User talk:Kudpung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Have you remembered to sign your message

Create-Protected Page[edit]

In 2012, you create-protected the page Thomas Ridgewell. Recently, I stumbled across an article at WP:AFC called Draft:Tomka (which should actually be Thomas Ridgewell because Tomka is only a nickname). I went over the sources, and although some were very brief mentions, some had a paragraph dedicated to him and some had a whole article about him. I think his notability increased over the past two years and is ready to become an article. If you could please help me move the article, that would be great. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The draft (actually Draft:Tomska) has now been moved into article space, so I agree, a move of this page to Thomas Ridgewell would be very helpful here. Everymorning talk to me 22:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

La Sera wikipedia page[edit]


I was just writing to ask why you deleted the La Sera page... My name is Katy Goodman, I played in the band Vivian Girls , and La Sera is my other band. We have 3 albums out on Hardly Art records, (on itunes, spotify, etc), have songs in TV shows and commercials, etc. The other associated acts for Vivian Girls (the babies, upset) both have their own pages, so it makes sense for La Sera to also have a page.

Here is our artist page:

What can I do to create a wikipedia page for La Sera? I know that some people have previously tried to create it, but it keeps getting deleted.

Thanks! Katy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickballkaty (talkcontribs) 23:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kickballkaty, if you look at the deletion history you will see that we do not accept articles about pieces of music if the artist does not meet notability criteria to have their own Wikipedia article. That said, I actually userfied the page to User:Thriley/La Sera (draft). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


ok so here is the updated version of the article, with lots of references and things... . can we make it into the official "La Sera" wikipedia page?

thanks!! Katy (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

La Sera has been featured many times in numerous reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Washington Post over the past four years. Proper citations are included in the article. It seems only right that such a longstanding and influential group have a page. Thriley (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Hi, last year, you said not to tag G13 eligible submissions to me (here) - Can you have a look at my contribs and am I ok to tag them? (Yes, I know I don't have to ask, but just wanted to be sure)  revimsg 15:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC) Wel, I think the reasons for that were obvious at the time but your experience may changed since. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Chester See[edit]

Hi, can you please un-salt this page, notability can now be established. Cheers, Nikthestunned 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nikthestunned. There were only two short sentences in the deleted article. I suggest you recreate an article from scratch as a Draft and submit it to Articles for Creation for review. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
As an experienced editor with 7 years worth of edits I don't need to go through that process. I asked for you to unsalt it (WP:SALT), not restore the 2-year-old deleted version. Feel free to verify the article once I've recreated it. Cheers, Nikthestunned 11:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind, sorted Face-smile.svg Nikthestunned 19:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Please unblock La Sera for Draft publication[edit]

Hello, Draft:La Sera appears to meet WP:N, can you please unblock La Sera so we can publish it? MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see the thread above in response to Kickballkaty. Please submit the draft to WP:AfC for review if you have not already done so. That said, IMO, it is not ready for publication yet. - a plethora of links does not automatically confer notability per WP:BAND, and some of the 'sources' provided are disallowed by Wikipedia. Also, would you mind explaining who 'we' are? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll clarify: I'm an AFC reviewer, the "we" is "we at AFC". The draft Draft:La Sera (which is at AFC) has 15 footnotes, a number of which are to articles in Rolling Stone and similar level of publications, several of which are major media articles specifically about this band by name. It could certainly use some cleanup, but the current consensus at AFC is that we stick primarily to Notability issues and not decline articles for non-egregious technical issues. The band has serious media discussion, thus it meets WP:N, thus I as an AFC reviewer am requesting that you undo the block so I can move it to articlespace and can move on to tackling the large backlog we have at AFC. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Matthew, I don't see where I mentioned any technical issues. I am concerned that some of the links in both the refs and EL sections have no business being on a Wikipedia page, and on my review of the remaining links (that are not dead) is that they are of possible dubious reliabilty, don't discuss the subject in sufficient depth, and just report new releases, hence not meeting WP:BAND. The major criterion at AfC is that an article should survive AfD. I don't believe this one would - in fact I very nearly used the helper script to decline the submission myself. I'll unblock it without predjudice to it being sent immediately to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on comments[edit]

Regarding your comments: First, I apologize in advance if any of what I say is already well-known by you; I suspect that at least in part it is. However, in the interest of avoiding misunderstandings, I thought I would provide some feedback on your comments and style of discussion.

