User talk:Dank/Archive 32

WT:Protected Page Editor
Sorry for the slight delay, I was doing a research assignment for a sports website. I spent a few hours reading the debate last night, and I am available for an email/IRC/Skype chat later tonight. I will be expecting you and RegentPark emails, and probably Wizardman and I will reply accordingly. It is a complex debate indeed. Thanks Secret account 16:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thx, email coming. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
I appreciate the time you spent to comment at the FAC for Fort Yellowstone.--MONGO 02:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Really great article, I'm sorry I didn't have time to cover more of it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

FA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Arthur W. Radford, which has recently become a WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. - Dank (push to talk) 10:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter
We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and  claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place and second place  both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, May 11!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, May 11 at 5:30 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 23:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sock puppetry"
This baseless and mean-spirited accusation appears to be an act of petty vindictiveness by User:MarcusBritish because I strongly opposed his viewpoint at [].

In nine years on Wikipedia, I have never edited from any platform other than my own registered user name. This is personal attack on me, completely undeserved and apparently a reflection of POV nationalism on the part of User:MarcusBritish, whose home page features a large RAF roundel. I PROTEST — but thank you for lifting the restrictions imposed by User:MarcusBritish.

Sca (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, happy to help. I'm going to copy this to your talk page and reply there. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind comments. As it happens, my reading of late has centered on the various conspiracies against Hitler. I just finished Giles MacDonogh's biography of Adam von Trott zu Solz — tragic but fascinating. Sca (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Drive proposal for June
FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but I'd really like to focus on copyediting software for now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Alan McNicoll copyedit
Hi Dank. I currently have Alan McNicoll at A-Class Review (which it seems likely to pass shortly with four supports and no outstanding comments), and would like to take it to FAC in the near future. As the resident prose expert, I was wondering if you would mind having a look at the article to see if the writing is up to a sufficiently high standard? If you are too busy I completely understand. Many thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a little copyediting, down to Alan McNicoll. It looks good so far. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. I appreciate it. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign
G'day, Dan, I've requested a peer review for Gallipoli Campaign. If you have a free moment, would you mind taking a look? The review page is here: Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1. I'm hoping to get as much input as possible. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did some copyediting, down to Gallipoli Campaign. Best of luck. I'm spending most of my free time on copyediting software and a manual. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research
Hi Dank, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Military History talk page that you are one of the coordinators for the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category
Is Carolyn S. Shoemaker an appropriate Category for the article about her? Respectfully,  Tiyang (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't do much with categories, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refer me to someone who will answer my question. Thank you.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 07:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest a change at WP:CFD, or post a question at WT:CFD. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you VERY much. I read for several hours and decided I should drop this and go back to minor edits.  Thanks again.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Walter Krueger
Dan, in Featured article candidates/Walter Krueger/archive1, someone complained that the last section " reads rather awkwardly and I think it could do with a few tweaks and a copyedit". I wonder if you could take a quick look? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what Abraham meant; I made one change and replied at the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA - what's the next step?
Although it  comes relatively  hard on  heels of the recent  round of discussions, The Potato Hose is enthusiastic about  doing  more research  to  get  something  started. I've tried to help, but  as yet  it  has just  been met  with  hostile comments. All I  wanted to  do  was spare him  some work  proving  things that  are already  abundantly  clear. He doesn't  seem  to  realise that  I  am  still  totally  dedicated to  an improvement  of the  voting  culture at  RfA, and getting  more candidates of the right  calibre to  run  for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You have been 'met with hostility' because the entirety of your 'help' has been "Don't do that, EVERYBODY KNOWS this is how things are." Yeah, well 'everybody knows' that giving teenagers makes 'em go have lots of sex... except that it actually does the exact opposite (access to condoms correlates really highly with later age of first intercourse, hugely decreased teenage STI rates, hugely decreased teen pregnancy rates), and people who actually crunch the numbers have been using those numbers as a way to get condoms into high schools. Data-driven solutions work because it's basically impossible to argue against them.


 * You are talking about reforming 'voting culture' which as I have already said a bunch of times is a fuzzy and emotional thing which is never going to have much success, because basically what you're doing is asking people to stop being assholes. Didn't work out very effectively for Jesus (or Buddha or Mohammed or or or or or), so I doubt it's going to work very well for you.


 * I am talking about questioning the assumptions of RfA in order to completely sidestep the entrenched issues of toxicity in the environment, by being able to point at concrete and unarguable numbers. Your basic assumption is We Need More Admins. I am saying that very assumption needs to be questioned. Questioning it may lead to alternate solutions that may bypass RFA entirely (for example by delegating a lot of the non-actual-admin-tool-using tasks to non-admins), while at the same time making it easier to pass RfA by showing where the backlogs (for example) are the worst and showing the community the effects of those problems.


 * I'm sure butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, but you need to take a moment and think, "Hey, the first/second/umpteenth time Potato Hose asked me about this data, maybe I could have said it doesn't exist instead of just telling him to go read stuff he's already read, and maybe he'd be a little less annoyed with the way I am presenting myself as The Source Of All Wisdom Not To Be Questioned." And you're not really helping your position by announcing that you're taking your toys and going home.


 * It takes two to tango and I really deeply resent your position of wounded innocence.


 * If you want to actually discuss what I want to do, and actually offer intelligent objections that don't rely on "It Is Known," I will be happy to hold a conversation with you. But you've steadfastly refused to do that. I can only wonder why.


 * (And before you start complaining that I followed you here, you pointed me at Dank's userspace, which I have been exploring.)


 * — The Potato Hose 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * He has a cellar used for storing root vegetables, too - have you found it yet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Potato, 'positions of wounded innocence'? teenagers? condoms? sex? complaining that  you  have followed me here? what ever next? Jesus? Buddah? Mohammed? Golly,  you  are presumptious. You  just  fling  any  irrelevancies into  your  arguments. That's scraping  the barrel  my  friend. Although I  see you've retracted your comment  at  WT:RFA - albeit  by  leaving yet  anothrr hostile and inappropriate ES. What  you  have convinced me of now, is that  I  have no interest  in  collaborating with  anyone who is as hostile as the environment  at  RfA which  they  assume to  want  to  find some solutions for. And this is the very last  time I'll  address any  comments about  it  with  you  anywhere as you  have wished, so  don't  bother replying  unless you  are just  looking  for an audience - especially  as you  have announced that  you  are taking your toys and going home. If  you  were as thick skinned as I  am, you  would stick  to  your  principles (not  the hostile ones) and see them through.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to show me some research that they'd like to offer in the introduction to an RfC, I'll be happy to give an opinion on whether it's likely to be succinct and convincing enough to help the RfC succeed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar
Hi Dank, you'll recall that you contributed to the FA review of History of Gibraltar few months ago. I've nominated it at TFAR for July 13, the tercentenary of Gibraltar becoming a British territory. If you have any thoughts on this you're very welcome to comment at Today's featured article/requests. Prioryman (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like smooth sailing to me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not quite, if you take a look at how it's developed since I posted above. Prioryman (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

A request
Please ignore MarshalN20. If you are unnable or unwilling, then please talk to him through his talk page. He's not in the FAC to help but to harass me as usual. That's the point. He's expecting that you will reply to him. Then he will reply back. And this will go on, with increasingly large replied until the FAC becomes unreadable. --Lecen (talk) 05:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can hold off for now. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Recently a few editors and I discussed what was the best title for an article. We reached an agreement. The title was changed. Two days later MarshalN20 canged the title to one he liked, ignoring the entire discussion me and the other users had about it. And that's not the main problem: MarshalN20 had never edited the article before, not even its talk page. He is following me and harassing me. If he were a truly interested editor on Uruguayan War, he would have tried to discuss it on its talk page, which he never did. All I can do is ignore him and wait for the arbcom case to end. --Lecen (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears from Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision that he'll be topic-banned. - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: HMS Speedy (1782)
This is a note to let the main editors of HMS Speedy (1782) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on June 29, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/June 29, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

