User talk:Isaacl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


PC2[edit]

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Newsletter[edit]

I think we need to make the newsletter something that can be read on the talk page of the user (i.e. transclude it, at least in collapsed form). Hopefully then, it would have more visibility for other people who might happen to be viewing that talk page. By the way, I will not be able to contribute to this month's edition in all likelihood, as I will be without internet access for two weeks starting June 22. Go Phightins! 22:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is the newsletter is too long to include without collapsing sections, and my suspicion is if a casual passer-by isn't sufficiently intrigued by the section taglines to click on them, it won't matter if that click goes to another page or opens up a collapsed section. Based on the non-response it's received on the WikiProject Baseball discussion page, I suspect there aren't too many people interested in it. So we need to ask ourselves: what do we want to achieve with the newsletter? That's one of the reasons why I wrote the article on welcoming new editors: I wanted to go back to the newsletter's original suggested purpose as a tool to help draw in new editors. If we really want to use it for that, then I think the Outreach department needs reviving—some editors need to take on the job of seeking out and welcoming editors, and perhaps connecting them to mentors who can guide them. If people are just having a bit of fun putting out these reports, that's fine too, and then we can keep the newsletter relatively small and perhaps with a more ad hoc release schedule.
Thanks for letting me know you'll be less involved in this month's edition; I'll solicit others to work on the sections you normally contribute towards. I appreciate all the work you've done to-date on The Inside Corner! isaacl (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I think the newsletter may just be missed on talk pages, as it looks like the Signpost. Perhaps if we at least had the green border? (Just thinking aloud). Also, I know we get a lot of new users updating stats. Did you see EricEnfermero's suggestion about creating a WikiProject welcome? Perhaps we could integrate a collapsed version of the newsletter into that. Again, just thinking aloud. Go Phightins! 22:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I'd responded to Eric, but I guess I didn't... I enabled Twinkle to see if I could add a personal customization, as per Twinkle's documentation, to allow me to use the current WikiProject Baseball invitation template, but it didn't seem to work. I'll have to try again. I didn't see too many requests on the Twinkle support page to add new project-specific templates, so I'm not sure how the current ones got picked for inclusion. (One request I saw got a reply to just add it to your own custom list of welcomes.)
Being a bit uncertain of how regular the newsletter schedule will be, I'm a little wary of putting it into the invitation template. I think the bigger question is if the template is being used at all right now? As you may have noticed, each newsletter edition has instructions on how to include the summary on a user's talk page, and the article I wrote on welcoming new editors referred to them.
A bit of colour may be a good idea to make the summary stand out. When I get the chance I'll play around with it. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

COI RfC[edit]

What's your level of interest? I think I remember that you said in the last COI RfC that you hadn't stated a position, and your comments generally seem intended to help people gain consensus. Would you like to be one of the closers? - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, would you be willing to run a straw poll? - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be to help shape the discussion before any closure. My pie-in-the-sky ideal would be for everyone to reach a consensus agreement that everyone can agree with, so a separate closer/closing panel is unnecessary, but I realize that is a pretty tall order with contentious issues. If possible I would like something similar to the general problem resolution process to be followed, but I suspect in this case, there wouldn't be much patience for steps 1 and 2, as there are many who hold ideological positions in this matter. But the most important part in my mind is iterating through steps 3 to 5 to work towards a solution, and not get hung up in continuous cycles of duelling support/oppose votes. My suggestion is to have a curated pros and cons list, FAQ list, table of considerations, or whatever works as a summary statement, and it can be kept in one place and updated, so if someone starts repeating an argument, everyone can just point to the summary and say, oh, you mean this? and the repetition can be stopped. Getting an agreement within a large group is always a slow process; anything that can be done to cut out redundancies will encourage involvement.
I know my attempts to guide the conversation during the many RfCs last year on conflicts of interest were unsuccessful. Most participants (though not all) kept to their entrenched positions, and did not want to accept a middle ground stepping stone that addressed some but not all of their concerns. Although I have no way of knowing for sure, my guess is that many of the interested parties do not have extensive experience with decision-making by a large group, and so the advantages of an incremental approach to influencing policy may not be evident. Thus to be frank, I'm not certain I'm the right person to lead a discussion, as I haven't had much success in getting others to sign onto my approach.
As clear, concise writing is one of my strengths, I am interested in helping craft the wording of any question asked of the Wikipedia community. I think it is vital for the wording to be even-handed and offer clear options, as this leads to the best sampling of opinion. If the interested parties decide a straw poll should be held to gauge opinion on a specific matter and so someone is needed to run the poll, I am happy to help with this.
In the end, the willingness of the participants to work together towards finding a happy medium to satisfy the most persons is key. Unfortunately, one or more recalcitrant editors can derail the process. Repetitive discussion loops can be short-circuited if most editors agree to disengage, but it only takes two editors swamping discussion to bog matters down. I hope that laying out the arguments in a summary statement can reassure everyone that their points are understood and available for consideration, so they do not feel compelled to re-state their points. isaacl (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
"ideal would be for everyone to reach a consensus agreement that everyone can agree with, so a separate closer/closing panel is unnecessary": That's exactly my view of RfCs that are (in some sense) about the WP community. We can expect people to be less willing to take in new information during an RfC; what's more important is what happens between the RfCs. Still, if unstructured discussion isn't doing anything, sometimes an RfC can be helpful to prune out the least successful arguments, so that we don't keep arguing the same thing with no result.
"I'm not certain I'm the right person": You've got some aptitude for it, if you've got the time to invest. If you don't want to be a closer, would you be willing to ask the participants if they'd accept you as a closer-in-training, with the idea that you're helping to lead discussions, which gives them a chance to kick your tires to see if they'd like you as a future closer? - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't think the concept of a closer-in-training is useful, as I think it would place the candidate in a lame-duck role. Time commitment is a problem, and so I would not want to be the sole person taking the lead in guiding conversation. I can work with others, though, in helping to move discussion forward rather than in the same loops. I can also help with keeping a summary of discussion up to date. I like the multi-dimensional model that Jytdog presented on the conflict of interest discussion page, and so perhaps as a first step, we can get an initial problem statement on which sector of the model is the focus. (However, I see that you've already asked for proposals on an RfC, and Smallbones has proposed one. I think this is premature, but seems like the horse is about to bolt from the barn already.) isaacl (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go correct that impression. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The Inside Corner : June 27, 2014[edit]

What's in the latest edition of WikiProject Baseball's newsletter:


"What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
I wouldn't have thought of it myself. And even though it isn't a formal decision yet (and who knows? maybe never will be), I wanted to express my sense of "A ha!" to you. So there you have it: "A ha!" KDS4444Talk 23:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

AfC proposal[edit]

Dear Isaacl: I followed your suggestion and posted at Gadgets/proposals, but as usual failed to attract even negative comment. It's frustrating to see other changes being implemented all around and see this one treated as if it didn't exist, but for my own peace of mind I think it would be best if I just let it go. Thanks anyway. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rogers Centre[edit]

Would you have a moment to look at a comment I left at Talk:Rogers Centre. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)