you don't want to do that...
-- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Because I have no way to automatically determine that they are sockpuppets, and I don鈥檛 want to start manually adjusting the table.
However, if you add the correct categories to the user pages, they will be incorporated when I next pull the data. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Regarding the other blocks, I don鈥檛 think we should group them. They were blocked for disruption, but they are different people and should be presented as that. BilledMammal (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I thought the idea was to determine what was causing disruption in the topic area? -- SashiRolls 馃尶 路 馃崶 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This table isn鈥檛 intended to cover all aspects of disruption; indeed, this table is generally intended to only be seen in context of other data, as being highly active/heavily focused on a single topic area isn鈥檛 disruptive by itself.
As such, that data is outside the scope of this table, and will reduce the utility of this data.
Further, I don鈥檛 see a way I can accurately and consistently determine who was blocked for what - and whether they were blocked for activity inside or outside the topic area.
I encourage you to investigate this aspect yourself. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a general request, please stop interleaving your replies with mine. BilledMammal (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

<- As a general point about sock tracking, it's not ideal. Using AndresHerutJaim as an example...

  • You need to know the categories and it is not obvious because the category graph doesn't reflect the reassignment of socks to different sockmasters over time as the clerks change their minds e.g. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Delotrooladoo was reassigned to AHJ. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Delotrooladoo is full of AHJ socks.
  • Even if you know the categories many accounts don't have user pages and are not categorized. So, you also need to look in the logs, again while having to know what to look for.
  • For example, for AHJ I look for the AndresHerutJaim, Delotrooladoo, 讬谞讬讘 讛讜专讜谉, Spliff Joint Blunt accounts in the user table, the block logs and the categories. For post 2022-01-01 revisions in the PIA topic area that gives me the following, 159 accounts that made 1931 revisions in namespaces (0,1). So, that's 38 more accounts and 237 more revisions than currently in the stats. I should add, this approach obviously excludes the numerous IPs used by AHJ to edit in the topic over the years.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Linking my criticism here [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply