Misplaced Pages

WikiCup Newsletter XVIII

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 8 - May 31, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Ceranthor, Ottava Rima, Sasata, Scorpion0422 and the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination. Featured lists Rlevse and Wrestlinglover have both had 5 successful featured list nominations. Featured topics Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination. Featured pictures Durova has had 23 successful featured picture nominations. Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations. Featured portals J Milburn has had 1 successful featured portal nomination. Good topics ThinkBlue has had 1 successful good topic nomination. Good articles Theleftorium has had 12 successful good article nominations. Did you know? items Candlewicke has had 35 successful "Did you know?" nominations. In the news items Candlewicke has had 29 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Gary King 126 213 87 2 Bedford 125 200 75 3 Shoemaker's Holiday 611 683 72 4 Useight 350 420 70 5 Scorpion0422 340 409 69 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges Hi all. Round 2 is officially over, and we're very pleased with the results. The lowest passing score was over 200! We are very impressed with the last minute pushes to get a spot, which many of you did through mainspace editing your butts off for the last week or so. We really hope that those of you who did a lot of mainspace editing this time around will take some of that and turn it into good and featured content next round. The pools for Round 3 will be up soon; the round starts tomorrow, June 1, 2009. As always, nominations that were nominated last round but not passed yet, may count for this round. Hope to see you all working very hard, as you are down to the Top 16, and it's going to take a lot to make the Top 8! Those of you who were eliminated and no longer wish to receive this newsletter may remove your name from this list. If you were eliminated, but are still looking for some fun editing competition, check out User:Shappy/Amazing Race Misplaced Pages which starts in July. Good luck and congratulations to those who made it to Round 3, again!  GARDEN ,  iMatthew :  Chat  , and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 5 Featured articles 15 Featured lists 1 Featured topic 40 Featured pictures 3 Featured sounds 1 Featured portal 1 Good topic 59 Good articles 142 Did you know? items 33 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 25 Featured articles 47 Featured lists 3 Featured topics 175 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 2 Featured portal 3 Good topics 202 Good articles 446 Did you know? items 82 In the news items Pool winners In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool winners are: Pool A Shoemaker's Holiday (683) Pool B ThinkBlue (251) Pool C Theleftorium (462) Pool D Candlewicke (552) Pool E Durova (497) Pool F Sasata (961) Wildcard winners Useight (420) Scorpion0422 (409) Wrestlinglover (356) Rlevse (334) Paxse (285) Ottava Rima (249) Mitchazenia (228) Gary King (213) the_ed17 (211) Juliancolton (211) Those in italics are not currently in place for the next round, but are very close. All scores are accurate as of the end of the round. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.

Good idea

I like this. But this will not pass, CIV has for ages been the underdog. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I too article. The gross incivility on Wiki is what makes it a disaster on many occassions.--Molobo (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

my application

Thank you for your comment. But this time I accept 2 Admins dismissal. Because they gave me chance last time. But they think premature. Sorry. Most of our misfortune comes from encountered the machine gun. You seem to know I am not racist. I am consoled. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My rationale.

You said on MFD that you had trouble understanding why I didn't want to attempt to engage the user with a very promotional userpage, well, here's the main rationale:

"I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more

draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation shoot on sight"

-Brad Patrick, WMF

And none of that precludes asking nicely first. It's a kid, not some corporate marketroid. //roux   17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I admit I was a little bitey. Point taken. Gigs (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's his own talk page

I think it's best we leave him alone about it. -GTBacchus 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're hardly unbiased, and it is painfully obvious that he is--yet again--gaming the rules. Ah well, this is Misplaced Pages after all, where gaming everything is perfectly allowed as long as you're notorious enough. Frankly, his sad attempt to rewrite what actually happened in favour of his...umm...non-reality-based version should be deleted per WP:SOAPBOX, but I'm sure you'll find a reason why the lies should be allowed to stand. //roux   16:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What's my bias, and what harm is being done? -GTBacchus 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your bias is obvious. The harm is allowing someone who gamed and exhausted the patience of the community to keep on doing it after being banned, indeed flat-out lying about what happened. Few are going to bother sifting to find the truth. He is deliberately obfuscating the declined unblock and emphasising a dishonest version of what happened. That neither of you see a problem with this is distressing. //roux   17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