HMS Speedy was a 14-gun Speedy-class brig of the British Royal Navy. Built at Dover, Speedy initially served off the British coast. Transferred to the Mediterranean after the outbreak of the French Revolutionary Wars, she spent the rest of her career there, winning fame for herself in various engagements and often against heavy odds. Her first commander in the Mediterranean, Charles Cunningham, served with distinction with several squadrons, assisting in the capture of several war prizes. His successor, George Cockburn, impressed his superiors with his dogged devotion to duty. Speedy's next commander, George Eyre, lost her to a superior French force on 9 June 1794. She was soon retaken, and re-entered service under Hugh Downman, who captured a number of privateers between 1795 and 1799. His successor, Jahleel Brenton, fought a number of actions against Spanish forces off Gibraltar. Her last captain, Lord Cochrane, forced the surrender of a much larger Spanish warship, the Gamo. Speedy was finally captured by a powerful French squadron in 1801 and donated to the Papal Navy by Napoleon the following year. She spent five years with them under the name San Pietro, and was broken up in 1807. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus Stevens
Since I know you have an interest in history articles, you may want to weigh in at the just-opened peer review for this article which I've been working on improving, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting ... he actually did look a little like Tommy Lee Jones. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if he had his wig on backwards.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for that. I'll take it, but it makes me sad that we haven't succeeded; many voters still feel that there's little chance that their voice will be heard, and that the process effectively excludes them and everyone they know. This is not a problem we can afford to leave unfixed. I didn't get to close this time, but I'll keep trying. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need an "RfC on RfCs" ... I agree, the consensus building process is tedious, confusing, convoluted, and not conducive to newcomers wanting to participate and voice their opinion.  Go  Phightins  !  20:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We might. Next up is the PC2 closing statement, I guess. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Murphy edit
Can you look at this edit you made, as two image descriptions have been messed up, for some reason.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 02:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just now looking at those two horrible edits ... none of those mistakes were mine, those were VisualEditor bugs. (I don't think it allows me to edit infoboxes yet ... but I see it didn't mind deleting a hidden comment from one. And it garbled the image descriptions. And it randomly inserted and removed spaces all up and down the page, forcing me to take a lot of time checking the diff.) I'll try to undo the damage. And I'm turning off Visual Editor. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't think it was your doing, given how badly garbled some of it was.. I gave VisualEditor a brief (all of 5 mins) trial a while back, absolutely hated it.. wikEd is much more tolerable, for now.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I've got them fixed now. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

A-Class favor request
Dank, I know your time is generally stretched thin, but if you found a little extre somewhere, would you mind revisiting your review at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Robert Howe for a comprehensive review? It looks like that article may be soon consigned to the ACR dustbin this round for lack of interest. I hate to ask like this, but ask anything of me, and I will try to do it in as speedy a fashion as possible. I've started doing ACR's and have tried to fit in more GAN's with my schedule. I appreciate it.  Cdtew  (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, happy to help. I was planning to do your GAN today, too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Uruguayan War FAC
Dear Dank, Is it traditional to remove FAC reviews from topic banned users? This topic ban experience is new, so I am unaware of the specific details. I hope you also understand that my reversal was done in good faith because the case is not yet closed (it's like when a giddy schoolgirl goes to the school authorities with a gossip); it's not correct to act prior to changes being set in motion. Best wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 22:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By "giddy", I think you're reading some gleefulness into my action that I can assure you was not there ... I've never felt happy about anyone getting topic-banned, and certainly not about your ban. My only goal was to put it behind us and move on. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear friend, you're taking the example too personal. I also don't recall us ever having a negative interaction for us to put something behind.
 * It is good to know that you're not happy about my topic ban, although you being happy for another person being happy about my topic ban is somewhat perplexing.
 * Anyhow, should I assume that there is no known response to my question about topic bans and RFC comment removals?
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "us" was "us at FAC", I thought it would be in everyone's interest ... including Lecen's and yours ... if we all stopped talking about it ... not "us" as in you and me, I agree we've never had any problems, and I'm glad there are a lot of other areas you enjoy editing in. The smiley emoticon in your diff didn't mean "I'm so happy", it was meant in the other sense of softening something that might have been taken the wrong way. I think you mean a removal of comments from a FAC ... I don't know exactly where the lines are supposed to be drawn with a topic ban, but if I were the one being topic-banned, I would probably be playing it safe and not discussing that FAC at all right now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, my edit interests are quite broad (typically depending on my mood), so I won't vanish any time soon; I'm about as complicated as Shaft.
 * Thank you for the emoticon clarification. The statement you wrote is honest, pretty much agreeing with my perspective of Lecen, and you're certainly not the one that looks bad from it. Then again, he does not seem to have cared much for it or your advice.
 * Your explanation on the Uruguayan War FAC (pardon my confusion with RFC) has a sound logic. Although I think my comments are valid improvement suggestions (the inherent purpose of the FAC review?), I would not be able to further discuss them with the current topic ban. I will remove it per your suggestion.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 03:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, and best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 10:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tadeusz Kościuszko
This is just a reminder that I've replied there to your comments, and I wonder if you'd consider supporting now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Best of luck with that. I don't generally do a prose review when one's been done already (by User:Cdtew, in this case). - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

