Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Archive/2017/5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Concern: GAR fail with no hold on last day of round

Just like the last few years we've had, a GAR that I'm not quite comfortable with is this one. It's a quick fail based on the user's inactivity, which is not a criterion mentioned in WP:GAI, as per the link mentioned by the reviewer in this talk page. Although I'm not a participant in the Cup, mentioning it is worthwhile. The issue raised by the nominator in the reviewer's talk page is valid. Thien Tran (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I added User talk:13.54.152.171#RE: PPPR a long comment to the discussion on the nominator's talk page about why the quick fail was inappropriate. Wikipedia:Good article criteria limits immediate failures to four categories, of which only #1 may be relevant in this case ("It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria."), and there is a footnote (#2) which says:: "Quick fail was added to the process solely to deal with the occasional frivolous nomination, since anyone can nominate to GA (see WP:SNOW). Unless the reviewer is dealing with a "drive-by" nomination at which the nominator does not intend to respond to the review, quick fail should normally not be used." For reasons, mentioned in the linked comment, I don't think quick fail was appropriate in this case. The rules of the competition include that "the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter, and the judges reserve the right to deny points to anyone deemed to be abusing the system". AHeneen (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no view on this particular case at this time, but I note that the WikiCup rules already note that quick fails are not typically appropriate for points: "Only reviews of a sufficient length will be counted; quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points...". Historically, however, the judges have recognised a difference between a quick fail (i.e., a partial review stating that an article has a particular serious problem that needs to be dealt with before the article can be renominated) and a full review that results in a fail (i.e., a review covering all the bases that concludes, on balance, that the article is not close to GA status, and so the review is closed). While the former is typically not eligible for points, the latter typically is. I have always seen a pretty clear distinction between these, but I've recently had conversations with people who insist that they are precisely the same thing, so maybe my understanding isn't as widely shared as I had assumed. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
To add, the nominator has also raised a concern on the reviewer's talk page. As for the failure itself, I didn't want to waste my time with what I incorrectly thought would be an inactive nominator, but I'm glad to be proved wrong. was the statement given on the nominator's talk page. This eleventh hour failure without given the nominator any time to even check if the article's review had started, is inappropriate. The nominator was assumed to be inactive, based on no edits in the past month, and not based on no response to the review. This is not any criteria to quick fail the article. The review started and ended within 44 minutes, so the nominator might not even know if the review had been started. As proven wrong, the nominator replied the next day, which he would have even done to address the issues on the article, should the article have been put on hold instead. @Cwmhiraeth: Any comments by the judges? Thien Tran (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out, before this escalates further, as I did last night on the reviewers talk page, that I didn't quick fail the article, however. A quick fail, which as noted above, are not eligible for points is when a reviewer just lays out a few generic issues. In this case, I merely failed it after giving a reasonably through review, and as a result, under previous precedent, I'd argue it is eligible for points. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussion:

I worked hard to improve Political positions of Paul Ryan, requested and waited patiently for an excellent WP:GUILD copy edit, and requested and waited patiently 11 weeks for a good article review and watched it creep slowly up its category. I was excited to see the rev iew and the useful notes but heartbroken at the fail without hold. In my experience, a hold is so customary I was unaware of the exact policy basis for a fail without hold. I am not a Cup participant or ally; unfamiliar with the Cup, I learned that the good article review fail without hold helped a wild-card into the next round! I was further saddened at the lack of remorse and the insistence that everything was within policy. I am less interested in the competition scoring, however, I am concerned that an unintended consequence of the competition rules may be a bias against GAR holds which is counter to the principle that that Cup is to help improve the encyclopedia. Going forward, starting with the current round, may I respectfully suggest no points for GAR fails without holds in the say last two weeks of a round (if the hold is resolved in the interval or in the next round, score it then, ok). If no foul here, I and other editors should be aware of the risk of good article nominations during the Cup. I have re-nominated. I would very much appreciate comments from the judges and others. Thank you to all for your attention to this issue. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It has always been the case that rules are not changed mid-competition. There may be cause for a change in rules for next year's competition, but I fear your proposed change is far too complicated. Again, while I have no opinion on the present case, it is a fairly normal part of the GAC procedure (especially for trickier subjects and editors less familiar with the expectations at GAC, both of which seem to be the case here) for articles to fail to pass the first time around and be put back into the queue once problems have been resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, good article nominations sometimes fail. Some atypical aspects of this good article failure:
  • the article was failed without a hold, without justification under WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures;
  • the reviewer was a Cup participant;
  • the review was started and completed in 45 minutes on the last day of a Cup round;
  • the Cup participant advanced as a wild card.
This is not a situation of a nominator unfamiliar with the good article criteria or process. I am not protesting a fail, I am concerned with a lack of clarity in the Cup rules contributing to editors being denied their opportunity to address issues raised in a good article review. Some clarification is apparently required. The Cup rules clearly state no points for quick fails: "quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points". Quick fails are not defined explicitly in the Cup rules; participants are apparently assumed to be familiar with the definition at WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures. The Cup rules then go on to explain that short reviews are ineligible for points. At least one Cup participant apparently interpreted this to mean: "any review that is not short is not quick", and continues to maintain that position even now here, see earlier in this topic. Please, @Godot13:, @Cwmhiraeth:, @Sturmvogel: Thank you. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Thien Tran:, @AHeneen: Thank you for bringing our project's explicit criteria for GA fail without a hold WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures into this discussion. I agree with the assessment that a failure without a hold was not justified in this case. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • It's very clear this article was failed without a hold merely to advance in the competition. Had the article not been failed without a hold, the competitor would not have advanced. Further, it strikes me that we have one more editor in this round than initially intended. The solution seems obvious. ~ Rob13Talk 17:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry to be a bit late in responding to this, but I have been away for the weekend. All submissions are reviewed by the judges and in this case I reviewed the submission and thought, and still think, that the review was sufficient to earn points. The result of a GAR, whether the article passes or fails, is not really of concern for the WikiCup, merely whether the reviewer had done a sufficiently thorough review to earn the points. What is different in this case, is that it was the end of the round, and Yellow Evan would only proceed to round 4 if the review was completed by midnight. The relevant question being, was it reasonable under the circumstances with a nominator who was likely to be unresponsive, to fail the nomination and thus complete the review? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
To the anonymous user (and at risk of repetition): You write that "the article was failed without a hold, without justification under WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures". I note that it is not the case that all fails must be "quick fails" or must be put on hold for a given amount of time. It is perfectly standard, and perfectly within the spirit and letter of the GAC instructions, to fail an article without placing it on hold if it is deemed sufficiently unlikely that an article can be fixed up in a reasonable amount of time, even if it does not explicitly meet any of the criteria for a quick fail. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention. Any assumption that the nominator might be unresponsive is unfounded; if anything the edit history shows patience by the nominator in waiting for a Guild review. In any case activity or inactivity on the part of the nominator is not one of the four WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures criteria, and the GA criteria explicitly establish the four WP:Good article criteria#Immediate failures criteria as strictly limiting, concluding:

In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed.