He added a couple of line breaks, what's the big deal? The scroll bar in your browser alerts you to content below the fold. –xeno 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Missing the point, xeno. Again: He is deliberately obfuscating the declined unblock and emphasising a dishonest version of what happened. //roux   17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So he's digging a hole deeper? And you're trying to prevent him? Roux, I generally agree with you but on this point I don't quite follow. Everyone involved here know's what's up. –xeno 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Key point: those involved. Those not involved? They'll see that, and particularly if they've ever had what they'd term as a bad interaction with an admin, they'll walk away thinking "Wow! If I piss off an admin I can get blocked just for that?" It's about perception, and allowing DT to use his talkpage as a soapbox not only goes against policy, but very specifically enables future twits to do the same thing. This is bad. //roux   17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine if he pushes the declined unblock below the fold. People can draw their own conclusions about the rest. –xeno 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Roux: you claim that my bias is "obvious"; I want to know what you imagine it is. (Others have placed me on both sides of this dispute, so I wonder which fallacy you've chosen.) If you think that people will be more apt to believe a message left by an indef-blocked user than they will be to believe that he's blocked for a good reason, then I disagree with your assessment of human nature. Who will even look at that page, and then become convinced that... what? All admins are scum? What are they going to do, get so mad they burn down Misplaced Pages? You have not answered the question about actual concrete harm being done; you've simply asserted without justification or explanation that I'm biased, and that his message will somehow be mistaken as gospel by some indeterminate "public"(?). -GTBacchus 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Given how strongly you have lobbied him to get unblocked, yes, your bias is obvious. Mine is too; I think he should have been blocked long ago as an obvious disruption to the project who was solely here to make a point about something--aka an OBVIOUS SOCK IS OBVIOUS--and obfuscated that with some piddly Huggling action. That being said, I never participated particularly fervently in the various discussions, as he was just yet another elephant in the room that Misplaced Pages refuses to deal with. He is now, however, banned by the will of the community, and our usual response in that situation is to deny users the ability to keep firing shots from their talk page. Again: what he is saying on his talkpage is provably dishonest. So we are allowing this because why? We are allowing him to deliberately game policies about removing declined unblocks because...? Is there an actual good reason for that? Of course there is not. The harm, as I have mentioned already, is the harm of allowing a banned editor to continue taking potshots, thus enabling the next banned editor to do so, and the next, and the next. I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of these elephants taking up so much space on the rug we sweep everything under. He is banned, he is gone, if he wants to appeal he can Special:EmailUser/ARBCOM and be done with it. He does not get to continue using his talkpage to post lies about why he was permanently disinvited. Well, I say permanently.. I think we all know that there's another sock. At least. //roux   17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Roux has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling" and at "Tenmei's ad hominem attacks and disruption during the ArbCom case". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you.

ArbCom findings of fact included:

• 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

• 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

• 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; however, I note with regret that "How to disagree without being disagreeable" at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert is cited several times by Caspian blue as evidence of harassment?

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to get involved in anything where CB is continuing his usual patterns; the only reason I commented on the recent AN/I involving Bukubku (which CB, predictably, took over with the usual behaviour) was because it had gone so far off track I wanted to find Bukubku a final resolution one way or the other. I would suggest someone like User:Durova as someone who is good at helping work things out. In the future, please do not ask me to participate in anything involving CB. //roux   18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, I thought it likely that "no, thanks" would be your answer. However, you were on the list which Caspian blue posted as "evidence;" and I thought that beginning with usernames from this "evidence" section was less likely to garner extravagant complaints ...? I anticipate that others will decline for reasons similar to yours; but who knows? It's a start. In due course, my writing skills can only improve. One way or the other, I need to work on developing the skills neccessary to survive in abrasive situations like Caspian blue contrives again and again.

To return to the point: May I reach out to you in future in circumstances where there is no taint of Caspian blue? Rather than struggling with minor problems after they have evolved, it might be more effective to ask for help/feedback at the first hint that someone seems not to be understanding my words. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly

I was higly impressed with your insight here and I'm really sorry you failed your RFA after having read it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There's a lot that is broken with Misplaced Pages, and adopting a much lower tolerance for things like that will start fixing it, fast. This will, of course, never happen. //roux   18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)