This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rick Block. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at [email protected] (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at [email protected]. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
See my post on the "Climate Fairness" Section of the Denver talk page. I am trying as best I can to keep the article to the point, factual, sourced, and not editorialized. I could really use some help from others in this respect. The edits that keep coming through are full of commentary and unsourced conjecture.
Obviously wikipedia is too political and opinionative to waste anymore of my time on. Whatever, have a great day.
--Hogs555 (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite
Hello Rick Block. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Thanks for letting me know about this. There's apparently a mediawiki parser size limit that's being exceeded. I'm not sure if there's a reasonable fix, but I'll try to figure something out. Actually unrelated, but the number of members in Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls has been considerably reduced (currently 69???) since the userboxes no longer include whoever is using them into the category. I'm pursuing why this change was made as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I was attempting to clean up Category:Admin user templates which was a mess. (Templates with vague or misleading names, etc.) As a result, one of the things I eventually did was create Category:Not an admin user templates to try to bring some clarity. If you take a look at the entries in the latter you may find a BUNCH of "hopeful-style" userboxes. However, in looking over each userbox, I wasn't exactly sure on some of them whether they actually want to be nominated for adminship. (And some were clearly copies of a hopeful template where they left the category inclusion in place, but changed the text in the userbox).
So anyway, to try to make it easier find all the various userboxes, I removed the category from all userboxes I found, and kept waiting for the category to shrink (category updating can be slow at times : )
Just now I went through and clicked on a random few and it looks like those that are left are just trancluded userboxes or self-added categories.
I was considering nominating the "hopeful" category for deletion, (after going through all the userboxes and such, I have doubts as to whether it's used much for the intended purpose of actually finding such hopefuls), but if it's serving a purpose populating the list by bot (filtered by various criteria), then I suppose I could see that value.
I hope this helps explain what I was doing. In the meantime, of course feel free to re-add the category to any userbox that you think is appropriate at your discretion.
And incidentally, I think that all the various "hopeful" userboxes should probably be merged. But not incredibly concerned about it atm : )
If you have any other thoughts/concerns on this (or whatever else), please feel free to drop me a note.
Howdy Rick. I've chatted with jc37 here and I'm considering putting the category back in the template. What are your thoughts regarding this?--Rockfang (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Rick, I don't understand, and cannot find arguments on the talk page, why you moved the solution with Bayes away from the start of the article. Nijdam (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Gerhard, and perhaps also Martin, just like to get rid of this formal approach. However the section only describes in formal terms the solution that was directly above it. Actually I've given up discussing with Gerhard, he's friendly, but a nitwit if it comes to probability. Do you have any objection if I undo your move? Nijdam (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I had about 17 FAs when I was Rlevse. I now edit as PumpkinSky. I was wondering if the FAs could be combined all as PumpkinSky for WBFAN purposes. Thank you.PumpkinSkytalk00:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Just edit the by-year summary lists, e.g. WP:FA2012, and change Rlevse to PumpkinSky. The bot recreates the WBFAN page from these summary lists (from scratch) every time it runs. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That's very kind. If you remember, could you post a note here or on my talk page when you're done? No rush. PumpkinSkytalk10:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I was sort of suggesting you do it yourself - but I just did it for you. It will be reflected in WBFAN tomorrow. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry dumb me didn't pick up on that, and many thanks, I do appreciate it. I see the FLs are done similarly. I'll do them myself. PumpkinSkytalk17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping "the place running" by your bots who serve daily. and for helping editors, for example the author and photographer of the gem to connect to his past achievements, - in other words: you are an awesome Wikipedian, - to quote you: "see what kind of mood you're in"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rick, I send you an email, using the last address you used to reach me, but it was returned. Did you change your address? Mine is still the same. Nijdam (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
(Proposed) Request For Comments: "Simple" vs. "Conditional" solutions to the Monty Hall Problem
(Posted to Martin and Rick's talk page) Please check the RfC below for errors and suggest changes as needed. I did some minor copyediting for clarity, so let me know if you think the old version was better. In particular, look at my solution to the question of the yellow highlighted sections, and double check to see that I started with the correct version. If you wish, I can preload your comments before posting the RfC. -Guy M.