I confess to feeling the same way as when others have interacted with you in the past (including me once before). I've reviewed the material you presented and I highly appreciate the research that has gone into it. I agree with lots of it, but there are others who don't, or haven't read it, and just telling them "go read this" hasn't worked for many of them. If the gap from dissatisfaction to action is going to be bridged, new ways of fostering support will have to be tried.

If there is someone interested in searching for candidates, even if we already have a lot of data from past searches, it would be nice for them to continue to add to that data set, for a number of reasons: new, fresh data is usually good to have, and it helps provide an attainable objective for the person doing the legwork. Even if they don't manage to attract some new admin candidates, or if their efforts fade out, they can still feel a sense of accomplishment in adding to our understanding of the issues. Getting people to have some investment in working on the problem and determining solutions is a good way to build consensus. Lastly, it is a typical good practice to review the results of your work after it is done, no matter how many times you've done it already.

Unfortunately, I personally feel the tone in some of your comments is somewhat dismissive of the courses of action suggested by others, based on an assumption that others have not benefited from previous analysis and investigation. This is discouraging, particularly in a volunteer environment where people tend to do tasks that they want to do. For me, because I strongly respect the investment you've made in the area, I just say to myself, OK, if others don't wish to discuss my suggestions, that's fine: I'll just move on to other things. I don't know if this is what you intend: to try to find a group of persons whose ways of approaching the problem align with yours,(*) so you can collectively join efforts in finding solutions. I understand if this is the case, and it can be a good way to harness the efforts of a set of editors interested in promoting changes.

(*) Note this does not mean this group would all have the same opinions as you; just that they are generally inclined to tackle an issue in the same way as you do.

