| Revision as of 21:58, 2 May 2011 editMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →AE case again← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:14, 2 May 2011 edit undoHans Adler (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers26,943 edits →Clerk assistance requested: r to SandsteinNext edit → | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
| ::NW, thanks for contacting Hans Adler. I note, though, that he has redacted only one personal attack, , and left his other personal attacks ("a disruptive ] artist", "the full extent of his own incompetence") in place. In view of ], which say that "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct ) in their editing", may I again recommend that you formally warn Hans Adler about these sanctions and/or take other appropriate action against the disruption of the arbitration process by personal attacks against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | ::NW, thanks for contacting Hans Adler. I note, though, that he has redacted only one personal attack, , and left his other personal attacks ("a disruptive ] artist", "the full extent of his own incompetence") in place. In view of ], which say that "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct ) in their editing", may I again recommend that you formally warn Hans Adler about these sanctions and/or take other appropriate action against the disruption of the arbitration process by personal attacks against others? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::Sandstein, I don't know where you are getting the idea that you can censor accurate assessments of an editor's behaviour which are relevant to an arbitration case. The idea that these are somehow forbidden by an earlier pseudoscience-related arbitration case is ridiculous. I believe I don't even have to argue with the most elementary principles of elementary justice, as there is not even a remotely plausible formal argument for your odd position. ] ] 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == AE case again == | == AE case again == | ||
Revision as of 23:14, 2 May 2011
I hold the SUL account for NuclearWarfare
| |||||||||||||||||
| This is NuclearWarfare's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
|
Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why. |
 Archives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Make prompting for a missing edit summary the default
Unresolved
Re. closure of Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Make_prompting_for_a_missing_edit_summary_the_default
I don't like to pester, and I'm always grateful for anyone who closes complex debates - regardless of whether or not I agree with things. But... can you clarify how you get your figures of "Between 42% and 71% in support with 95% confidence" ?
From following the debate, I got the impression that there was enough support to go ahead. And I disagree with your notion that it would put off new editors; I really don't believe there is any danger of that - in terms of genuinely productive editors; it's really not much to ask, at all, that they just put in a couple of words saying what they've done. In fact, it could well help new editors - because it'd make page histories make more sense.
Anyway - I do not intend to start the debate all over again, here on your talk page - I'd just be grateful if you could elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusion. Thanks a lot, Chzz ► 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming that those who commented are a sufficiently random sample of Wikipedians, it's fairly simply to generate a binomial proportion confidence interval using a normal approximation interval with 25 supporting and 44 in total commenting (25/44 = 57%, which you should see to be about the average of the two endpoints). That's actually rather a poor assumption to make, so really I shouldn't have included it at all, at least not without a note. I just wanted to highlight how tenuous any connection of even claiming majority support among Wikipedians is.
Anyway, I really can't agree with the statement that all "genuinely productive editors" will take the time to add a proper edit summary. Some will for sure, but others who are just trying to make a spelling fix or are on a slow internet connection might just say "forget this" and do it later. Even that latter example represents only 10% of new contributors, that's 10% that we really can't afford to lose right now. NW (Talk) 15:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for that; I take your point about the stats, and I think we're probably in agreement that far too much emphasis is put on numerical !votes. I'm sure if I wanted, I could do some kinda of 'analysis' of that debate (mathematically) and show...well, whatever I wanted, by e.g. 'weighting !votes according to edit count' or some other spurious notion; that's how stats work, really, and must be used with extreme care in evaluating data from an open discussion.
- I think we need to be ultra-clear here, that we're discussing two separate issues - our opinions of the proposal itself, and a discussion about your evaluation of the consensus shown. As it is critical we do not allow our opinions to influence our appraisal of consensus, I hope you won't mind my making a couple of sections here. Chzz ► 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- On the latter part: That's definitely true. The problem is that evaluating consensus ultimately relies on analyzing arguments, and the line between doing that and supervoting often doesn't exist in a way that everyone can agree on. I am interested to see what your analysis will be. NW (Talk) 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Discussion re. make prompting for a missing edit summary the default
I honestly do not think we'd lose lots of good editors, by turning it on - if someone is fixing a spelling (OK, on a slow connection) then the extra keystrokes and effort for typing e.g. 'sp.' in edit sum is so trivial, I do not think it would have any meaningful detrimental impact.