1) There's an obvious typo near the end "Considering all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do should tye Montey hallProblem page be edited according to Proposal 1, Proposal 2, or neither?" 2) You've changed the Proposal 2 wording (they were parallel constructs, "Proposal 1 is for the initial sections ..." and "Proposal 2 is for the article ..."). 3) Without the date following the first paragraph, my understanding is the rfcbot will include the entire text at WP:RFC/SCI.
{{rfc|sci}} <<-- (this gets uncommented when we go live. -Guy M.)
The aim of this RfC is to resolve a longstanding and ongoing conflict involving multiple editors concerning the relative importance and prominence within the Monty Hall Problem article of the 'simple' and the more complex 'conditional' solutions to the problem. The 'simple' solutions do not consider which specific door the host opens to reveal a goat (see examples here and here). The 'conditional' solutions use conditional probability to solve the problem in the case that the host has opened a specific door to reveal a goat (see example here).
One group of editors considers that the 'simple' solutions are perfectly correct and easier to understand and that the more complex, 'conditional' solutions are an unimportant academic extension to the problem.
The other group believes that the 'simple' solutions are essentially incomplete or do not answer the question as posed and that the 'conditional' solutions are necessary to solve the problem. Both sides claim sources support their views.
That argument is unlikely to ever be resolved but two proposals have been made to resolve the dispute. Both proposals aim to give equal prominence and weight to the two types of solution.
One of the points of contention is whether either of the proposals below violates any Wikipedia policies and guidelines (in particular WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:EP, MOS:JARGON, WP:MOSINTRO, WP:MTAA and WP:OPINION). See the individual editor's comments below for arguments on both sides of this issue.
Proposal 1 is for the initial sections including 'Solution' and 'Aids to understanding' to be based exclusively on 'simple' solutions (with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete) then to follow that, for those interested, with a section at the same heading level giving a full and scholarly exposition of the 'conditional' solutions.
Proposal 2 The other proposal is for the article to include in the initial 'Solution' section both one or more 'simple' solutions and an approachable 'conditional' solution (showing the conditional probability the car is behind Door 2 given the player picks Door 1 and the host opens Door 3 is 2/3) with neither presented as "more correct" than the other, and to include in some later section of the article a discussion of the criticism of the 'simple' solutions.
Considering all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do should tye Montey hallProblem page be edited according to Proposal 1, Proposal 2, or neither?
Note: Because prior attempts to resolve this conflict have resulted in long discussions with many endless back and forth comments, please place any responses to other editor's comments in your own "Comments from user X" section and limit your comments to no more than 500 words. If you wish to have a threaded discussion, feel free to start a new section on this talk page but outside of this RfC.
Comments from User 1
User 1's comments go here.
Comments from User 2
User 2's comments go here.
Comments from User 3
User 1's comments go here.
Comments from User 4
User 2's comments go here.
Comments from User X
Please create a new section or two if you use up the last one.
Rick's comments
This is a POV dispute, plain and simple.
POV 1) "Simple" solutions are the "right" way to solve the problem.
POV 2) The "right" solution is to compute the conditional probabilities the car is behind Door 1 and Door 2, given the player has selected Door 1 and the host has opened Door 3.
Proposal 1's "compromise" is to give "simple" solutions far greater WP:WEIGHT, and structurally endorse POV 1. Proposal 2 gives equal WEIGHT and endorses neither POV, remaining strictly NPOV.
Regarding WEIGHT: many, many sources present "simple" solutions. But the vast majority of these are popular, not academic, sources and many of them uncritically parrot vos Savant's ("simple") solution. Within the field of probability, the textbook solution (literally and figuratively, meaning both appears in numerous textbooks and is completely standard) is to compute the conditional probabilities. This solution, presented by the preponderance of sources in the most relevant academic field, should have at least equal WEIGHT to any other.