The fail without hold was unreasonable. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I am deeply saddened to see that this understanding has somehow made it into the criteria. It remains out of the instructions, meaning that the two pages are fairly clearly in conflict with one another. What a mess. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I have raised this issue here. Comments welcome, but perhaps we could try to disentangle the general issue from any concerns about this particular review/the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the good article instructions WP:GAI do not repeat the good article criteria WP:GACR; the criteria explain how to decide pass, fail, or hold, and the instructions explain the mechanics of implementing the decision. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: The relevant question is whether this "review" ended with a result designed to benefit the encyclopedia or not. It very clearly did not. It would be beneficial to the encyclopedia to allow the nominator (or any other editor!) to fix the issues in a timely fashion. Most editors get email alerts when they receive messages, so saying inactivity implies you should fail an article is clearly erroneous; the editor likely will return when they get an email prompting them to quickly fix some stuff. The review may have been sufficient for points if it was seen through to the end, but it was not. Note that the GA Cup denies points when editors don't give the nominators a chance to fix issues that are clearly fixable. Are we really going to encourage quick-failing articles for points (and no, don't quibble over wording ... the article was failed quickly, ergo it was a quick-fail in the literal sense) to the detriment of the encyclopedia? If so, count me out. ~ Rob13Talk 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I completely agree with BU Rob13's assessment of the situation. GA noms are typically given 7 days after a review is initiated to hash out any outstanding concerns (like I was here). It is apparent that the only reason why this grace period was not granted was because the review was started on June 28, with the round closing at 23:59 that same day. The specific rule states that "quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points". While this fail does not fall under the latter category, it most certainly qualifies as the former, since the nominator was given only 44 minutes to address the feedback before it was failed. To answer Cwmhiraeth's question – no, it was not reasonable under the circumstances to fail this nom. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: "and no, don't quibble over wording ... the article was failed quickly, ergo it was a quick-fail in the literal sense". You assume that the "literal sense" of "quick fail" is what is being referred to in the WikiCup rules. It isn't; the WikiCup rules are referring specifically to fails that come about after only a partial review (i.e., the "technical" sense of quick-fail). I'm all for avoiding unnecessary quibbling over wording, but that doesn't mean that we should be equating separate issues. (I would rather not post any further in this thread, as I worry I'm just repeating myself at this point. I've done my best to clarify here, but I fear I'm not being as successful as I would like to be.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
"the WikiCup rules are referring specifically to fails that come about after only a partial review" But "quick failing" has an explicit definition in the good article criteria WP:GACR, and I believe that is what the Cup rules are referring to. If nothing else comes of this, I request clarification on this point. Thank you. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes... The explicit definition you refer to is about a failure without a full review. "An article can, but by no means must, be failed without further review (known as quick failing)[2] if, prior to the review...". That is what the WikiCup rules are referring to- I agree. I'm really quite surprised (and, dare I say, saddened) by how controversial this whole issue has become. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The reason why this whole issue has become so controversial is due to the four scenarios in which quick failing is permissible (i.e. long way from meeting any one of the six GA criteria; copyright infringements; cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid; unstable due to edit warring). I don't see how the GAN in question fell under any of these four (especially the first), since the concerns enumerated were addressed within 2 days. Most importantly, the quick fail criteria goes on to state that "[i]n all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed." This was evidently not adhered to (and at worst, wilfully disregarded) in this case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If the rules say "You can fail an article without any chance to improve it in order to score points at the deadline", then the rules are wrong. Luckily, the rules state "Attempts to game good article reviews will be looked upon particularly harshly, and, more so than with any other process, people abusing the system will be removed from the Cup." It is clear this has been gamed, and the recourse is right there in the rules. ~ Rob13Talk 23:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Am I obligated to leave an article on hold unless I quick-fail it? I in the past have generally failed articles that have are lacking in content or sorucing or for some other reason, not likely to be put up to par within a somewhat reasonable time frame Based on my tenure on Wikipedia, I don't think this view is radical, and seems to be shared my many of my fellow colleagues. Given that I applied this principle above, I don't see what makes this nomination any different. I also don't know how I gamed the system, given that of the five GA reviews I did in the closing days of the WikiCup, I left three of them on hold (and passed within a reasonble amount of time) even though I would have gotten points quicker if I had just failed them right away. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: You're obligated to leave an article on hold if it's possible an editor could improve it in the seven-day hold time period. As you've pointed out, this was improved quite quickly, proving it should have been on hold. ~ Rob13Talk 04:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Given that the nominator wasn't active for six weeks prior to the review, I didn't see that as particularly likely. Fortunately, I've been proven wrong. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
"Given that the nominator wasn't active.. " Why? I've often seen people who were inactive become active once someone review their GA nomination. As someone who've reviewed 179 GAN you must know this. If you wanted to find out the best way was to put the article on hold for several days, not to quick-fail it. HaEr48 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you "left three of [the GARs] on hold" does not prove that you failed the GAR in question without the intention of trying to score some cheap Cup points. Perhaps you're just really skilful at calculating exactly how many points you need to advance to the next round at the expense of other competitors … And why wouldn't you want to hold – you can now use them in this round to get ahead, right? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that there is an obligation to place an article on hold for seven days if it is clearly not GA material as nominated. I've reviewed a few that (once I've gone right through them) I've decided were just so far from GA material that I've just failed them (while providing ample comments on needed improvements). I wouldn't be that prescriptive, and I don't think there is any guidance that requires such action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Thien Tran for bringing this to attention. After looking at the review in question I agree with the sentiments of others here that the review is highly questionable and looks game-y. Hypothetically, if I were to game the system, this he only way to do it: Include review of "sufficient length" to get around the "sufficient length" WikiCup GA Review rule, then fail quickly so that I could claim points without waiting for the normal process. On the other hand, if I were an innocent reviewer there is no reason to fail this review immediately without waiting at least a few days, it's not like the article is too terrible to passing GA. Also, reviewing the nominator's responses is one of the tasks of a GA reviewer, and Yellow Evan (YE) managed to avoid doing this and still claim the points by the quick fail. Additionally, the four points gained in this review were the critical points without which YE would not have advanced. I respectfully suggest the judges to take action against it, letting this slip will just encourage more people to game the rules. HaEr48 (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Imagine: if this kind of review is allowed, it will be the optimum way of gaining cup points from GAR, because it absolves one from the responsibility of waiting, checking the nominator's response and doing the follow up review. Why bother to do all that if I can write minimum amount of review text, then quick fail and claim the points? It makes things worse off for everybody else. GAN queue isn't cleared because the article will have to be renominated, another reviewer will have to pick up the burden of reviewing, and the nominator will have to re-nominate and the article will be listed at the bottom of WP:GAN and wait time will be even longer. Rather than help take the load off the GA process, the WikiCup incentive would just make things worse. Who benefits from it? HaEr48 (talk) 09:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for your views and comments. I have contacted the other judges but they are inactive at the moment, and if they do not respond I will make a decision on this matter myself. Meanwhile there is the fundamental Wikipedian principle of assuming good faith to consider. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
