Judges talk:Contest/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Deliberations, elections, and other "judicial" business shall take place here.--TerryHTalk 13:37, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Judges, Active:3

Roll call

First order of business: the calling of a roll. All judges should come to this page and watch it. Please leave your signature.--TerryHTalk 13:38, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

Present Geo.Complain! 14:57, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
Here Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:34, 9 July 2007 (EDT)


As judges, are we required to make a record of every single edit made by all of the users over the course of this week? I thought that was what private record pages for each individual were for. As judges, our responsibility is more concerned with issues like Conservative's edits, and resolving disputes, correct? I think it is time to start enforcing the private record sheets, and make sure that every contestant is keeping track of their own edits. Is this view of our responsibilities accurate? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 20:35, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Team One has certainly set the precedent for keeping records. As to Team Two, the only records I have seen, are Andrew's! We should publish to the main contest page right now our observation that the private record sheets are incomplete--or, if our chief deems it necessary, go to each and every contestant's talk page and remind them.--TerryHTalk 22:20, 10 July 2007 (EDT)
Lets ask them on their talk pages. Maybe there is a reason. Geo.Complain! 00:26, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
They are finally making records :) Geo.Complain! 15:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)


Fellow Judges:

I have seen two disturbing trends in the contestants' records:

  1. Some contestants are merely reporting totals. They need to furnish harder evidence than that, in the form of links to their articles, so that we can spot-check and verify them.
  1. Team Two is very slow in producing their records! Team One is on the stick, thanks to their excellent captain. But someone needs to suggest to Captain SharonS of Team Two that part of being a captain is making sure that all members of her team are in compliance.--TerryHTalk 22:30, 10 July 2007 (EDT)


Joaquin has asked about credit for uploads. How should we respond? Geo.Complain! 00:31, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

By awarding separate point totals for images, these being the same as for edits. Any image would get two points, and if the image is of exceptional quality--unusually striking, or an original graphic that obviously took a lot of the submitter's time and effort to produce--then it gets six.--TerryHTalk 07:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I agree with your scoring system, Terry. However, I would want there to be a provision that safeguarded against mass-uploads - say, the image must be included in an article (and be relevant!) to count for points. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 11:45, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Uploads: 2 points

Exceptional Quality:+2 EC points Used in Article:+2 EC Points

Work? Geo.Complain! 23:26, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Works for me.--TerryHTalk 08:10, 12 July 2007 (EDT)


A semi neutral third party has pointed out that people are welcoming users before blocking them. (See User:Thisiteisasham for example) Thoughts? Geo.Complain! 00:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I would still grant them the points. The welcome-wagon template contains ample warnings, or at least links to warnings, against unacceptable behavior. If someone gets blocked right away, then let no one say that we didn't warn them.
I would not apply this to a user who chooses a name that he ought to know is blatantly obscene. Welcoming such a user is not appropriate and we ought not grant credit for it.--TerryHTalk 07:55, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
When a username merits an immediate block, the welcoming of that user shall not count for any points. Or something a little more judicial-sounding. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 11:47, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Support as is Geo.Complain! 13:56, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I will move this to Contest pages. Geo.Complain! 23:28, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

A protest

User:Fox is protesting our recent rulings, suggesting that we have somehow "moved the goalposts." See Conservapedia talk:Team contest#Moving goalposts. I don't follow him, but all of us should be aware.--TerryHTalk 15:25, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that it is important to keep any squabbling that may come up on this private page, and make sure we are presented as a coherent group (which, of course, we are) when we go to the public talk page. I propose that our response clearly states that we are merely clarifying rules that already exist, to avoid any confusion that may come up, and favoritism which might taint a future decision. Also, in response to his complaint about this being too much work, we can remind him that part of the contest is keeping the records; that probably counts for a lot of the work. And if he complains about having to do all that work, remind him that he is responsible for just his own edits; if he would have it done the other way, the judges would be responsible for several times that amount. Does this sound good? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 17:33, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Sounds good. Geo.Complain! 19:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Fox blanked his record page Geo.Complain! 21:49, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
So I see. What an exceedingly foolish thing to do--he was one of that team's most prolific contributors.
Well, gentlemen, normally absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. But in this case, it does.
Unless Mr. Fox is simply busy editing his records off-line. I often edit articles off-line before I publish them.--TerryHTalk 21:59, 11 July 2007 (EDT)


