Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:48, 4 January 2020

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Scope?

Could it be confirmed if this is restricted to CU OS CSD, or to include ADMINCON and BITE as has been suggested? If the latter aspects are included, can talk quotes be included (in addition to diff links, as an aid to speed-reading), or avoided? Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocknrollmancer, The scope as it was given to the clerks team is: Scope will be restricted to the admin actions of RHaworth and associated behaviour.. You are free to use {{tq}}, but keep in mind that it will count against your word count. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As word count has been mentioned below: "The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users." As this is my first foray, what exactly is a 'party'?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: A "party" to an arbitration case are the editor filing the request and any other editors who are significantly involved in the matter that resulted in the case being accepted. The parties are always listed on the main case page, in this case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth#Involved parties lists TonyBallioni and RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thryduulf - that seems straightforward. I was interested to learn if any of the 6 shown at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth#Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0) would also be considered as parties, but apparently not. As someone who has been deemed to have an ignorance of Mediawiki software (no cigars for guessing by whom

) I am trying!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on evidence (SandyGeorgia)

SandyGeorgia, thank you for your evidence submission. Are you going to post more diffs/assertions under the heading/theme of RHaworth working too fast? I am concerned that your subsection outlines an incident from almost 8 years ago. While I only speak on behalf of myself, I can't really strongly weigh an incident from that far back, except perhaps in the case where it established the beginning (or continuation) of a pattern that continue to the recent past (or present). Do you feel that 2012 was when issues started/started to get noticed, or is that an interaction you chose specifically because you were involved? Maxim_(talk) 02:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim I got sidetracked when I was halfway through checking, and posted what I had. It was the first incident that I found as I was sorting through our intersecting contribs, as I wanted to see if the 17 days on Barkeep's evidence were atypical, or representative of a longer pattern. I will continue going through as soon as I can; if I come up with nothing else, should I just delete my section entirely? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, no worries. Deleting the section would be up to you. On one hand, if you no longer think it's relevant and/or you need space to be within 500 words, you could delete it. On the other hand, if you feel it paints a more complete picture or you think someone else would want to peruse it or respond, leave it in. Maxim_(talk) 04:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maxim. In continuing back in to the talk page discussions leading to the Karel Styblo article (I was only partway through trying to figure out what brought the Styblo matter to my attention so many years ago, when I got sidetracked), I do see indications of the beginnings of the same trend demonstrated in Barkeep's analysis, that existed at least in 2012. I don't think it would be useful for me to continue to look for more examples, as then I would pass the 500-word limit, but I will fill this example in more thoroughly to hopefully provide better context relative to other evidence. After I'm done, if you still think the 2012 date renders the example less than useful to the case, I'm happy to delete it. There's no need to make the arbs read through something that doesn't advance the case, so I'd be happy to hear your opinion once I've filled in context. I had memories about the unpleasantness surrounding that article, but didn't remember it involved RHaworth until I saw it in our intersecting contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, done, let me know if I should edit further please. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, the only thing I ran out of room to include was that it took me excess effort to find all of the pieces because of RHaworth's miserable talk page archiving system. In other words, sorry for the delay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I don't have any further questions at this point. Thanks again! PS: I think that a dozen or so years ago, it was much more common than now to archive a talkpage by moving it to a subpage. Then everyone got an archiving bot to do copy-pastes. Maxim_(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on evidence (Ivanvector)

Ivanvector, thanks for the submission; I have a few comments. One is that you're quite a bit over 500 words, but I'll let the clerks deal with that. The other comment is regarding the subsection "Administrators 'should not' review or reverse checkuser action". To me, the parts of the checkuser and blocking policy that you quote seems quite clear as stating "thou shalt not modify/reverse CU blocks without consulting a CU or Arbcom" -- it's more than a strong recommendation. Can you clarify? Maxim_(talk) 03:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the evidence page but self-reverted. I'm rushed at the moment as I said, but to answer(?) your question we've had a number of disputes here over the time I've been adminning over whether something is explicity forbidden versus "merely" strongly recommended against. I'm only meaning to point out that the direction not to undo checkuser blocks falls on the "recommended against" side of that coin. I presume the workshop will work out what to do with that point if it's found to be important. I'll be back to trim my section hopefully within the next few days after sorting out our year-end inventory, hopefully you can bear with me for a bit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would this evidence be useful?

I am considering going through every speedy deletion done by RHaworth on a randomly selected typical day and examining it for compliance with the CSD criteria. However this would be quite an effort so I'll only actually do it if arbs think it would be useful? Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, speaking only for myself, I would definitely review such evidence. Maxim_(talk) 01:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, bear in mind - as I said in my evidence which I've just added - you can pretty much ignore all the G8s and G13s. Most G6s are uncontentious as well (though they still need to be checked). I would be looking at A7 and G11. Black Kite (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the judgement-call ones and the ones that newbies commonly misuse would be of interest, eg G1, G2, G4, G11, A1, A3, A7, A9, A11, if you have the stamina. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts on this. A) RHaworth has not been at all consistent in labelling his deletions, so I'd be very leery about skipping any based solely on what's written in the log comments. B) You interpret the speedy deletion criteria very narrowly (as do I), but the standard to hold RHaworth to is the average admin's, not ours. If you list a bunch of pages as being incorrect and the arbitrators all look at them and think, "Heck, I'd've deleted most of those too", that's not going to accomplish much. —Cryptic 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think it would be best to let the Arb's and/or clerks do the data mining. I too have a higher threshold than some for honoring G11's. That does make anyone wrong. It's just a matter of how one interprets policy-- and the text one is evaluating. (And to be fuzzy about it, some pages are more unambiguously/more blatantly promotional than others. It's all in the reading of the text.) As I mentioned before, RHaworth performs an incredible amount of G11's. It is to be expected that he have a higher number of errors, while still having an acceptable percentage of errors. As Cryptic points out, RHawort also has a high rate of restorations.-- Deep fried okra 11:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