Regarding STRUCTURE: there is a controversial, but by no means fringe, POV expressed by numerous sources, e.g. [3][4][5][6][7][8], criticizing "simple" solutions. To be NPOV the article must not endorse this POV (as it arguably did at one point, which is perhaps the actual source of much of the conflict). But it equally must not endorse the opposite view that "simple" solutions are universally accepted as "perfectly correct". Proposal 1 does exactly this, presenting "simple" solutions as "the solution" ("with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete") and relegating "conditional" solutions to a later section "for those interested". This creates a strong structural POV suggesting the "simple" solutions are true and undisputed, which (hardly coincidentally) exactly matches the POV of certain editors involved in this conflict.
Should a player who picks Door 1 and then sees the host open Door 3 switch to Door 2? Furthermore, the claim "simple" solutions are easier to understand is at best dubious. Krauss and Wang say 97% of their test subjects drew an image of the (conditional!) situation where the player picked Door 1 and the host opened Door 3 (like the image to the right), and that once formed this image "prevents the problem solver from gaining access to the intuitive [simple] solution". We know vos Savant's solution was not convincing (she received thousands of letters after publishing it). As Eisenhauer says "what could and should have been a correct and enlightening answer to the problem was made unconvincing and misleading."
The resolution here is simple. Follow Wikipedia's core content policy of NPOV. Include BOTH "simple" and approachable "conditional" solutions in an initial "Solution" section, presenting both as equally valid. Discuss the differences between these types of solutions in a later section "for those interested". I.e. Proposal 2.
Hi Rick. I realize that my remarks at Talk:Monty Hall problem#Comments from Ningauble might seem a bit harsh. Spending several years at Wikiquote has made me a little hypersensitive about the problem of taking things out of context or over-interpreting what sources say. I know that this can happen unintentionally, and I have to consciously strive to avoid doing it myself. I encourage you to do the same.
This is not to say the observations in these sources are completely useless (except Grinstead & Snell). For example, I think we both agree that Morgan et al. (1991) is an important source, but we have different perspectives on what is significant about it. Notwithstanding their strident criticism of vos Savant's solution to the question as she stated it, in my opinion its real significance for the history of MHP lies in influencing the evolution of the statement of the question away from what they call the "vos Savant scenario" toward the now widespread so-called "standard" problem. It might be OR to ascribe that influence explicitly, but the paper is so widely cited that we can certainly use it as a prominent example that clearly shows the "vos Savant scenario" can be interpreted in a (frequentist) manner that does not permit a closed-form solution for the probability of winning. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I was taken aback by your comments, which do seem quite harsh. I have been thinking about responding, but don't have space within the 500 word limit for a reasonable rebuttal. Suffice it to say that I completely disagree that I'm taking anything out of context or over interpreting. I'm traveling on business and don't have the sources conveniently available at the moment, but I'm fairly certain that (for example) your accounting of Morgan's rejoinder actually exemplifies the problem you're accusing me of but in the reverse direction.
I assume you understand the difference between
P(winning by switching)
P(winning by switching|player picks door 1)
P(winning by switching|player picks door 1 AND host opens door 3)
and that the sources critical of "simple" solutions are fundamentally criticizing them for addressing #1 or #2, rather than #3. This is much the same point Boris made in response to my question to him on the talk page about this (are "simple" solutions sufficient without any mention of symmetry? "In no way!"). Curiously, Boris claims to support proposal 1. Quite honestly, I can't figure out how anyone who both understands the math and Wikipedia policies (which I think may be a vanishingly small subset of folks responding to the RFC, but I think does include you) doesn't see proposal 1 as anything other than naked POV pushing. Believe it or not, I have tried very hard (and have clearly failed) for at least the past two years to keep the discussions about this focused on sources rather than individuals opinions about the problem. Hardly anyone seems to be willing to talk about anything other than their own opinion, and specifically unwilling to seriously talk about what the sources say and how we should appropriately weigh the various POVs they express. I find it perplexing that essentially no one is willing to approach this as a POV issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I do recognize that you have tried valiantly for more than two years to keep the article and the discussions grounded in citable sources; and I respect that you were willing to change your mind about whether conditional probability was even relevant when the Morgan et al. source was put forward. Please don't take the strong words of my rebuttal to mean I doubt your intelligence or integrity. However, it seems to me that you have seized on a mathematical concept that arose in one context (unknown host behavior, allowing for such possibilities as, e.g., slipping on a banana peel) and construed it as applying more broadly in a different context (randomized host behavior with strict constraints), and are overlooking the context and substance of the criticisms you cite.