GAR of Medway
I was afraid that this would happen. A trainee reviewer (Chris troutman) claimed the article in a post on my talk page a few days ago and neglected to actually start the review on the GAN page. I was hoping that his mentor would remind him to start the review before somebody else did, but... Can you post on his talk page and see if y'all can work something out?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm fine either way. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Request
Last year I nominated an article for FA, you commented on it and I am hoping to get your feedback on it as it now stands. I should like to put it forward for FA once more but would rather not waste editors time if it will still fail. I have also asked another editor who comment on the review to take a look. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty busy, and probably won't have time to review it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

RFA initiatives
Regarding this comment: It is great for people to throw in their ideas to see who is ready, willing, and able to proceed forward with them. Unfortunately, there is a often a bit of wishful/hopeful thinking that someone will materialize to propel and develop the concept further. It's a difficult role since it not only requires appropriate skills for the task itself, but also requires consensus building abilities to help direct the crowd of well-meaning volunteers and onlookers that often pull in many different directions. Because of this, I think it is still early to pass judgment on the initiatives that got consensus support in Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2. (Though it may be unlikely, it might still be possible to find someone with the right abilities to progress further on them. For better or worse, though, the shall we say activist Wikipedia community tends to look for quick results; something to bear in mind for any plan is that having some early, easy-to-achieve goals helps build and maintain momentum.)

