User talk:WaitingForConnection/Archive 4

"RfA is a horrible and broken process". Jimbo Wales, 18 March 2011[ ref ]

My response?

"RfA is a horrible and broken process. But we can only hope to fix it if we ensure that the tools once again become no big deal."

Once upon a time, Jimbo said that the tools were no big deal. And he was right. But in 2011, an increasing proportion of RfA participants believe that adminship has evolved into a big deal. While the tools are largely unchanged from five or six years ago, adminship has expanded into a quasi-judicial role, in areas such as AfD, decisions on whether to promote proposals into guidelines, and RfCs in general. Whether or not that is a problem, it is detrimental to the project to continue to pretend that adminship in its current form is nothing more than a janitorial role. —WFC—

Categories of clubs without article
Hi WFC. Listen, since we are discussing cats, and we had this discussion, what you think about the issue? Would you agree with me that the cats of clubs without article should be deleted? It´s not a urgent matter, but a issue to think in some near future, and since it looked that the discussion in Footy was going to lead us nowhere, I decided to ask you on this. Also, to send you best regards :) FkpCascais (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ray Train
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

TFL
Hey WFC, thanks for your note. I did think of you last night as my boys collapsed once again. I read the stats, 13 shots or whatever, 5 on target, but no goals. It's a common theme, we're not going down but we sure as heck aren't going up! And yes, if the rest of the FLC (odd!) could do their best to stop the Budgies, so much the better...!

Onto TFL, I'm happy to have me as primary point of contact, what else needs to be done? I'm a little behind the curve, so to speak... my apologies for that. And thanks for keeping up the momentum. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Duncan Welbourne
Hello. Would you happen to know whether Duncan Welbourne is the brother of this bloke? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Been busy jinxing my team this weekend. Looks likely, I'll check on Monday. —WFC— 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Scunny only had one first-teamer name of Welbourne, so that's good enough for me. Incidentally, I choose to assume it's not me jinxing my team, but rather them wilfully conspiring to eff up my weekend... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

FLC review
You have reviewed Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E) at WP:FLC. Demands by opposers at that nomination have resulted in a merge. I am asking all commenters to return to the FLC page and re-review if time is available. I appreciate your help and apologize for the inconvenience this has caused you. &mdash; KV5  •  Talk  •  22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Two Things
I don't recall anything off hand. Maybe 09 WS, though that got promoted (woot woot!). Featured list candidates/List of highest paid Major League Baseball players/archive1 Could use a review to start it off if you have the time! :) Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, you find really excellent sources! Staxringold talkcontribs 18:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That non-RS will be great for filling in a table (I'll do it tonight). It'll require a solid footnote explaining average annual salary (the 80s NYT article he links to is a nice discussion of some examples, like Gaetti's "distribute X dollars across Y years however you want" contract, of why that's a simpler model to use). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

My favourite reliable source
Depends on whether you tend towards easy verifiability or fiddly truth, really... With Bennett and Sordell, the club site match reports confirm their appearances (Bennett only in the prose, not in the match information box), so if you wanted to include them, you could add a note along the lines of the ones at Paul Peschisolido or Stern John. (Memo to self: need to fix the S*ccerbase links in those notes) You'd need to do it in the players list(s) and their individual pages, for consistency. Not sure I see what the problem is with the goal? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah... I was confused by the hidden note in your edit which referred to a Sheffield United goal. Suppose it's not particularly helpful if the BBC and club site reports are both internally inconsistent in opposite directions :-) BBC saying Deeney in the prose but Graham in the match details, and the club having Graham in the prose and Deeney in the match info box... In your players list, I imagine I'd follow the official line, which would appear to be Deeney, according to the Press Association stats carried by the Football League site. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Task force
Pursuing the task force idea ... would you be interested in participating, and if so, would it be possible for you to round up some people who share your views and keep in touch with them as the task force makes recommendations? - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "But we can only hope to fix it if we ensure that the tools once again become no big deal.": Totally agree. If I can get agreement on my first two points, then I'd really like to talk about that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your request to stay notified of current developments, see Eureka! We're all morons. - Dank (push to talk) 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball
I welcome your involvement to help wrap up this review. I only ask questions and make suggestions, and I know far less about Netball than most people. I go by what I read in the sources. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Having dipped my toe in, I'll probably review the article at some stage. That said, even though I wasn't part of it myself, I'd prefer to let the current situation surrounding the previous review cool a little first. Sometimes time can work wonders on its own. Regards, —WFC— 22:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Good Change
Re:  At first I was surprised by this, but I think it's the right decision. Thanks for continuing to maintain/improve this list. --SkotyWATC 04:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, was curious if you had an opinion on this conversation --SkotyWATC 04:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