We should also consider calling a spade a spade, especially when the overwhelming consensus here can see how actions speak louder than words. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Conclusion As a judge, I intend to take no action on this matter. I do not like the fact that the concern was raised by User:Thien Tran, a newly created account with no previous activity. The review in question was adequate, putting a review on hold is not a requirement, and I don't think the action unreasonable under the circumstances of the nominator's inactivity. As a result of receiving points for this GA review, Yellow Evan proceeded to round 4, but this did not exclude anyone else, because the two contestants tied on 288 points in the previous round were both allowed to proceed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Actually, putting a review on hold is a requirement in this case, as I had detailed in my reply above (which got buried among the other comments). If a GAN does not meet the four scenarios in which quick failing is permissible (i.e. long way from meeting any one of the six GA criteria; copyright infringements; cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid; unstable due to edit warring), then "[i]n all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed." None of the four scenarios were met in this case, hence putting this review on hold was required. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Precisely the point of judges is to make a call in these difficult cases (and let's be clear: the claims you are making are not even close to cut-and-dried). There is no point in having judges if contestants are just going to fratch whenever the judges make a call that they don't like. That's exactly what has almost killed the WikiCup several times before. If the WikiCup is now dead to you, then you could pull out- that's always an option. If not, perhaps now's the time to step back from this issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Are you seriously trying to suggest that Political positions of Paul Ryan had copyright issues, or cleanup banners, or was in the midst of a edit war, or was no where near meeting any of the GA criteria? Since the answer to all four is a resounding no, it's pretty cut-and-dried. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I am not saying any of those things, and no, it's not pretty cut-and-dried. I have said my piece. If you are intent on bickering, so be it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: It's either one or the other, not both. You can't have your cake and eat too. I'm not intending to bicker – I just see no reason why I (or other Cup competitors who have posted here) should "step back from this issue" when the very integrity of the Cup is at stake. You're right, judges are suppose to make a call in these difficult cases. However, they should not (and cannot) re-interpret the entrenched rules in WP processes like GAN or featured content to their liking, as has been done in this case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what you are looking to achieve at this stage. Again: I have said what I am going to say. I implore you to take a step back. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@J Milburn: The judge came to her regrettable conclusion based on a false premise ("putting a review on hold is not a requirement"). Not to mention she dismisses the concerns of an IP (the GAN nominator) simply because they were first flagged up by a "newly created account". At the very least, she should re-evaluate her conclusion. Though I'm not expecting her to, given that she's been hell-bent from the very start of this discussion on letting YE off the hook and looking the other way. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Godot13:, @Sturmvogel 66: Respectfully request conclusions of other judges. Thank you. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Respectfully request review by you of the good article criteria and reconsideration of your conclusion. A hold prior to a fail is required, except in six specific proscribed scenarios, and inactivity of the nominator is not one of them. More importantly, a hold prior to a fail is a concrete expression of our community's established values of mutual respect and collaboration, which are far more important than accommodating the convenience of scoring the Cup. The article is better after the notes; I have no issues with the good faith motives of the reviewer or with the deposition of the 4 round 3 points en pris here. Score the Cup however you want, but please do not infringe on the enjoyment of editing of the rest of us. Another round is currently underway, another is scheduled. I have re-nominated, I have a nomination in the queue, and I'm worried about it; meanwhile, scanning recent scoring in the GAR category, I can't help noticing some Cup participants seem to have remarkably short waits on their nominations. Respectfully I must insist on clarification of what editor behavior is and is not endorsed by the Cup going forward. This discussion has revealed disagreement on appropriate behavior for editors and specifically for Cup participants regarding the simple courtesy of a hold prior to a good article fail:
  1. "Nomination can be failed for any reason" diff
  2. Holds are not required in good article reviews. diff
  3. Any good article review that meets the Cup length minimum number of 1000 words does not require a hold. diff
  4. Any good article review longer than a half hour is eligible for points. diff
  5. A Cup participant is not required to offer a hold to nominators inactive for 11 weeks or longer. diff
Thank you in advance for your careful reconsideration of the implications of your conclusion. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it is time to move on. I was glad to see that you had renominated the article and I hope someone will take up the review soon. I did consider reviewing it myself, but it would be much better if it were reviewed by someone who knows something about US politics which I don't. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel like this could have been resolved much earlier if someone reviewed the GAN again. I also apologize to the anon/IP for me removing the GAN template after I misread WP:GAI.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 18:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
ok, no prob, I re-re-nominated, thanks for saying that 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Many editors have contributed to this discussion. Are you concerned that your focus on one editor, the original poster, in your conclusion as judge might be perceived as dismissive of the views of those who followed? 13.54.152.171 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I only mentioned that editor because I view him with suspicion as a likely sockpuppet, an editor, probably a competitor, who is trying to make a point while concealing his identity. Other editors have made good points and I have taken note of them. I think I have made a fair and equitable decision, one that accepts the review as valid but does not disadvantage anyone else in the Cup. Nobody has been excluded from round 4 because of this decision. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You seem to extend good faith to YE but not to Tran. Did you consider the impact of your conclusion for those not in the Cup? We are all Wikipedia editors before some of us are Cup competitors. 13.54.152.171 (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, as a competitor, I support Cwmhiraeth's decision in this matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Withdraw