Regarding the broader question of the effect of the overall RFC, even if the agreed-upon initiatives don't work out as intended, I think the RFC was a good overall effort. Although some have already called it a failure, I disagree. I think it's good that the community agreed upon some ideas and tried them. It should be encouraged to try new things, learn from them, and not be afraid if they don't succeed (or are less successful than desired), particularly when the impact of trying is low. And anyone trying to work on another agreed-upon initiative can hopefully learn from these ones. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that the big RfC wasn't a failure, and also agree that it's quite possible that something will come of those proposals in the future that hasn't come so far. I also think we're approaching the right time for another RfC ... would you like to volunteer to help close it? - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think  everyone, especially me, appreciates the hard work  Dank  put into  a new attempt  at  getting  something  done about  RfA. However, a new RfC would have to  be very  carefully  crafted, not  address too  many  points at  once, and not  allow participants to  turn it  into  a discussion  on  further alternatives (this is endemic in  all  RfCs).  Above all, it should be well  published, such  as a watchlist  notice, in  order to  attract  a reasonable quorum. Of course, a well  published RfC will  attract  a large number of !voters/commentators who  still  don't  fully  appreciate what  adminship  is all  about, and who  don't  fully  understand the RfA process, but  that's a consequence  that  we would simply have to live with -  after all, a closer will  take into  consideration  the weight  of the arguments and not  the simple tally  of !votes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll just  add a pointer to  this post because Dank  was probably  the only  person  who  read it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and that sounds reasonable. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have an idea for making discussions more efficient in general, be it for RfA, Arbitration cases, or any contentious topic, that I've been trying to figure out how to flesh out for some time; one version of it can be seen here. It's somewhat similar to how PC2012/RfC 1 was run. As I mentioned before (and elsewhere, though I can't recall where now), multi-threaded discussion trees are difficult to follow and thus it's easy to miss someone's input, which leads to editors repeating themselves to be heard, and the problem escalates further as the discussion gets larger and larger. In addition, although I understand why "me too" opinions are discouraged, requiring participants to repeat the reasons that have already been expressed is inefficient both for them (making them look for new ways to say the same things) and for others, who have to read through yet another variation of the same things.
 * Thus I would like to propose a change in discussion format. I was thinking of giving the new format a catchy name, like "Showdown rules", so if the parties involved in a discussion wanted to try this format, they just need to say they've agreed upon using "Showdown rules". The goal is to craft a concise summary of the relevant arguments in favour and against the various viewpoints in a dispute. In the case of an RfA, it would be arguments in favour and against granting someone admin privileges. Each side would put together an initial draft of the arguments in support of their view, which would be placed on a project page. The talk page would be used to discuss additional points and clarifications; once a consensus is reached, the summary on the project page is updated. (To reduce contention, each side could designate one clerk responsible for updating the project page.) There should be a limited number of discussion threads on the talk page — for RfA's, I imagine just two, though with the current Wikimedia software, headings will likely have to be added for editing convenience — with no branching, so all comments are added at the end. This makes it easier for someone to catch up on what has been said previously: they just need to read from the last comment where they left off, and check the latest summaries.
 * This format has the advantage of reducing redundant conversation, since the summary helps everyone keep track of the current consensus view, and there are only a limited number of places that have to be checked for new updates. In addition, for a situation where a specific editor is being discussed, since each participant doesn't have to rehash their criticisms of the editor, the confrontational nature of the process should be reduced.
 * Although in theory these discussions are not polls, knowing the number of editors who support a given position is useful to help evaluate the relative weight that should be given to the view. So on the project page below all of the summary statements, there can be lists of editors who support each viewpoint, where they can make a very brief statement (personally I wouldn't mind not having brief statements, but I think many participants would want to have this option).
 * Having just bare lists of supporters has the drawback of attracting "me-too" editors who haven't really thought through the issues. But I think the tradeoff of streamlined discussions and concise summaries at the end is worth it.
 * In many ways this proposal is a radical change from current practice, and the last RFC on the RfA process didn't reach a consensus on the format itself being targeted for change. So I've been struggling to find a way to gain any momentum on it. But frankly this is what is typically done whenever decisions are made: you work out lists of pros and cons, and then weigh them. Thus I think that community discussions should be oriented towards producing these lists, with as little repetition as possible, so the discussion can be no longer than needed, freeing up more time for less introspective matters. My most recent idea was to present the format in an opinion piece, with the hope that someone will try out "Showdown rules" and perhaps it will gradually spread. But I think RfA is an excellent candidate for using this format, since there are only two sides, and the benefit of avoiding needlessly repeating criticism is a big plus. isaacl (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The big, big problem with RfA is the trolling and disingenuous voting, and the drama that  ensues from  it. That's what's keeping  candidates away. Wherever there is a section for discussion  of any kind, there will  always be people who  come along  to  disrupt either for the sheer hell of it, or because they  have a personal ax to  grind about  admins in general. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * At various points, people have suggested approaches that might limit the damage. I can't say which approaches will survive an RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The current format encourages participants to repeat their reasons, which means any accusations will get stated over and over again. I think a single threaded conversation would be more likely to move on to new aspects; once something gains consensus to be included or to not be included in the summary, it doesn't need to be discussed further. Ideally there would be a moderator to keep things on track (again, something that is typically done in contentious meetings). However, I don't know if the community is ready for this step yet. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm all for experimentation with a new format, but people are more willing to be experimental on issues that carry less drama. - Dank (push to talk) 09:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Any dramatic change to RfA will be an experiment; are you thinking then of working on promoting incremental changes? (I don't necessarily have any issues with this; just trying to understand.) The flip side of my proposal is that in some ways, it isn't a big departure. People still get to state their viewpoints, but hopefully with less repetition and so with less drama. The evaluation is still done at the end by a bureaucrat judging the consensus views, only with a head start on summing up the discussion. Just how the discussion is laid out is changing. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I disagree, I'm saying I can't discuss it because I'll be closing. More later. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were planning to guide an RFC, similar to your role with the pending changes RFC, and not assume the role of closer. If I had realized that, I would have spared your talk page all the verbiage. isaacl (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that I don't want to respond in this level of detail at this time. What you've said is very helpful ... in fact, I'll probably point to it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from any specific proposals, I'm happy to help out with setting up any RFC in terms of copy editing, background information, and so forth. Another thing I've been thinking of writing is an essay based on something Jeff Atwood wrote regarding community forums, which is a motivation for having an ongoing progression of experienced participants: forums need experienced people to give appropriate guidance and answer newbie questions, but after answering the same questions a hundred times, they get a bit weary and less effective at responding. Thus the community needs to have beginners progress to intermediate editors who can take over this role. If the pipeline slows down, it can be a vicious circle, as newcomers won't have the encouragement to become the next generation of assistants. If you think this essay may be useful as background for an RFC, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Many have said the same thing, but sure, essays like that are helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussions I have seen have focused on whether or not there will be enough admins to perform various administrative tasks, but of course I haven't seen everyone's thoughts on this topic. So if a new RFC can touch upon the need to foster expanding the pool of intermediate editors to offload the advanced ones from being the only ones to guide newer editors, that would be great! isaacl (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the few truly active admins manage to  cope - even without  a Kevlar vest. There are quite a few others who gnome away  in  the background doing  routine stuff that  only  needs one or two  mouse clicks. They do  not  need Kevlar vests. The backlogged areas are the ones that are so routine, boring, and time consuming that  no one wants to  work  there - with or without  body  armour. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

