Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence

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)
 * , 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, but keep in mind that it will count against your word count. SQL Query me!  01:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth lists TonyBallioni and RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that seems straightforward. I was interested to learn if any of the 6 shown at Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth 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)

Questions on evidence (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)
 * 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?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * Thanks, . 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  04:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

, done, let me know if I should edit further please. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)

Questions on evidence (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)
 * 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)

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)
 * , speaking only for myself, I would definitely review such evidence.  Maxim (talk)  01:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Gah,that's a monumental task you've set yourself.--  Deep fried  okra    13:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This is turning out to be even more time consuming than I thought after about 90 minutes work I've only reviewed 10 deletions. RHaworth performed them all in the space of 5 minutes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Would this (other) evidence be useful?
Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. I can extend this all the way back to February 2006 if this is useful, however: Please let me know. —Cryptic 13:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * , sorry for the slow response. I think going to 2019 is probably sufficient for now. I think 2006 would definitely be overkill.  Maxim (talk)  18:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ultimate Custom Night
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)
 * , theoretically someone could open a tab to review an article and then use the batch feature to save a couple of clicks per article, after having reviewed every article. I definitely used to do something like that years ago.  Maxim (talk)  18:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Statistics
With some help from, 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:

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

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)
 * 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)
 * Too true. Hopefully we will hear from those with more experience w/ SQL.--  Deep fried  okra    02:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Understanding SQL isn't the problem; understanding statistics is. I'm not convinced this is a meaningful one.  For some context, query/41109 (as an alternative to spamming the table below). —Cryptic 02:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added mine, and I get the rate similar to RHaworth' s (I also do not quite see why I have 3630 rather than 50000, but let us think this is some representative slice of my deletions). I suspect that a significant part of these are history merges though.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The query only looks at mainspace. If I remove that restriction, I get 28464 deletes for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this indeed explains the difference. Most of my deletiona are in the draft, category, and talk spaces.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And, eliminating "distinct" (i.e. count multiple deletions of the same title as a single deletion) gets you up to 52441. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I've added my stats to the table below. As most of my deletions will be following RfD discussions, I suspect most of the "restored" will actually be pages created again as articles/redirects independently of why the page was first deleted so I don't really think this is a useful statistic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, statistics. It's been more than 20 years since I took statistics, but I think some of the values shown aren't significantly different. Also, it only looks at mainspace. I'd be interested in looking at all the namespaces. And does "restored" include recreations or undeletions/reversals.--  Deep fried  okra    18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Significance? T-tests?  Confidence intervals?  There's people who are way more qualified to comment on those than I am.  But, to answer the specific question about what "restored" means, it means the   field of the   table has a value of restore, which I believe maps directly to clicking the "Restore" button at Special:Undelete.  Just creating a new page at the same title will not do this.  Some of this is covered in the commentary on the Quarry page.
 * Oh, we aren't spamming. We're collecting data points.--  Deep fried  okra    18:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Is this a useful metric?
With all due respect to those of you above; this measure is, in my estimation, too crude to be indicative of anything. Restorations happen for two basic reasons; reversals of deletions that happen in error, and draftification of articles that are too poor for mainspace, but which users have shown interest in working in. The latter category do not represent a problem; and there's no basis to assume that draftification rates are identical among administrators. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If by draftification, you mean moving a page to draft space, like this, that's not going to show up here. Other than that, I offer no opinion on whether this is actually a useful metric by which to measure an admin's performance.  I do concur that, in general, one always needs to be skeptical about drawing inferences from data.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * After some discussion on RoySmith's talk page, let me clarify that I'm referring to post-deletion draftification or userfication, generally at a creator's request. This process requires an undeletion, but is not indicative of a deletion made in error; and since this rate is likely to vary hugely among admins, based on what categories folks prefer to work with, I stand by my original comment that this metric may give us some very general indicators, but shouldn't be used as a proxy for error rate in deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is really a useful metric, as it's based on the premise that a significant number of bad speedy deletions are referred for review (which I don't think is generally true of deletions), and that this is a quantitative issue. We just need examples of seriously wrong speedies, the attitude that goes with them, and whether RHaworth has been learning from and correcting his errors. People have provided plenty of claimed examples, and those should be key. If they're significantly wrong and we don't see evidence of learning/correction, then a remedy is needed, regardless of how many were referred for review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The rubble is, we don't know if we are comparing apples, oranges, or kumquats.--  Deep fried  okra    10:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, fruits aren't even eligible for A7 :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a useful metric. This report fails to take REFUND'd prods, history merges, accidental (fat finger) deletes + immediate restore, etc. into account.  Admins that work in these areas will naturally have a higher "error" rate.  -  F ASTILY   04:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added myself as a data point demonstrating that this data is not useful without more context. From the data it looks like my deletion error rate is dramatically higher than some of the others, but among my restorations are restored history merges, moves over redirects, G5 pages which have been recreated multiple times, a couple of copyvio expungings - I haven't reviewed every single entry but I've yet to see one which was a reversal of an improper deletion. Perhaps you can refine the query to only analyze pages deleted under specific criteria? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I could certainly refine the query, but that's probably going to be a rat-hole of sequentially finding additional issues to fix. I think it's not worth the effort.  I think the take-away from this whole discussion is that simple number crunching is not what this case is about, and this should be considered a dead-end.  It will be decided by human analysis of specific events, as is being done on the evidence page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a useful metric because if you used to patrol WP:REFUND, for example, you'd end up restoring articles that you hadn't deleted. Also, as veteran admins will remember, before we had revdel, you had to delete articles and then restore the non-problematic revisions in order to hide various things; whilst that's a deletion and a restoration it would still affect your stats. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Indictment?
Firstly, I presume that I post my defence on the page of which this is the talk page and that it should be either the first or the last "Evidence presented by" section. But which?