It's quite possible that more of such editors would stay - because, if there were better edit summaries in the page history, it'd be easier for them to see what had happened in the past.
Quite simply, though, we do not know; it appears that your gut feeling is, that it is a net negative - and mine is, that it is a net positive. How about if we tried to run a test - surely that should be possible; to take a random sampling of an appropriate size (which shouldn't be many) and insist on edit summaries for them, for a short time - and then compare their edits to a control group, to see if it'd discouraged them? Chzz ► 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Would it be technically possible to do that? NW (Talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anything is possible - whether or not we can persuade devs to do it, remains to be seen. But, it isn't totally unheard of; recently (couple of weeks ago? I think) some users were randomly chosen to see the 'edit' link on the left of sections instead of the right, to gauge whether another user-interface mod was better. I'd have to investigate details of how they did that - but it proves the possibility exists. Chzz ► 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I expect the net effect of default prompting to be beneficial, I also expect that effect to be modest. The main effect I hope(d) for is that fewer good-faith edits by IPs are just reverted like that, simply because the intention is not understood – a known problem that is thought to have an off-putting effect on potential new editors. Now that presumed effect is hard to analyze (although one might test the hypothesis that fewer edits get reverted, but even then we don't know whether it does increase new-editor retention).
- In view of that, I do not think it is reasonable to press the developers to enable an experiment; there are urgent developer tasks with clearer benefits. --Lambiam 08:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of something more worthy of our donations? Chzz ► 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Anything is possible - whether or not we can persuade devs to do it, remains to be seen. But, it isn't totally unheard of; recently (couple of weeks ago? I think) some users were randomly chosen to see the 'edit' link on the left of sections instead of the right, to gauge whether another user-interface mod was better. I'd have to investigate details of how they did that - but it proves the possibility exists. Chzz ► 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Evaluation of consensus on the proposal
I'd like to perform my own analysis of the consensus - sorting through comments and reasons, and then we could discuss it. That might take me a day or longer. I'll give you a shout (here). Chzz ► 09:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. NW (Talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. See User:Chzz/es.
- An increasing problem is, that with a large enough sample, the chance of emphatic support reduces, leading to stagnation. I accept this is nowhere close to overwhelming support, but I think it is a pity to abandon the idea entirely. With fairly minor modifications to improve the clarity of the warning, it would appear to have a very high degree of support. Whether that can happen, or whether apathy will win the day, remains to be seen - and note, this is in no way a criticism of your evaluation, and I fully accept that "SoFixIt" applies - and I'm as guilty as anyone of apathy (whether you call it "meh", or WP:STICK, WP:FUCK) in stopping me bothering from pursuing issues such as this.
- Thanks for discussing it. Do you think it is worth pursuing? Chzz ► 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- My own evaluation was that there was insufficient support to call it consensus. If pursued further, it should be in a modified form that avoids the objection that it makes editing more difficult. --Lambiam 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I do have one idea, but am unsure how to pursue it. I believe the edit filter could be used to display a bold, clear message with whatever we like (examples, or whatever) when users save articles with no edit summary, and not on minor edits. The notice given would look something like this one. It could additionally only warn new users (by whatever criteria we chose - 10 edits, 100 edits, 10 days, whatever), and it could, if desired, only warn for edits that add or remove more than 'x' characters.
- One potential snag I can predict is, it might cause a double-message if the user preference to warn is enabled. I don't know; we'd need to test that.
- It would also - in theory, at least - be possible to select a random list of specific new users, and only act upon them - as a test. Of course, a similar 'control group' could also be selected, and then their edits and if they stopped editing could be compared.