Please withdraw me from the WikiCup. I don't intend to participate in a competition that actively encourages disrupting the encyclopedia in order to score some meaningless points. ~ Rob13Talk 14:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Your statement that the WikiCup is a "competition that actively encourages disrupting the encyclopedia" seems a bit of an exaggeration", however I'm sorry you feel that way. We regret losing you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
it's not any bit of an exaggeration from my POV 13.54.152.171 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Could I ask the judges that given we've only had a few days into the next round and had a drop out, would it be prudent to consider reinstating the highest placed loser from last round so no one feels left out? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: This should not occur, as one extra person was already placed into this round beyond the amount expected due to a tie. If anything, one competitor should be moved randomly from Group 2 to Group 1. ~ Rob13Talk 22:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yet you call for more to withdraw, if some more do that then the people who missed out would be justifiably miffed about it if people get to the next round then almost immediately withdraw. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)
@The C of E: If you're so miffed about missing out, maybe you should've scored more points last round so that you could've advanced fair and square? As opposed to attempting to find a backdoor… —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
It may actually amaze you to know, but I am not commenting from my own perspective as I know I didn't have enough due to personal issues and was not attempting to re-enter. I was doing it on behalf of those who missed out by people taking a place in the next round that clearly they didn't want in the interest of fairness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not accurate to state I (or others) "clearly ... didn't want in". I'd love into a competition promoting improvement of the encyclopedia. I don't feel like that's this competition. This is not the first ruling that I feel has been botched this year, but it is the first that's incentivized disruptive actions. ~ Rob13Talk 04:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@The C of E: I'm not amazed and I did not assume wrong as my premise remains the same. Other competitors who missed out should've scored more points last round so that they could've advanced fair and square. Although I do indeed appreciate your concern for others, using backdoors to advance is not the way go in my opinion. It opens to many cans of worms such as how many days into the next round before those who withdraw are not replaced. I would simply say to those eliminated: "there's always next year's Cup to forward to". —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I do not see it as an exaggeration. Let's look at the pattern of facts for a second. A competitor gets to the point where there's a couple hours left in the round. He either completes a GA review and advances or he doesn't advance. This competitor has been frantically working to get into the next round, with 5 GARs, 2 GAs, and 2 DYKs all coming in the final few days of the round (compared to 3 GARs, 3 GAs, and 6 DYKs for the previous 7+ weeks combined). They then quick-fail an article with very minor fixes needed to be made. The fixes are made by the very next day, proving they weren't "a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". The article fits no criteria allowing a quick-fail per WP:GACR. The criteria clearly states "In all other cases, the nominator deserves a full review against the six criteria from the reviewer and is given a chance to address any issues raised by the reviewer before the article is failed." That chance was not given.