Secondly, where is the indictment? Is it possible to provide a simple statement in a few sentences of the case against me? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can present any evidence you wish to present on the evidence page in a section "Evidence by RHaworth". I don't think it matters where on the page it is. Alternatively/additionally you may present your analysis of evidence presented by others in your own subsection of the "Analysis of evidence" section of the workshop. The "indictment" is the evidence presented. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Basically ArbCom can take as evidence anything they like, they are not required to mention it to you in advance. Evidence is not only what you present, but how you present it.  If you have a good committee, which you probably do, that's about it.  A bad committee might take something you say about another editor as ABF without enquiring why you made such a comment.
 * Good luck. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC).


 * The basic framework of the case concerns your administrative activity in deletion (and undeletion); as I understand it, the primary concern brought was that your error rate with deletion is too great and that you are at times brusque with users who approach you to ask about these activities. Concerns about the BN thread re: Oversight and the unblock of the checkuser-block were also raised. The workshop and proposed decision pages will contain proposed "Findings of fact" (which I suppose could considered indictments, though not a term I would use) and you are free to comment on those findings in the appropriate sections (the "Comments by parties", and PD talk page, respectively). –xenotalk 02:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As answered to my query above (Scope?): "Scope will be restricted to the admin actions of RHaworth and associated behaviour.". My evidence will be germane to the latter aspect.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for more space
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding the process -- I've rarely participated in arbitration before, but might I have a little more space to discuss briefly the evidence brought by, please? Or should this be put on the Workshop page, under Analysis of evidence? Thanks, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're just commenting on the evidence and not introducing anything new, the Analysis section should be fine. –xenotalk 15:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Request

 * I do not know where to put this, and I ask the clerks to move i where it belongs, but I would appreciate seeing analyses of possibly unhelpful treatment of editors, rather than more analysis of deletions.   And, as someone who also does a great many deletions, I'm skeptical about raw statistics--the raw error rate  depends on the difficulty of what one chooses to work on.  Some of us work on everything in turn, some pick the easy ones, some the more doubtful.  Some concentrate on particular areas where there may characteristically be more  (or less) ambiguity.  DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