re: the ping
well at least I know WHO is doing the work. :) — Ched : ?  02:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Dank, I have quickly  drafted this. It is in  no  way  definitive, but  the effort  is to  keep it  very  simple and on track. You are welcome  to  develop this further on  its talk  page or tweak  the draft until  such  times if and when a collaborative effort can be moved to  RfC space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look at it in the morning. Nite. - Dank (push to talk) 04:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I know what I want to do ... doing some research first. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually ... count me out for the next RfC, I don't have any clear idea how to make progress, and I'm spending most of my time on copyediting software. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 June newsletter
We are down to our final 16: the 2013 semi-finals are upon us. A score of 321 was required to survive round 3, further cementing this as the most competitive WikiCup yet; round 3 was survived in 2012 with 243 points, in 2011 with 76 points and in 2010 with 250 points. The change may in part be to do with the fact that more articles are now awarded bonus points, in addition to more competitive play. Reaching the final has, in the past, required 573 points (2012, a 135% increase on the score needed to reach round 4), 150 points (2011, a 97% increase) and 417 points (2010, a 72% increase). This round has seen over a third of participants claiming points for featured articles (with seven users claiming for multiple featured articles) and most users have also gained bonus points. However, the majority of points continue to come from good articles, followed by did you know articles. In this round, every content type was utilised by at least one user, proving that the WikiCup brings together content contributors from all corners of the project.

Round 3 saw a number of contributions of note. claimed the first featured topic points in this year's competition for her excellent work on topics related to Maya Angelou, the noted American author and poet. We have also continued to see high-importance articles improved as part of the competition: was awarded a thoroughly well-earned 560 points for her featured article Middle Ages and 102 points for her good article Battle of Hastings. Good articles James Chadwick and Stanislaw Ulam netted 102 and 72 points respectively, while 72 points were awarded to  for each of Władysław Sikorski and Emilia Plater, both recently promoted to good article status. Collaborative efforts between WikiCup participants have continued, with, for example, and  being awarded 180 points each for their featured article on Boletus luridus.

A rules reminder: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on the 29/30 June, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. We are currently seeing concern about the amount of time people have to wait for reviews, especially at GAC- if you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)