- I'll be interested to hear your thoughts. Chzz ► 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, been very busy in the last few days. I'll try to get to this soon. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll be interested to hear your thoughts. Chzz ► 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Clerk assistance requested
Hi. I'm contacting in your capacity as a clerk in the ongoing "Arbitration enforcement" case. Earlier today I issued this warning to Hans Adler (talk · contribs). Risker (talk · contribs) instructed me, however, that I ought not to have done so and referred me to the clerks. I therefore ask you to issue the warning, as an uninvolved administrator, in my stead, or to take other appropriate action. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- In case you consider following Sandstein's request, I recommend that you read the warning first, as you will be responsible for any inaccuracies and tendentiousness it may contain. Hans Adler 07:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- NW, thanks for contacting Hans Adler. I note, though, that he has redacted only one personal attack, , and left his other personal attacks ("a disruptive WP:IDHT artist", "the full extent of his own incompetence") in place. In view of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, which say that "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct ) in their editing", may I again recommend that you formally warn Hans Adler about these sanctions and/or take other appropriate action against the disruption of the arbitration process by personal attacks against others? Sandstein 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sandstein, I don't know where you are getting the idea that you can censor accurate assessments of an editor's behaviour which are relevant to an arbitration case. The idea that these are somehow forbidden by an earlier pseudoscience-related arbitration case is ridiculous. I believe I don't even have to argue with the most elementary principles of elementary justice, as there is not even a remotely plausible formal argument for your odd position. Hans Adler 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- NW, thanks for contacting Hans Adler. I note, though, that he has redacted only one personal attack, , and left his other personal attacks ("a disruptive WP:IDHT artist", "the full extent of his own incompetence") in place. In view of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions, which say that "Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Misplaced Pages's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct ) in their editing", may I again recommend that you formally warn Hans Adler about these sanctions and/or take other appropriate action against the disruption of the arbitration process by personal attacks against others? Sandstein 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
AE case again
Hans Adler has left what seem to be personal attacks on QuackGuru on the workshop page here and Ludwigs2 has left what seems to be a personal attack on Sandstein on the talk page of the proposed decision here. Please could these contributions be archived or redacted? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Ludwigs2 has redacted his posting (thanks for doing that), so that part of the request is now moot. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Mathsci - weren't you asked (repeatedly) to step out of involvement in this case? --Ludwigs2 06:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, please do not post in this section. I can determine for myself whether I would like Mathsci to post on my talk page about the case.
Mathsci, Sandstein has already asked me to look into that edit (see the section above), so I shall be doing so shortly. NW (Talk) 18:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2 has now written : "The rest of this is all Sandstein, climbing up the walls like a rabid beast, trying to get at me." Could Ludwigs2 please be warned about making comments like this? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, please do not post in this section. I can determine for myself whether I would like Mathsci to post on my talk page about the case.
"Original research"
Hey, I dont mean to ask this to snipe back, but just to improve how I work on here; was just wondering what 'original research' you were referring to? I made one edit to the page which was a sourced press release, anything else was on the discussion page. Mwheatley1990 (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Err, I think I must have templated the wrong person. My apologies! NW (Talk) 13:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Final strike
You mean blocking on the 13th revert after the editor agreed to stay away from the article was a Bad Thing?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Kind of. I probably wouldn't have had that much issue with the block if you had made it after the 12th revert (I can't exactly rememver, so I'll take your word for it that enough of the other 12 edits were edit warring as opposed to consensus enforcement). But you chose to speak with him instead, which is fair enough. That 13th revert was pretty clearly a net benefit to the encyclopedia though. Consensus and Ignore All Rules trump the blocking/edit warring policy, IMO.
And if I recall correctly, weren't you unblocked for that self-requested 3RR block last year? NW (Talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I didn't request it, someone came along and unblocked on the grounds that it clearly wasn't preventing anything at that point. I'm not questioning the unblock at this point, but rather the idea that consensus enforcement is an exception to the 3RR. After I saw that U-Mos had been repeatedly reverting, but had not yet received a 3RR warning, I chose to warn him instead of immediately blocking. He said at 21:10 UTC that "I am well aware I am at 3RR on that artcle and am as you suggested taking a break from it as a result." Mission accomplished, no block needed, right? Well, at 23:22 UTC, he reverted again, with the edit summary "clear violation (and therefore I am not violating 3rr) of talk page consensus". Since being right has never been an exception to the 3RR rules, I blocked. None of his labeled undos to that point indicated vandalism reversion -- instead, they referred to OR, not reading the talk page, etc. Also, I just checked the talk page, and that consensus appears to have been arrived at by a discussion of 4 editors, one of whom was U-Mos. Definitely not a strong enough consensus to override 3RR, IMO.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)