In weighting the POV that the sources express, we must accurately represent that view, with diligent attention to the point they are addressing. I hope that when you get a chance you will review the sources again in light of my observations in the RfC.
In light of those observations, I think the "Criticism of the simple solutions" section of the article should be completely rewritten and recast as (a) explaining the importance of the difference between the "vos Savant scenario" and the "standard version", and (b) pointing out the versatility of conditional probability analysis. I wanted to rewrite the section myself some time ago, but the contentious environment around this article dissuaded me from even bringing it up. Unfortunately, it does not look like the RfC is going bring peace. ~ Ningauble (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree the "criticism of the simple solutions" section is very bad (I don't think I had much to do with it). How this criticism is represented in the article is really not of much concern to me. What is of concern is the notion that the "Solution" section can be written to include nothing but "simple" solutions, omitting even the most approachable of conditional solutions (like the one in the "Decision tree" section) - meaning Wikipedia's editorial position is that THE SOLUTION to the MHP is to ignore the door 1/door 3 example mentioned in the typical problem statement, and effectively move the point of the player's decision from after the host opens a door to before the host opens a door. Indeed many sources do just this. But many other sources do not, and a not insignificant number complain about sources that do. Please read proposal 2 again. The suggestion is not to include the criticism of simple solutions early in the article, but to remain editorially neutral about them by presenting both simple and conditional solutions (as equally vaild approaches - no criticism). The criticism is one of the reasons to carefully preserve a neutral stance, but the criticism itself would not be presented until much later in the article (this is common to both proposals). Again, how anyone who understands both the math and Wikipedia policies can imagine proposal 1 is NPOV completely escapes me. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
List of administrators activity
Would you consider having Rick Bot change the definition of active on WP:LA from thirty or more edits in two months to thirty or more edits in a month? I have a feeling with the little amount of activity amongst administrators now that fifteen edits a month is considered active anymore. Actually, changing it to fifty edits in a month would reflect better accuracy, but I think thirty in one month is probably going to make enough of a difference for now. Regards, — Moeε23:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Stemming from a conversation at WT:RFA, thirty in two months is kind of inaccurate. It might also be helpful to include logs into the equation somehow since the number of edits doesn't entirely mean they are inactive. Regards, — Moeε23:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't consider someone “active” if they're not making 30 edits a day. This need to move in that direction. FWIW, there are regular mentions of this at ANI; recently/currently, I believe. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I was going for a halving of the long-time definition, rather than turning it into a fraction. 30 edits in a day is a bit much to request, considering I'm on here daily, sometimes for hours at a time, and sometimes I don't make thirty edits. It doesn't meant that I can't make more, but simply that someone even half as active as me is going to be hard-pressed to make that many edits just to be considered active. Like I said, 30-50 a month is about a more updated revision that would reflect more accurately where we are at. 30 edits a day or more would just report the very active, not the active. Regards, — Moeε00:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've reverted the bot's last edit. It seems confused about the status of many FAs, having de-listed many that are still @FA status. Gough Whitlam, Vampire, and Evolution, for example. No doubt there were correct bits in there, but something has sent it amok. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I won't be able to fix this for a few days during which time the bot is on its own. If it happens again please feel free to revert. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm going through and removing the indefblocked users since the page is broken; is the bot going to revert me, or should it be okay? --Rschen775401:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The bot will almost certainly revert you. I'm traveling and won't have a chance to make any changes to the bot for a few weeks. If you'd like you could protect the page so the bot won't be able to change it. -- Rick Block (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
You removed an edit I made a few weeks ago. I posted a link to an interactive simulator that I created over a decade ago which is useful for those struggling with the problem. I have looked at the other simulators and I don't see why anyone would see the NYT version as equal, let alone providing an experience superior to the one I my simulator offers. What mine does is allow people to quickly go through a bunch of Monty Hall problem like games in real time while stats are kept for them. 100 games. They can switch or stay or change for every round. No waiting for the next game to load, since all 100 are loaded and visible at the onset.