User talk:RHaworth/Editnotice
FWIW, I also am a grumpy old man. I try not to let it show. And I don't mind clicking the appealant's sig and running down their deleted contribs. I think, per ADMINACCCT, we owe it to them to try to clarify. Not being perfect, my first creations were CSD'd, and I felt I was handled brutally when I asked why. Most new users only have one rule down, BEBOLD. Hah! See where it get's you.--  Deep fried  okra    16:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My first creations survived unassailed, despite being clearly suboptimal by today's standards. I do genuinely think it is critical for the encyclopedia's long-term health to look at new good-faith editors as a resource to be cultivated, not discouraged. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed by the tenor of the editnotice. BTW, I was called out once for thinking a declined ProD precluded a CSD. I could find nothing that supported my belief. I was newly back from a 3 year hiatus and had some catching up to do. I declined the CSD and was mocked at the ensuing AfD. Would appreciate it if you could show me I was right.--  Deep fried  okra    02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure! As far as I know, anyone (including the creator) can decline a prod for any/no reason, so a subsequent speedy for a valid reason might stick. Assuming good faith all round (and not a creator decline) I'd be minded to take it to AfD instead in that instance, but then I'm a card-carrying inclusionist–eventualist. I really dislike the mocking of declined speedies that goes on in some AfDs; it does encourage deletion as the easy option in borderline cases, which should not be the case. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If a PROD has been declined by the creator then the only valid speedy criteria are G1, G2, G3 (vandalism only), G7, G8, G9, G10, G12 and A2 (but only when you are sure the creator is not acting in good faith, if they might be then treat it like the PROD was removed by someone else). If the PROD was declined by someone other than the creator, then the list is smaller: G8, G9 and G12. This is because the act of removing the PROD means that someone is asserting the content belongs on Wikipedia and so a deletion discussion is not guaranteed to end in a consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you could potentially A7 an article that had been prodded and declined by the creator; you would be asserting that the original prodder was sufficiently inexperienced to place a valid A7. Given how inexperienced some of the people patrolling new pages are (without the NPP user right), this is not an unlikely scenario. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment on evidence (Ritchie333)
User:Ritchie333 says that "RHaworth's talk page archiving is unorthodox", but it used to be one of the accepted and documented methods in the past. Instructions are at Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures (though at Help:Archiving a talk page, it does say "Other manual procedures were once considered equal alternatives with the cut and past procedure described above. Over time both methods fell out of use and are generally not used.") Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I added this mainly because other editors had talked about "unusual archiving methods" and felt it would be useful to clarify the issue. Do you think this should sit in another place than Evidence? If so, I'm happy to move it elsewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure really. It's not really evidence of wrongdoing, but that style of archiving is unhelpful, so perhaps a proposed finding of fact at the Workshop page just to provide background? Do you know if anyone has ever asked him about changing it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly haven't. Earlier on this page, SandyGeorgia complained that "RHaworth's miserable talk page archiving system" (sic) prevented them from getting diffs easily. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless it's been causing genuine problems, and discussion with him has failed to reach a solution, I can't really see it being of interest to ArbCom or relevant to the case. I'm not too worried if it's included though, as ArbCom can make of it what they wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This style of archiving, which I also use, lets you find a discussion given a diff (such as from Special:Contributions), e.g. shows the archived page User talk:Cryptic/archive-11.  Finding the full context of this diff from roughly the same time is a lot more involved - you either have click on the then-current revision and accept that you won't see any replies, click "next revision" a bunch of times until (you guess) you've seen all replies, or go manually searching in the archives.  Going the other way - trying to find a diff given an archived conversation - is essentially impossible.  And if you're looking for a convo and don't have a diff to make things easier, there's still a big friendly search-archives box at the top of User talk:RHaworth, same as you're forced to use on "orthodox"ly-archived pages for all uses.  What use case does archival-by-copying make easier, other than the actual act of archiving? —Cryptic 14:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the case of RHaworth's talk page, some diffs are in the edit history for the given archive, while some are not (presumably they are in the history of the main talk page?). Whether this is the case with all people who use that archiving method I don't know, I've not looked. For copy-paste archives the diffs are all in the history of the main page. Going from a comment to a diff is easy - just make a note of the timestamp of the comment you are interested in and then find that in the history of the main page. To get a conversation from a diff, note the timestamp, find the archive covering that time period and then read the conversation. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably the missing diffs are on the previous or following archive page, as a result of being manually unarchived (like how the first example I used here was moved to User talk:Cryptic/archive-12). Working from a timestamp requires the timestamp to be both present and (at least roughly) correct, which is usually true now, but wasn't when working with new editors in Days of Yore before we had Sinebot.  Scaling up to large numbers of revisions is sometimes a pain, too - User talk:RHaworth and all its archive pages have 33644 total revisions. —Cryptic 16:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have a script installed which filters a page history to show all of the contributions by a particular user, and another which shows all contributions by blocked users. Neither work on RHaworth's talk page, because the move-and-recreate archive method fractures the page history. I was referring to that problem when I originally said I could not find an edit by KrakatoaKatie on that page nor in the archives, although it seems now that Katie actually never wrote the edit I was trying to find. I can't say for sure because I would have to run the scripts on too many pages, and who has time for that? But I agree with Boing! - this is an inconvenience, not an Arbcom-level problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on choice of tools. My first impulse when faced with the question "How do I find a given user's edits to RHaworth's talk pages?" looks like query/41263.  (Ten or fifteen years ago my second impulse might be to get an interface to it onto the History and/or Contributions pages; these days, the developers seem less interested in things that help running a wiki and more in building the fourteenth doomed version of Flow and making the interface elements unusably large and gaudy.) —Cryptic 16:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the reason editors are complaining is probably not actually because of the method of archiving system used. If I asked Cryptic about it, I know I'd get a sensible, detailed and justifiable answer, whereas with RHaworth I might get something akin to this. So it might be that people don't bother asking but just grumble about it. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Links to archived Talk
I just returned here and started to paste-in my prepared statement when I noticed a word-count and diff-count annotation had been added. I wanted to provide piped links to RHaworth's Talk; these (few) would be direct to section. There is only one edit-diff. As the Talk archive is protected ("closed archive"), I don't know any way to provide a diff-type link, as this would only target the whole page of archived sequence as carved-up into date-order. Could I have guidance? Is it acceptable to use piped links to section? RHaworth moved one piece into a new section. This mostly involves my own interaction with RHaworth, but there is another link to the next archive section as a general example.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you may provide a link to a section of an archive; if we have questions about what you're referring to, we'll let you know. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 00:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Script
as well as any other admins looking for evidence from deleted pages:

I wrote a quick user script User:SD0001/quickViewDeleted.js that shows a preview of deleted content when you navigate to a deleted page. The preview is of the last deleted version and is shown at the bottom of the page. So you no longer have to click on "View or restore one deleted edit?" > timestamp > Preview to see the text. Saves down on 3 clicks. I am guessing this should make analysis of speedy deletions a lot faster? SD0001 (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Evidence presented by RHaworth
Just one immediately obvious thing..., when you say "I promise that I will never insist on links before I talk to someone", you are totally missing the point. You are not being criticized for asking for links. In fact, asking for a link is common and perfectly acceptable. No, the problem is the way you ask for them. For example, barking an order "Learn how to provide a link" is not acceptable, but a polite request something like "Please provide a link" is fine. This kind of misunderstanding might well be part of the long-term problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence phase closing
Please note, The evidence phase will be closing in approximately 7 hours. CodeLyoko talk  19:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , in past cases I thought it was through 23:59 on the day listed, not the day before. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding too. I was planning to spend some time tomorrow doing some more analysis of RHaworth's speedy deletions - I wont have time this evening. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * apologies, that was my mistake. The Evidence phase will close at 23:59 on the 14th or in roughly 24 hours. CodeLyoko  talk  23:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per comments above, I was under the same assumption but chanced upon the initial message; when issuing such messages, would it be more-appropriate to include - for the avoidance of doubt - the deadline in what timezone?--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, deadlines are always in UTC. –FlyingAce✈hello 14:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my point to is that the original message does not equate - 7:18PM + approximately 7 hours = into the next day.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dates in arbitration proceedings are specified in UTC, but the actual time that the phase closes is not specified as we don't expect clerks to be available 24 hours a day. Both the initial "7 hours" and the revised time (about 9 hours from now) are both on the 14th, and therefore well within the discretion of the clerks. – bradv  🍁  15:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I should add that in cases like this, where the page is still actively being edited, it is appropriate for the clerks to wait until the end of the day or as soon as possible afterward, especially when requested. – bradv  🍁  15:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit request to fix lint error
To fix a Wikilinks in external links lint error, please change

to

—Anomalocaris (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)