Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martynas Patasius (talk | contribs) at 16:16, 13 October 2012 (→About closure of discussion in "Talk:Reincarnation research": Yes, if you thought it was unclear, you would have worded that differently.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Eraserhead1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #2)

To add your named to the newsletter delivery list, please sign up here

This edition The Olive Branch is focusing on a 2nd dispute resolution RfC. Two significant proposals have been made. Below we describe the background and recent progress and detail those proposals. Please review them and follow the link at the bottom to comment at the RfC. We need your input!

View the full newsletter

Background Until late 2003, Jimmy Wales was the arbiter in all major disputes. After the Mediation Committee and the Arbitration Committee were founded, Wales delegated his roles of dispute resolution to these bodies. In addition to these committees, the community has developed a number of informal processes of dispute resolution. At its peak, over 17 dispute resolution venues existed. Disputes were submitted in each venue in a different way. Due to the complexity of Misplaced Pages dispute resolution, members of the community were surveyed in April 2012 about their experiences with dispute resolution. In general, the community believes that dispute resolution is too hard to use and is divided among too many venues. Many respondents also reported their experience with dispute resolution had suffered due to a shortage of volunteers and backlogging, which may be due to the disparate nature of the process. An evaluation of dispute resolution forums was made in May this year, in which data on response and resolution time, as well as success rates, was collated. This data is here. Progress so far Leading off from the survey in April and the evaluation in May, several changes to dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) were proposed. Rather than using a wikitext template to bring disputes to DRN, editors used a new javascript form. This form was simpler to use, but also standardised the format of submissions and applied a word limit so that DRN volunteers could more easily review disputes. A template to summarise, and a robot to maintain the noticeboard, were also created. As a result of these changes, volunteers responded to disputes in a third of the time, and resolved them 60% faster when compared to May. Successful resolution of disputes increased by 17%. Submissions were 25% shorter by word count.(see Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Statistics - August compared to May) Outside of DRN other simplification has taken place. The Mediation Cabal was closed in August, and Wikiquette assistance was closed in September. Nevertheless, around fifteen different forums still exist for the resolution of Misplaced Pages disputes. Proposed changes Given the success of the past efforts at DR reform, the current RFC proposes we implement: 1) A submission gadget for every DR venue tailored to the unique needs of that forum. Similar to the one that was deployed, with great success, to the DRN. Structured based on the specific issues most commonly dealt with at each forum. Designed to improve the quality of requests for DR and the efficiency of DR at that forum. Applicable at following noticeboards: Dispute resolution, Neutrality, Reliable Sources, Original Research, Biographies of Living Persons, Notability noticeboard, Fringe theories, Conflict of Interest, Ethnic and cultural conflicts, External links, Third opinion, Mediation Committee, Arbitration Committee. Forms will merely fill out any existing templates (such as Arbcom's) and create a markup-free form in line with specific noticeboard practices otherwise. Example form fields: What pages are involved? What users are involved? What is the issue? What resolution is desired? 2) A universal dispute resolution wizard, accessible from Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. This wizard would ask a series of structured questions about the nature of the dispute. It would then determine to which dispute resolution venue a dispute should be sent. If the user agrees with the wizard's selection, s/he would then be asked a series of questions about the details of the dispute (for example, the usernames of the involved editors). The wizard would then submit a request for dispute resolution to the selected venue, in that venue's required format (using the logic of each venue's specialized form, as in proposal #1). The wizard would not suggest a venue which the user has already identified in answer to a question like "What other steps of dispute resolution have you tried?". Similar to the way the DRN request form operates, this would be enabled for all users. A user could still file a request for dispute resolution manually if they so desired. Coding such a wizard would be complex, but the DRN gadget would be used as an outline. Once the universal request form is ready (coded by those who helped create the DRN request form) the community will be asked to try out and give feedback on the wizard. The wizard's logic in deciding the scope and requirements of each venue would be open to change by the community at any time. 3) Additionally, we're seeking any ideas on how we can attract and retain more dispute resolution volunteers.

Please share your thoughts at the RfC.

--The Olive Branch 18:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

GPM

For info, following recent discussion on my talk page. N-HH talk/edits 11:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this - I have been busy and not had access to my email. Looks like RFC/U is where it needs to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC

If you remove a section from this page, than please archive it too. Thanks. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I will go back and sort that out. Do they get archived automatically? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, manually. And I already sorted out the previous ones. Armbrust, B.Ed. _{The Undertaker 20–0} 18:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for sorting out the previous ones. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Closure of ':Category:Organizations that oppose LGBT rights'

You closed this CfD, and I wanted to make sure you are aware that the nominator added a second category in the nomination. Namely :Category:Organizations that engage in anti-LGBT rhetoric

Since there is a tag on the category page, I wanted to make sure that was also included in the decision to keep, before removing the tag. Many thanks – MrX 19:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the further comments really refer to that one, the case to delete it is much stronger as the category is basically empty. I would say that you can remove the tag as "no consensus" and if that category is to be deleted a second request can be started. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closing a CfD discussion. Thank you. —StAnselm (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