Meanwhile, we have an editor who feels (justifiably) cheated because they worked on this article and wanted to see it to GA. The competitor has deprived them of the chance to address the concerns, improve the article, and be recognized for those efforts. Given the set of circumstances here, it seems clear the goal was to make it to the next round without needing to wait for the hold. Disruptive editing is defined as editing that "disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia". Preventing a GA review from proceeding in the name of gaming a contest does just that. At this point, I frankly encourage any other competitors concerned by this to withdraw and continue creating content independent of the WikiCup. It isn't acceptable to support a contest that prioritizes progress in the contest above doing what's best for the encyclopedia. ~ Rob13Talk 22:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You believe what you believe, and you're sure of it, but that doesn't make the situation cut and dry. If it was YE's obvious objective to ensure he passes the WikiCup, he would have failed every good article review leading up to the end of the competition in order to claim those points. Instead, he left this review and this review on hold, the latter of which was reviewed *on the last day of the competition*. Do I believe it was fair to fail the article based solely on the assumption the editor wasn't around? No. But do I believe he failed it for any other reason than the one he gave? Also no. I think we need to assume a little good faith and certainly stray away from accusing an editor of disruptive editing. At the end of the day, the article in question has been renominated (and in fact I will review it shortly), the judge has decided not to take action, and I'm sure YE will not make similar assumptions in the future. It's time to move on. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps he's leaving it on hold so that he can claim it in this round? Have you thought about that possibility? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this whole thing was not well thought through. I don't think YE is malicious; I think he didn't think through the full consequences of failing an article to advance. Along those lines, I don't think he went out to review thinking "MWAHAHAHA FAIL EVERYTHING". I think he got to this one article, noticed the inactive editor, and failed it to advance thinking no-one would notice, care, or be impacted. He was not correct, on all counts. ~ Rob13Talk 04:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Round 4