Joaquin is encouraging protecting new pages. I think that we should discourage this practice but want to hear the group consensus. Geo.Complain! 17:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

What for? If he's worried about what version he wants us to judge, then let him put the permalinks in his team or individual records.
Oh, and BTW: has Fox started to keep records again, or not? If not, then what does everybody propose we do to search out his contributions?--TerryHTalk 19:23, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Individual records

We've got records--on everybody. I just found them and repaired the links.--TerryHTalk 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Great! Geo.Complain! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
The end is near... I won't be at my computer until 9:40 tonight, so bear with me. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 12:54, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
I will start totaling edits. Geo.Complain! 14:08, 16 July 2007 (EDT)


It seems a few contestants haven't fully filled out their record sheets yet - shall we give these users some time to finish listing their edits before we review for points? --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğtalk 00:39, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

No, Save them for last. I have reviewed Bodhdan and Sharon alreadyGeo.Complain! 00:54, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Good idea; I'll tally DeborahB.'s. --דאויד.מונהגֻtalk 00:56, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
I have three done. Geo.Complain! 01:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

DeborahB. Tally anomaly

While I was tallying DeborahB.'s "created pages" list, I began to notice several that were listed there, but not created by Deborah. Examples include Surplus (written by Andy), Supplemental Appropriation (written by CPWebmaster), Subsidy (Andy, from April), Sequester (Andy), etc. Regardless of whether or not this was purposeful - I haven't checked the history of every single article listed there - I propose a 75 point penalty imposed on DeborahB. for this; if it was purposeful, then she shouldn't have done it, and if it was an accident, she is responsible for the bad record keeping. Thoughts on this? --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 16:20, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Approve penalty Geo.Complain! 19:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Penalty approved. --TerryHTalk 20:32, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Karajou blocks

With the recent range blocks, Karajou blocked 655,360 IP's, each an independent block, for a total of 1,310,720 points. I don't think we should count the range blocks as two points, but we certainly can't give then 1,310,720 points, can we? Unfortunately, that makes the most sense... --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 17:01, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

We should measure on effort. We should give him two points for each time he hit the button. Geo.Complain! 19:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. To do otherwise would be to place a sysop at moral hazard: blocking on range in order to get points. What matters is the effort--and make that the minimum effort required to accomplish the blocks.--TerryHTalk 20:33, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
2 points per range block agreed upon. --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 13:01, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the winner...

I think we can safely say, without judging Ed's or Joaquin's edits, that Team 1 is victorious;

  • With 7/8 competitors judged on both teams,
    • Team 1 has a total of 9618
    • Team 2 has a total of 5384
  • Looking through the recent changes of Ed Poor, he made approximately 300 edits during the period of the contest.
    • Even if we were to assume that every single one of those was a quality new page (most of them, however, look to be on talk or user talk pages), the maximum possible number of points would only have been 3000.
    • 5384+3000=8384, still below the 9618 figure of Team 1.

Also, Joaquin's edits, if we were to count them, would easily let show that Team 1 is victorious by a large margin. Shall we formulate a statement below? --ηοξιμαχονγθαλκ 01:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

And The Winner Is...

Ladies and Gentlemen! We the Judges of the 1st Team Contest have finished tallying the records. Consequently Team 1 has emerged from this "Battle of the Titans" victorious. However we must say that both teams held their own and that in the bigger picture Conservapedia is the real, hands down winner. We urge both sides to be mindful of this and commend everyone for their sportsmanship.