Hi Eraserhead, I wanted to let you know I've also volunteered to assess consensus for the Monty Hall problem article. Moving forward, I wanted to know if you wanted to coordinate our communications about this content dispute over e-mail or otherwise, and also if we wanted to set up some dates to judge and deliberate consensus. I should also let you know that I do not have a background in mathematics; I don't think closing of RfC's should generally require a particular background knowledge, but since this one is a special case, I wondered if perhaps I might not be suited for assessing consensus. Let me know what you think. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 20:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some background knowledge of mathematics and I have heard of the problem (but not the name), but I don't think it is essential. To be honest while it may have been to Arbcom I doubt there has actually been significantly more discussion than there was about China - so I think we can make progress. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. It looks like we have our three now. I've made a space on my user page here where we can centralize discussion. I think e-mail will be too cumbersome. I'm not sure how long this will take exactly, but please take your time in reviewing and feel free to make several comments on your own and others' sections as we progress along. I, Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 06:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

About closure of discussion in "Talk:Reincarnation research"

You have closed the discussion in Talk:Reincarnation research () and I'm afraid that you did one small mistake there. You wrote: "Since 23 August, when the article started to improve, of the three people to comment one is in support of the merge, and two are against, which is substantially different from the overall numbers for the whole RFC (10 in support vs 6 against).". That would be correct if you added a word "new" before "people", but is wrong as it stands for some of the users who did participate in the discussion until that point did comment after 23 August (and, by the way, it doesn't look like any of them changed their mind). For example, there was a whole section Talk:Reincarnation research/Archive 4#Recent article expansion about that. So, maybe you would like to correct your rationale..? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Only you and EPadmirateur commented again on the content after the 23 August, so that would still be 2 in support vs 3 against, which is still a huge swing.

Regardless there is still the fact that the article has improved hugely since the 23 August - so the best thing to do is to hold another fresh discussion - perhaps after a month or so. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I have clarified the rationale. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion I have cited had more participants: "Johnfos" (opposed merge), "Saddhiyama" (supported merge), "LuckyLouie" (supported merge), "IRWolfie-" (supported merge), "Martynas Patasius" (me; supported merge). And it has been started on the 24th of August, that is, after the 23rd. In short, it's not just the "RFC" section itself that counts. There are more users that have indicated that they have seen the changes and had the opportunity to change their statements. Thus, if we add those participants, we have 6 supporters out of 10 and 4 opposers out of 6 (I think?) that didn't change their opinion (and 0 that did). That's quite a sample... Although, of course, what has been done, has been done. If the discussion will have to be repeated, I guess it will have to be repeated... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The others only discussed the canvassing issue, so it isn't clear what their view on the rest of the merge is at that point. Asking them explicitly or expecting them to change their minds explicitly would cause them to lose face if they had changed their minds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What you don't do, as the closer, is decide that because they commented early you can just throw their opinions out. There was no consensus that the article was improved, you decided that. It doesn't matter a bit that I didn't "me too" with Martynas, it's not a vote count. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the article has improved significantly since those individuals commented. Their points don't address the current article, which has clearly significantly improved. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The article hasn't significantly improved because the sourcing is rubbish. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The "others" are who? The ones I mentioned specifically commented about the changes made to the article. And, of course, I hope that the Wikipedians do not care about "losing face" that much, but that's just a hope... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The "others" are the other people who didn't re-comment on the topic at hand after the 23 August and merely commented on canvassing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please list the usernames? I am still not entirely sure if you mean everyone except 6 supporters and 4 opposers that I mentioned, or everyone except 2 supporters and 3 opposers that you mentioned? In the first case all this talk about "the massive swing in opinion" () looks strange (even in case of vote count - 6 out of 10 is not that different from 10 out of 16)... But in the second case the "vote count" is just wrong, for the discussion I have mentioned is specifically about the "improvements" of the article and not about canvassing. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you thought it was unclear, you would have worded that differently (I have no doubt that you are not trying to be unclear on purpose). But, unfortunately, it is still unclear to me (maybe because English is not my native language)... And simply listing the usernames would be the easiest way to make things clear. Yet, if you feel that it would be too much work, tell me the count and I'll try to find out the answer again. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC's aren't vote counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't vote count. The vote count is merely used to point out the massive swing in opinion after the 23 August.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You just did it again. You are counting numbers. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we agree to disagree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

rfa

Per , are you interested in Rfa? Nobody Ent 03:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but I've been pretty busy since then :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Supervote

You just did a complete supervote at: Talk:Reincarnation_research#Merge_proposal. You've put in your own judgement of the situation rather than weighing up what we, the other editors have decided. You mixed that in with pure vote counting. If you are going to supervote, you should at least look at the low quality sources which were added to beef up the article to make it look more varied . IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it to AN to request an uninvolved admin close (as was originally requested). IRWolfie- (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I checked your close, I don't see a problem with it, contrary to what IRWolfie is saying. As a close isn't a vote count the weight of the argument needs to be considered, and in the end, it looks to me like that's just what you did, weigh the argument.

Good job.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)