To progress to round 4, a contestant will need to have won or been runner up in their pool in round 3, or be one of the eight highest scorers among the other contestants. This year the cut-off score is 288 and contestants with a score lower than this will be eliminated. Two contestants are tied on 288, and the judges propose to allow both Freikorp and Coemgenus to proceed to the next round, which will thus have one pool of eight contestants and one of nine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern: GAR fail with no hold on last day of round
This discussion is closed
Utility of discussion continuingThis discussion has run its course
Name of user closing discussionCwmhiraeth
Time of closing of discussion06:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Pools question

I have a question for the Cup moderators. I know this may be too late, but since one pool contains 7 users and the other 9, should one randomly-selected user be moved from the latter and into the smaller pool? Just a small concern. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Sorry, I didn't see your question before. It might be fairer, but I don't much like the idea of moving one contestant because of possible accusations of bias. It would only matter, I think, if the runner up in the smaller pool had a relatively low score at the end of the round, less than the four highest losers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Results

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those that took part. A newsletter from the judges will be circulated shortly.

Meanwhile @Jarry1250:, there is an error in the programme behind this tool. The total figures for DYKs is incorrect; the upper table states that in Round 5 there were 48 DYKs whereas the correct figure is 31. The lower table is similarly incorrect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Surprised I've never noticed that. I've temporarily changed it to a range while I think if there's a proper way to calculate it without checking submissions pages. - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 22:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks to the WikiCup coords for running the cup so well. I really enjoyed it! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Question

If I work on an article now and nominate it in 2018 (after it passes), will it qualify here? FrB.TG (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No, the bulk of the work on an article has to occur in the same year as the contest. So nothing done in 2017 will count for next year's contest.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift response. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Question

Um, how does WikiCup work? I don't understand it quite well Itsquietuptown (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Itsquietuptown: Essentially, it's a way to make improving Wikipedia more fun by adding a competitive edge. Editors sign up (here), write content, put it through a peer review process (such as WP:GAN or WP:DYK), submit their improvements, and get points for them (according to the rules here). Points let you progress through the various rounds of the cup. Ultimately, though, it's about improving content and having fun, and not about trophies. If you want more detail, I suggest you read through the pages I linked. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93:Thanks for the fast response. Itsquietuptown (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The WikiCup 2018

The WikiCup 2018 is due to start on January 1st, and signups are available on this page. No monetary prizes (vouchers) are envisaged at this stage, and the main beneficiary will be Wikipedia!

I have just been reading through the discussion on whether any changes need to be made to the rules and scoring for the coming year. In general, there is not a consensus for changing the scoring from 2017. The most contentious matter is the standard of GARs, and I am glad to report that Vanamonde93 will be joining the judging panel with a special role of scrutinising GARs and other submissions, ensuring that reviews are properly undertaken and that promoted content does not contain copyvios, content which fails verification, and inappropriate use of sources. There will also be a strict enforcement of the rule that all submissions should be made within the correct timeframe, but to make sure that contestants are not unfairly penalised by situations beyond their control, the time limit will be extended from 10 to 14 days. Another change will be the closure of signups at the end of January rather than partway through February. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. I think the scoring system is fine and 2 weeks is more than enough time to claim the points. When you say correct timeframe, do you mean as in if something is approved at the end of the month, you can't hold it and then submit when the round changes? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the fact that submissions need to be made within 14 days of the points being earned. Points earned just before the end of a round will need to be claimed in that round, as this is the only way that a decision can be made as to who will advance to the next round. These points are not eligible to be claimed in the next round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank goodness it's down to 27 contestants. Wow, WikiCup just died. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your optimism is a bit misplaced; signups are open until the end of January.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup, I saw that, but wow, this "competition" really bombed, I guess you'll launch a couple more spam notices to attempt to justify its existence, but it'll still be a waste of time (more ours than the contestants of course). (Only down to 28 from 93 this time last year....) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Haven't you got something better to do besides post snide comments here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Can I get a submission page please? I think I got left out.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@CycloneIsaac: My apologies. I seem to have missed you out when copying the names across. I will add your submissions page later today. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Should have mentioned this earlier, but can we crank up how much GARs are worth, or perhaps crank up how much they are worth if they are a part of the WikiCup? I would hope that the contest could help reduce the backlog instead of contribute to it. Kees08 (Talk) 03:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ever since we started awarding points for GARs, contestants have reviewed substantially more articles than they've submitted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
A prominent note from the discussion about the WikiCup's scoring protocol was that it was considered that the points would either be reduced or removed altogether. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 06:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Although I partially agree with Kees08's point, as it would be nice to eat into that backlog, I can't help but thinking that reviews like this one are not worth more than 4 points. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I think there's a balance to be struck here. The threshold for accepting GARs at this point is rather low; for instance, the review above might have covered everything relevant, but definitely involved less work than many reviews I've seen. Thus four points seems appropriate. If we increase the number of points, we would definitely also have to raise the threshold beyond which the review becomes eligible for points, and then a fairly large number of review would stop being eligible. Vanamonde (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There were no in-depth comments or anything- just typo suggestions. This instance makes me believe that the attempt for GAR reform has failed. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 00:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@DarthBotto: Good news, fairness is here! If you do not believe the article meets GA standards, you can begin an individual or community Good Article Reassessment (GAR), or just make some comments to the talk page (and ping involved editors). A quick glance shows that the images, prose, and referencing are in good order, but if you believe anything was missed, definitely point it out! Kees08 (Talk) 07:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Disagreement with Scoring (Work Done Prior to WikiCup)

