Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale/Closing statement

Should question 15 say deVine?
Should Question 15 say deVine?-- Jax 0677 (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It was supposed to be "divine", as in Divination. I've fixed it, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

leaving determination of consensus to the closers
As an aside, if a multiple-choice question like this is to be used in the future, we strongly recommend that a specific algorithm for scoring be established before the RfC begins. Leaving it to the vote counters to decide how to count the votes is a recipe for disaster. See Ranked voting for a discussion of some possibilities.

Sorry, I'm a little confused. Are you asking the moderators to instruct the closers how to assess consensus? I was not expecting closers to consider themselves vote counters at this RfC any more than at any RfC. How is having the closers decide how to assess consensus here any more of a recipe for disaster than at any other RfC?

While I wouldn't have assessed the responses to that question in the same way the three of you did [(I would have assigned n-1=6 for the highest score, to begin with, and assessed both the least-favored of seven responses and any unranked responses as n-n=0) and then I would have treated them as ordinal data (which they are) rather than as interval or ratio data (which they aren't) and slowly eliminated the least favored using something like the flowchart to the left], I would have assumed that if you weren't sure how you should assess consensus, you'd ask for help.

But it literally never occurred to me that you'd want me to tell you how you should be determining consensus. If you'd wanted that, I'd have been happy to suggest a method (not that I'm an expert), but when before starting this RfC I emailed the three of you to ask if my pleanned timing of the RfC (and therefore your availability to do the work of closing) was okay, two of you told me I shouldn't be discussing even that with you. So how in the world would I have known you would like instructions? And why would the moderator be giving unasked-for instructions to the closers? Valereee (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Speaking just for myself, I see your point. I apologize if our aside was taken as a direct criticism of the moderators; it wasn't intended that way, but as more of a "how could things be simpler in the future" type of thing.  One of the things that made Q2 difficult to analyze was that there were two distinct dimensions being considered at the same time.  One was "To which set of articles does this apply?"  The other was "How many sources do you need?"
 * In any case, I think we'll end up in the right place. However you look at the responses to Q2, none of the A or B choices gained much traction.  And even if our runoff idea isn't perfect, I think it's a reasonable way to add some clarity to a complicated situation. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @RoySmith! Yes, I think we'll get there eventually. Even the failed questions provide a ton of information for the next RfCs. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Q17 updated
The section on Q17 has been updated. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Valereee (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Q2 updated
The section on Q2 has been updated. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Second RfC?
Several sections are closed as "Moved to the second RfC.", yet such an RfC does not appear to be mentioned, much less linked to. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a good point. The second RfC hasn't started yet and is being workshopped still, but I have added a wikilink to it on the first mention. The SandDoctor  Talk 06:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)