Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit/Statistics
Add topic
Hi, all. Recently, while looking at {{adminstats}}, I had the idea that we could make better use of statistics for our functionary tools. Please therefore be introduced to {{Fst}}.
Its main innovation are that statistics for each calendar month are saved separately, and can therefore be tabulated or reused more easily than a manual table can. For example, {{Fst/2018-05}} contains:
|Alex Shih=25 |Alison=4 |Bbb23=1879 |Beeblebrox=2 |Berean Hunter=510 |BU Rob13=137 |Callanecc=9 *** [etc.] *** |Zzuuzz=539 |*=5174
Older statistics could be pulled in too, or perhaps someone very clever could write a tool to trawl the logs manually. As a bonus, when somebody updates the stats each month, the older columns of the main table are dropped off without any scripts or tedious manual edits.
Theoretically, extra presentation can be done on the fly. For example, a table could also be worked up that auto-populates with functionaries whose mean tool use is below a given threshold. Or existing templates like {{graph}} can be used to visualise data; eg:
{{Graph:Chart |width=400 |height=100 |type=line |showSymbols=true |xType=string |x=5,6,7,8,9,10
|y={{Fst/2018-05|*}},{{Fst/2018-06|*}},{{Fst/2018-07|*}},{{Fst/2018-08|*}},{{Fst/2018-09|*}},{{Fst/2018-10|*}}
}}
|
|
I have worked this up only for the checkuser log and statistics, and thought I would pause for comment rather than repeat for the oversighters' log.
The crucial thing is that no extra work is created here. We still just need to run off stats per-user once each calendar month. AGK ■ 19:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Departing arbs
[edit]For the sake of clarity, shouldn't it be noted that some of these folks just now left arbcom? Other wise it looks like some of them are out of compliance with the activity policy when they've actually only been subject to it for a few days. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- [1] think I got it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- I left it for January's update, but was on the fence about that. Looks like I made the more confusing choice, thanks for updating it TonyBallioni! GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell is an arb...
[edit]And this is correctly shown on the CU stats table but not on the OS stats table. On a normal page I'd just fix this myself (his row just needs the bg colour setting) but I'm unsure if the arbs are happy with that on this page? Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- This page was maintained for a while by GorillaWarfare both before and after she was on ArbCom. So yes it's cool. But also it was an easy fix so I did it. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
refract
[edit]Just wanted to mention a few things regarding my revert of refract to the original version, some of which I think are cosmetic and some of which probably need to be corrected before the tool can be more fully utilised.
- I like the partially-coloured rows for when someone joins/leaves ArbCom, but per WP:COLOUR that should not be the only visual means of identifying their change in status (i.e. there should still be a ref or footnote tag)
- Somewhat-related to the above, if refs are going to be added it's probably worth doing so for when folks join/leave the functs
- Totals (which I do note are listed in the to-do section) should be added, along with the associated +/- information
- The Stewards from ACE are missing entirely
It's a neat tool, but there's enough missing information that (for now) I've restored the original so as to not lose the above information. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Primefac: sure! I'll get on those changes for the next rollout. I'm not sure logging the stewards is needed – they're never subject to activity requirements and explicitly not going to be normal enwiki CUs. My plan was, per request from arbs, to package any steward/WMF checks into the monthly email that gets sent to arbcom when refract runs. I'll also note that the current tables don't have any non-color way of identifying the non-freshman arbs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is intended, and has always been intended, to be a public record of (a) who has access to the tools; (b) who is using the tools, and how frequently, and (c) how frequently the tools are being used overall. Its purpose is to inform the community about the use of these tools. It is a handy collection of information for Arbcom, and should reasonably be designed to meet Arbcom's needs, but its primary purpose is to communicate this information with the broader community. I'm kind of disappointed that the person who has been routinely gathering and posting this information does not appear to have been consulted on the current design features and the potential for improvement. Risker (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I asked for input four times, including one onwiki ping to Primefac where the design of the tables was linked right from the page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Interesting; thank you for clarifying that you did indeed ping Primefac. Any reason you didn't ask on functionaries-en-L, where everyone who is covered by this table is subscribed (with the exception of stewards at ACE)? As best I can tell, you asked Arbcom, and you asked at the bot approval page, but you didn't ask oversighters or checkusers except as they happened to be watching there. It seems that the only explanation for the genuine time, effort, and thought you have put into this is "Arbcom thinks this should be automated". From what I understand, it's been automated (i.e., with scripts) since day one; it's just dependent on someone running the scripts. Risker (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I sent an email to functionaries-en in March (albeit in the middle of a different thread, but I pointed out the refract subpage there as well) and two messages to the functionaries' IRC channel on different days in January. One of the nice design plusses of refract is an automatic monthly email to the Committee with a list of people who may need to be checked on; helps us conduct more regular audits, which we've been spotty on, and it's easier to do that when you already have all of the data compiled into a dict from generating the tables. Also, now that CUOS rights changes are available in enwiki logs, I'm hoping to automate notation of personnel changes (although for now i'm still on that manually). And I do like the partially-colored rows :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that a passing mention in the middle of a discussion that is focused on another topic, without any details and without a proper wikilink, really counts as informing functionaries. And given that very few active functionaries still use IRC (most of the active ones are on another platform), this may not be an ideal communication channel anymore. My how times have changed - and I say that as one of the functionaries who used to have the IRC channel open all the time. Risker (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- That's fair on the email – to be honest, I didn't think many people would have an interest other than Primefac, so I thought a full thread might just bother people. But I did make sure to make sure to forward the IRC messages for the functionaries on other platforms. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:40, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that a passing mention in the middle of a discussion that is focused on another topic, without any details and without a proper wikilink, really counts as informing functionaries. And given that very few active functionaries still use IRC (most of the active ones are on another platform), this may not be an ideal communication channel anymore. My how times have changed - and I say that as one of the functionaries who used to have the IRC channel open all the time. Risker (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, I got pinged in a few places (on- and off-wiki) over the last few months. Other than the BRFA (which I tried to approach only from a BAG perspective) none of the discussions that I was aware of indicated that this was an "imminent" thing; people write scripts all the time and I genuinely viewed this as a "hey I did this automated task" more than a request to relieve me of the duty of editing the page every month. That's my bad. I really didn't think much of it until it actually got put into place a few days ago. I probably should have helped out with the beta testing, but I've been travelling a lot for work recently and haven't really thought about it much as a result (having other higher priorities and interests in the meantime). Primefac (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I sent an email to functionaries-en in March (albeit in the middle of a different thread, but I pointed out the refract subpage there as well) and two messages to the functionaries' IRC channel on different days in January. One of the nice design plusses of refract is an automatic monthly email to the Committee with a list of people who may need to be checked on; helps us conduct more regular audits, which we've been spotty on, and it's easier to do that when you already have all of the data compiled into a dict from generating the tables. Also, now that CUOS rights changes are available in enwiki logs, I'm hoping to automate notation of personnel changes (although for now i'm still on that manually). And I do like the partially-colored rows :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:58, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Interesting; thank you for clarifying that you did indeed ping Primefac. Any reason you didn't ask on functionaries-en-L, where everyone who is covered by this table is subscribed (with the exception of stewards at ACE)? As best I can tell, you asked Arbcom, and you asked at the bot approval page, but you didn't ask oversighters or checkusers except as they happened to be watching there. It seems that the only explanation for the genuine time, effort, and thought you have put into this is "Arbcom thinks this should be automated". From what I understand, it's been automated (i.e., with scripts) since day one; it's just dependent on someone running the scripts. Risker (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- I asked for input four times, including one onwiki ping to Primefac where the design of the tables was linked right from the page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- This is intended, and has always been intended, to be a public record of (a) who has access to the tools; (b) who is using the tools, and how frequently, and (c) how frequently the tools are being used overall. Its purpose is to inform the community about the use of these tools. It is a handy collection of information for Arbcom, and should reasonably be designed to meet Arbcom's needs, but its primary purpose is to communicate this information with the broader community. I'm kind of disappointed that the person who has been routinely gathering and posting this information does not appear to have been consulted on the current design features and the potential for improvement. Risker (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)