I am currently in a Model Thinking class on coursera.org where more than a few people did not get the logic that is obvious to you and me. Graphs mean nothing. If you have known this problem a long time then you know what I mean. They have to smash their heads against something that doesn't allow them to hold onto their erroneous constructs. And it has to be accessible enough to keep them engaged.
According to my calculations, if you run through the problem for 100 games, there is a 95% chance you will wind up with more than 57 wins if you switch every time. And a 99.7% chance that you will get 53 or more out of 100. But with 10 games, there is a about 32% chance that you will get 5 or less wins by switching every time. That is based on my recent learning of standard deviations, so you can correct me if I am incorrect here. If it is correct, that means that if someone goes the NYT version for 10 tries (I found it to be very slow), they may well find it is 50/50, based on their limited experience and be burned out from the transaction time. Simply put, the feedback from my simulation is much faster with no waiting.
Anyway, if you are going to remove a simulator link, I certainly don't think it should be the one I posted.
The most recent run of the bot seems to have removed a few of these as well. Some of them appear to be causing problems due to being jointly-nominated articles; is there a certain manner that the nomination needs to be parsed for the bot to catch it? GRAPPLEX14:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks like there's a caching issue of some kind. The update adding these entries (e.g. [9]), is subsequently undone (e.g. [10]). The second update is updating the mainpage appearance dates (done separately from adding new entries), which it does by reading the current version of the page (should be the version just written), updating the dates, and then writing this version back. This read is apparently returning the previous version, not the current version. Any caching is happening on the wikipedia side of this (the bot is not using an interface that could conceivably be returning a cached copy). Writing a new version of a page is supposed to purge Wikipedia's caches - my guess is that this second read is occurring before the purge completes (probably due to some recent change to the mediawiki software). I'll add a small delay and see if this helps. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The position at the moment is that eighteen promotions since 16th October are unlisted at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2012, and have not therefore been added to WP:WBFAN. The edit histories indicate that the bot has been active, but it seems to be cancelling its own efforts. Is there any reason why the missing October items shouldn't be added by hand, per Crisco above? Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I made a change yesterday that I thought would help (didn't seem to). I've manually reverted to the version with the additions. I'll increase the delay between the write and the read and see if this helps. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The list is up to date now. Will the bot automatically update WP:WBFAN? (I need this for some statistical work I'm doing). If not, I don't mind doing the updates manually, to save you time. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The easiest way to do this is to just change the name in the by-year summary lists (e.g. WP:FA2012). You can do this yourself if you want - or if you'd prefer I could do it. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, a couple of questions / comments for you if I may. (1) Does your bot still add main page appearance dates to WP:FA2012, [[WP:FA2011] etc? I can spot several on the 2012 page alone that have appeared recently but have not been marked as such: HMS New Zealand (1911), Charles Villiers Stanford and United States v. Wong Kim Ark to name but three. (2) The main page appearance dates are in wikilinked format, which hasn't been the way that things are done for some time; I don't know if this is still how the bot adds dates, but if so, would it be possible to change this? And if the dates are manually reset to non-wikilinked format, will the bot accept or revert this? (3) Your bot is fighting with GimmeBot about the new name of this featured artice; GimmeBot correctly updated the link to avoid pointing at a dab page, but your bot didn't like it... Thanks, BencherliteTalk16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
1) Yes, the bot still adds (it least, it's suppose to add) main page appearance dates. 2) The bot uses wikilinked dates, which can be changed (in the bot). I wouldn't be surprised if the bot undoes a manual reset to non-wikilinked format (but don't know for sure offhand - I'll check). 3) The bot doesn't keep up with name changes as well as GimmeBot - I'll look into this as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The bot should update all the dates to non-wikilinked format the next time it runs. Updates haven't been working since November 1st when somebody changed the format used in the TFA blurbs - I've updated the bot accordingly. Not sure what's up with the GimmeBot tussle - as far as I can tell the bot shouldn't override any changes GimmeBot makes. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
