This user is a clerk for the Arbitration Committee.
This user is proud to be an American
This editor hails from California
Trout this user

User talk:Cameron11598

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter[edit]

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • United States L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
  • Pirate Flag of Henry Every.svg Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
  • Denmark MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
  • United States Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
  • Flag of the United States Library of Congress 2.svg Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
  • Ohio Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Cameron11598. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.DannyS712 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

History of that 2FA notice[edit]

I'm kind of sorry to dredge this up, but we have a situation with User:Fram being locally banned on en.wikipedia by "Trust and Safety" for what sound like very specious reasons; according to him the one edit used to "justify" this action was one about that 2FA notice you sent out. (To my amazement, Trust and Safety doesn't seem to have picked up the admin habit yet of instantly revdeling anything they dislike, so I've made it too late now) Now, in this edit he kind of savages User:AGK for being clueless about an ArbCom announcement, because AGK thought (as you later said) that 2FA was optional; indeed, he thought that announcement said that. My assumption is that ArbCom wanted you to mail a notice that said it was optional, but because you had been grieving (and I am sorry) you might not have kept up with a change in their text or their decision of which text to use. Can you provide some background on what happened with that announcement (where is the page it was actually edited on, for example?) so that we have a better idea whether Fram's comment had a greater or lesser degree of justification? This is important because half the people on the Wiki are going to be reading that comment now, and many may well end up reposting it themselves as a form of protest. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wnt: Sure I can provide you with a quick summary of events. Just for clarification I was not involved in writing any of the language used in the mass message I was merely asked to send it. The template that was used can be found here: Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular. Shortly there after some syntax errors were found in the template by DannyS712 (I think it was missing a </small> tag) and we discussed the issue on another technically minded editor (Oshwah's) talk page to brain storm how to fix the syntax issues on everyone who received the message. We ended up going with an AWB task completed by Danny. Shortly there after there was a response from the community that prompted the clarification, once again I did not play a role in authoring that language either I just was the one to click "send" for the committee. We had another syntax issue with this one (I can't recall what it was) and once again Danny came to my rescue with an AWB task to fix the message. The second message can be found here: Template:ArbCom 2019 special circular correction --Cameron11598 (Talk) 15:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This is disturbing. I've been trying to make sense of the incomprehensible since I learned that Fram was banned under mysterious circumstances. Since one of WMF's Terms of Use is civility, the foundation may be going into the civility-block business since en.WP have decided not to do it ourselves. I remember AGK being raked over the coals by Fram and (I think) others and don't condone the extremity of Fram's reaction, but the ArbCom notice was needlessly alarming and Fram certainly wasn't the only editor who was upset. This sets a dangerous precedent; as we've learned, "civility" is a vague concept which varies by culture. In Fram's case, an NPA block of appropriate length would have been effective without creating a chilling effect—unless, of course, the chilling effect is intentional. Since there seem to be more mines in the field, I'm taking a step back from this place for a while. Miniapolis 17:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)