would recommend that he create a templated message to use when asked to restore a page to allow consistency of message and to avoid biteyness when fatigued. -- Deep fried okra 11:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite and Cryptic: I was intending to review every speedy deletion, regardless of label. G6 is by far the most misused criterion (over all speedy deletions by everybody, not necessarily by RHaworth) so that will definitely need to be checked. I was planning to add a bit of commentary about why I disagree (if and when I do), but as CSDs are explicitly only for the most obvious cases and explicitly intended to be interpreted very strictly, if there is any doubt about whether a page meets the criteria for speedy deletion it does not. If anyone finds themselves having to think hard about whether a page should or should not be deleted, or using phrases like "on balance" or "I would delete this but I can see why another admin would not" then it really isn't suitable for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: For something like this, in my view the number of errors matters far more than the percentage of errors (although the latter is not completely irrelevant). There should be no need for anybody to use a template to avoid biteyness when fatigued - if you are sufficiently fatigued that you cannot compose a non-bitey message you are too fatigued to be evaluating whether the page meets the speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Gah,that's a monumental task you've set yourself.-- Deep fried okra 13:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would this (other) evidence be useful?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence#History at WP:Deletion review. I can extend this all the way back to February 2006 if this is useful, however:

It's labor-intensive, and this is the busiest time of year for me. I'd expect it to take close to 100% of the time I have available for Wikipedia until the evidence phase closes.
I'd need a length extension. If 2019 is typical, that's about 25 DRVs per year with about five meriting individual arbitrator attention, so over 14 years that's about 350 links of interest only in the aggregate and 70 worth individual review. And if my pasting of the deletion summaries counts against my word limit, well, 2019 used my 500 words up all by itself.

Please let me know. —Cryptic 13:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Custom Night

Ritchee333 presented this egregious G1 deletion in evidence. This reminds me of a discussion earlier about RHaworth and batch deletions. I have never found that tool useful, and it's a corner cutting that bypasses the most important feature of our CSD process- review by an admin to confirm the tagged page meets CSD criteria. If so, it reinforces my view of fatigue-induced error and the need to not, as noted above, to CSD when too fatigued to think straight. It also strongly supports Ritchie333's assertion of recalcitrance. Yes, the backlogs are sometimes overwhelming, but it's better to let the backlogs sit until enough functional admins can wade through them. And thanks, Cryptic for wading through 2019 DRV.-- Deep fried okra 13:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

With some help from Cryptic, I've written a database query which counts how many pages a user has deleted, and how many of those have eventually been restored. This is a gross way of measuring deletion accuracy. A lower percentage is better. I encourage people to play around with this and see how their own accuracy compares to RHaworth's. Expect the query to take up to a minute to complete. Fork the query and edit the first line. To save a little beating up on the database, here's a couple of examples:

user	@deleted	@restored	percentage
RHaworth	159391	5477	3.4362
RoySmith	3114	128	4.1105

Note: I'm not a SQL wizard. Furthermore, my familiarity with the database schema is sketchy. This is to say I don't guarantee that the results are correct. Interpret them at your own peril. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - that's counting the number of different pages that were deleted, not total deletions, and in the main namespace only, which is why RHaworth is showing 159391 instead of ~505000. —Cryptic 22:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @RoySmith:. I ran the query & got 2811 -- 22 -- 0.7826 -- would it be useful to edit the table to add this? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to do draft and user space? I hardly ever CSD in article space anymore.-- Deep fried okra 00:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I ran the thing for RHaworth changing the values for "namespace" to "1" and then "2". The percentages were better, but admittedly I don't know what I'm doing with SQL. Just made educated guesses about the "namespace" values.-- Deep fried okra 01:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list at WP:Namespace. —Cryptic 01:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, for ms 118, I got "75279', "892", and "1.849%. But again, just plugging in numbers and hitting "run".-- Deep fried okra 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel obligated to point out that just plugging in numbers without knowing what you're doing is not a good way to generate reliable data. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following table

Let's leave the example table as is, but feel free to add your data points to the following table. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user	@deleted	@restored	percentage	data added by
RHaworth	159391	5477	3.4362	RoySmith
RoySmith	3114	128	4.1105	RoySmith
Deepfriedokra	8583	277	3.2273	Deepfriedokra
Espresso Addict	2813	22	0.7821	Espresso Addict

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 ::::There's a list at [[WP:Namespace]]. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 {{outdent}}FWIW, for ms 118, I got "75279',  "892", and "1.849%. But again, just plugging in numbers and hitting "run".-- <b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span>]][[User talk:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:red">fried</span>]][[Special:UserRights/Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:gold">okra</span>]]  </b> 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
+:I feel obligated to point out that just plugging in numbers without knowing what you're doing is not a good way to generate reliable data.  -- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 01:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 ===Following table===