removed heading
Hi, I'm not sure why you removed the heading for my proposal at RFA. I'm aware that any attempt to improve RFA will get opposition, but summarily dismissing my suggestion by folding it into a general thread leaves me not even knowing why people don't like my proposal.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank/RFA
I'd like to ask some questions about the endorsements idea without distracting from the "Eureka" thread on this temporary talk page. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we really in fundamental disagreement, or are you making a point for emphasis? Everyone believes that judgment and discretion go along with the job.  Calling it "power" rubs some people the wrong way, so I wouldn't call it that, but certainly it gives a user extra abilities. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a little of both. I think we're trying to achieve a very similar thing, with very different implementation. To summarise, I think it's unrealistic to think that we can wipe out wiki-politics, hence my belief that the way around it is to reduce the number of people that have to get involved with them the political side of things. —WFC— 17:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have details on how you want to do that? - Dank (push to talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At the moment, all RfA candidates are subjected to a potential grilling, whether the work they are going to do is controversial or not. By having an avenue to gain the tools relatively easily, on the understanding that the parameters for their use are tighter, and that they are easily removed, those who intend to do non-controversial maintenance can gain the tools uncontroversially. The trade-off being that if they exceed the very black-and-white mandate given, the tools can be easily removed. By contrast, those who consciously want to help out in the more contentious areas (marginal AfDs, RfC and guideline closure, difficult blocks etc) can more reasonably be expected to go through a rigourous examination of their judgement. —WFC— 18:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (further details can be found in my original post at the "Eureeka" thread on WT:RFA). —WFC— 18:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't User talk:Dank/RFA avoid the grilling? And, admins are pretty much unanimous in believing that tool use requires social skills, good judgment and a lot of experience with Wikipedia.  Back when I did CSD work, I would go through 300 articles where the issues weren't the same in any two articles, despite the fact that we try very hard at WP:CSD to make the criteria as black-and-white as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that those ideas do not have merit. But the problem is that there is disagreement on whether adminship should be easier or harder to get, the answer to which is in turn influenced by disagreement over whether the current mechanism for removing an admin is strong enough (although let's not get into that right now!).
 * The community needs to answer a fundamental question: what does it mean to be an admin in 2011? Is it a purely janitorial role? Is my view about it sometimes being quasi-judicial one that is more widely held? Does a significant cross-section of the community believe that adminship is now a big deal? If so, why? Does adminship need to change? If so, how?
 * It may well be that we look at these things, answer these questions, and consciously decide that adminship in its current form is working well (as opposed to no consensus, and defaulting to the status quo). But unless we do look at them, I believe that the best we can hope for from RfA reform is to trade incivility for inconvenience, with no net effect on promotions. —WFC— 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All good points. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter
We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is with 231 points, who leads Pool H.  (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 01:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive


On behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, we would like to take the time and thank you for your contributions made as part of the March 2011 Good articles backlog elimination drive. Awards and barnstars will go out shortly for those who have reviewed a certain number of articles.

During the backlog drive, in the month of March 2011,
 * 522 GA nominations were undertaken.
 * 423 GA nominations passed.
 * 72 GA nominations failed.
 * 27 GA nominations were on hold.

We started the GA backlog elimination drive with 378 GA nominations remaining, with 291 that were not reviewed at all. By 2:00, April 1, 2011, the backlog was at 171 GA nominations, with 100 that were left unreviewed.

At the start of the drive, the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 101 days (Andrei Kirilenko (politician), at 20 November 2010, reviewed and passed 1 March 2011); at the end of the drive the oldest unreviewed GA nomination was 39 days (Gery Chico, at 24 February 2011, still yet to be reviewed as of this posting).

While we did not achieve the objective of getting the backlog of outstanding GA nominations down to below 50, we reduced the GA backlog by over half. The GA reviews also seemed to be of a higher quality and have consistently led, to say the least, to marginal improvements to those articles (although there were significant improvements to many, even on the some of the nominations that were failed).

If you would like to comment on the drive itself and maybe even make suggestions on how to improve the next one, please make a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/March 2011. Another GA backlog elimination drive is being planned for later this year, tentatively for September or October 2011. Also, if you have any comments or remarks on how to improve the Good article process in general, WikiProject Good articles can always use some feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles.

Again, on behalf of User:Wizardman and myself, thank you for making the March 2011 GA backlog elimination drive a success.

MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidates/Municipalities of Lithuania/archive1
Hi, you have participated in this FLRC. Some work has been done since. Please review your comments and indicate whether you support keeping or delisting. It would be good to finally close this thing. Thank you. Renata (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter
Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. , who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to and  who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)