@Sturmvogel 66:@Godot13:@Cwmhiraeth:@Vanamonde93: I hate to be this kind of person, but I have a concern about the scoring for the following user(here) The following line is straight from the rules for the WikiCup (Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition.). However, for all three of the GAs, which have been scored and counted into this user's total, a majority of the work was done prior to the competition (i.e. in December of last year). Could this please be corrected? Thank you in advance, and I apologize for being the person to raise this ><. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I was just about to ask the same thing on seeing that. Chris857 (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
All submissions are checked by the judges, and these would have been checked and disallowed shortly. The editor concerned is new to the WikiCup and is probably unfamiliar with this rule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Vital Articles?

I notice there are no bonus points for WP:VA-tagged content. There should be: these are already extant, and in many cases could stand to be improved, and are particularly tough to do. I'd propose an exponential scale along the lines of (6-VA level)^2 * 0.5, such that:

Vital level 5 (100,000) bonus of 5%
Vital level 4 (10,000) bonus of 20%
Vital level 3 (1,000) bonus of 45%
Vital level 2 (100) bonus of 80%
Vital level 1 (10) bonus of 125%

Alternatively, perhaps there should be points for raising any listed Vital Article a quality class--we have plenty that are still at C, and a few at Start. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

We used to have them in the contest, but you'd have to go through the archives to see why we don't any more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a good idea, might encourage improvement of some of the most-needed subjects instead of the obscure stuff that most of us (including me) often work on. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
It's an idea I'd support in principle, but I see no way to ensure that the tagging of such articles is correct; except perhaps to leave it to the judges' discretion, which is not going to be satisfactory to everybody. Vanamonde (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This was discussed before and vitals were removed as being flawed and arbitrary. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Blanked participants in 2017 scoreboards

The 2017 scoreboards contain a lot of rows with blanked name of participants, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2017 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2017/Round 1. Any idea why? HaEr48 (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

How strange. They used to be complete, but as you say, they no longer are. It is probably the result of something I have done while setting up this year's contest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
On further thought, I have discovered what I did wrong, but it will take me a little time to correct it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying the rules

The scoring rules state "Content must have been worked on and nominated during the competition." This means that you cannot claim for articles you created or improved last year unless you have done significant amounts of work during 2018. For example, an article which appears on the main page in DYK now will only qualify if you created it or expanded it in 2018. A GA that is promoted now will only qualify if the article was significantly worked on during 2018, before it was nominated at GAN. An FA that is promoted now will only qualify if the article was significantly worked on during 2018, before it was nominated at FAC. A GAR will only qualify if you took up the review in 2018.

Don't worry if this means that it takes several weeks before you can claim any points. Everyone is in the same boat, and traditionally, moving on to the second round in March requires the accumulation of very few points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What if you work on an ITN/RD article after it is nominated, but before it is posted? Iselilja (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Iselilja:, speaking for myself, I would expect that substantial work which goes towards getting the article on the main page (such as fixing reference issues raised at ITN/C) would receive points. The standard for the amount of work, though, is not going to change depending on when it's carried out. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Archive/2017/5&oldid=1143358564"