I thank you for the time you have spent in studying, thinking about, and developing ideas about some of Wikipedia's key shortcomings, and I recognize by contrast my views do not have the same weight behind them. Accordingly, I am personally happy to let you proceed with the initiatives that are satisfactory to you, and I believe Wikipedia will be better for it. In the interest of helping your plans succeed, though, I believe adopting a slightly more inclusive style of interaction will garner support from a broader set of persons, which will strengthen any resulting consensus. isaacl (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to RfA reform, and I have been involved in discussions for nearly 2 years, I increasingly think Ecclesiastes on this. There is nothing new under the sun, when it comes to the RfA is broken saga, and the best thing is to content create, gnome, help out newbies and enjoy. Irondome (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Isaacl, I am absolutely not dismissive of anyone's approach to improving RfA or indeed any part of Wikipedia, I would otherwise not travel extensively around the world on its behalf, and the 100s of people who have met me know that I am a keen listener and even if ideas are not in alignment with my own, I am always more than ready to encourage or even help on projects which I feel are objective and not duplicating other efforts, or simply put, not reinventing the wheel. The assumption that others have not benefited from previous analysis and investigation is however sadly true because unlike me and people of an academic or research background, many Wikipedians are so rooted in their own ideas which they often erroneously believe to be new ones, are reluctant to spend an hour or two getting up to speed on what is already available to them. It is this that I find exasperating, and not the fact that they might not share my views on what is wrong with RfA. Over the years I have been extremely successful in getting some important policies and features adopted by the Wikipedia community; RfA reform was one of my earliest attempts to improve things but due to trolling and heckling from the sidelines from wannabe-but-never-will-be admins and the anti-admin brigade, we decided after a couple of thousand accumulated hours of work to throw our baby out with its bathwater and simply leave the huge library of resources available to anyone who would like to come up with new ideas.
Nevertheless, we had indeed clearly addressed the question: What's wrong with RfA? and firmly identified the major issues. In retrospect therefore, although we had not brought about any physical changes to the process, we had sent a clear message to the voting community. Some of them were banned outright from Wikipedia, some were T-banned from participating in RfA discussions, and over time, some of the regular RfA trolls were either blocked for other reasons or simply grew up. They all realised that by behaving badly they were only making themselves look silly and loosing any chance of obtaining the much coveted bit for themselves in the future, and discouraging candidates from coming forward - which was exactly the strategy that some of the more intelligent detractors had in mind. Thus today's RfAs are a much milder affair than they were at the time when I went through mine (fortunately I am an old man, been there, done that, got a wardrobe full of T-shirts, have a successful career behind me and don't care two hoots about climbing up any greasy unpaid poles within Wikipedia/Wikimedia).
Today, I am no longer interested in instigating or leading any other forms of RfA reform. Why? Because a) of that group of 'never-will/can-be-an-admin' users who are detractors to all things related to admins, adminship, and forms of management of Wikipedia, and b) because for a long time now I am engaged in Wikipedia/Wikimedia activities, such as education and outreach, that are not reflected in my editing history and they are not concerned with RfA. The least I can do for RfA nowadays is to continue to be one of its most regular (and I hope objective) voters, participate in the discussions at WT:RfA, and point people in the direction of that barrel of knowledge lurking at WP:RFA2011, confident that our conclusions there at least hit the nail on the head and that essentially nothing much has changed since, despite some renewed flurry of activity by others around 2013 - which also inevitably petered out (without my intervention).
Its own democracy is one of the reasons why change is so slow on Wikipedia. Most RfCs get so side-tracked and bogged down they peter out before they even reach consensus stage. If you come up with a viable idea for RfA reform or recruiting more candidates, and if it is really needed, get it to RfC and you can almost certainly be sure of my support, but you will have to put up withe same group of detractors; their mission is to ultimately bring the entire adminship-crat-arbcom systems to their knees in the hope that by magic, Wikipedia management will either be replaced by fiat from the Foundation or simply let anarchy rule. Ironically, that group of editors claims to be the most prolific content providers (and indeed one of them is). If you read sufficiently back in the archives of WT:RfA annWT:WER you will have no difficulty in recognising them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Behold the words of Irondome ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and your efforts in this area. It is, of course, familiar ground, as you have expounded on these aspects on various pages. I, too, have written about the structural issues at Wikipedia; I am fully aware it's nothing new, but I hope we aren't so restrictive that all discussion can only take place by pointing to what others have said in the past. I do appreciate the frustration at seeing others go down the same blind alleys, but the vast majority of us have done the same, and continue to do so, just at a different level since there's inevitably someone else who knows more than we do. I apologize for not making it clear that I understand you are not exasperated with those who do not share your views, just those who don't share your approach to investigating and addressing the problem. I fully sympathize with this, as I often feel the same way, but I recognize I'm not infallible, and so I must do my best to understand and appreciate the ideas of others, in case they point out flaws in my own ideas that I didn't notice. It may not be your intent to be dismissive, but your exasperation shows and engenders corresponding feelings in those to whom your comments are directed.
It does feel like you're preaching to the choir when you tell me to read pages I read while they were being written, and a talk page that I've participated in from the start. I've been advocating throughout my time at Wikipedia that the community pay more attention to Clay Shirky's "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy" to better understand group dynamics and why an unfettered direct democracy is untenable as a group grows. At some point, a structural change will need to occur, whether by consensus agreement or by fiat from above, and the editing population will change as a result, hopefully for the better. isaacl (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Interesting dialogue. My best hope is that that the whole RfA process will self-heal through some unquantifiable perhaps as yet unknown law of group dynamics. I too have dipped into behavioral studies of WP dynamics, and looked at Kudpung and others' works on the subject. I feel that the more editors who absorb themselves in the vast WP-generated literature on the subject, the more RfA will improve. I am such an idealist :/ Irondome (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
One thing is sure: nobody get wise by looking up their own backsides or contempating their own bellybuttons. All people get wise by listening to or reading the works of others. The final stage of proving our wisdom is when we have to make people listen to us when we present our own original Phd research (a lot of which BTW has many referenced footnotes of the works of others without which we would not have been able to advance on those theories, research, or development). However, we have no academic hierarchies at Wikipedia; we don't even have a system that separates the children that participate here from the highest echelons of learned scholars. But as long as people stick to articles they are competent to contribute to and keep their POV and COI out of it, not much real harm is done. More difficult is when that mixed bag of people get involved on an important RfC and I'm very glad to note that on that subject, Isaacl and I share exactly the same opinion. The only difference being that where I use RfC as the practical instrument for getting things done, Isaacl writes (and very accurately) about what is wrong with RfC as a system. For years I wrote 1,000s of words about what is wrong with RfA until it finally sunk in with most of the RfA community. Coming up with solutions is more difficult and at this stage I tend to believe that Irondome is not far off the mark with his comments above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Voceditenore[edit]

Hi Kudpung, thank you for the "thank you" [1] SMirC-smile.svg. If I were the Empress of Arbcomia, I would decree that no party be allowed to submit evidence against anyone else until they had done a thorough examination of conscience and listed all the things they had personally done (with diffs) which led to and/or exacerbated the situation which had landed everyone there. They would be judged on technical merit, artistic impression, and self-awareness. Anyone with a score of less than 6 out of 10 would be automatically excluded from participating further and would simply have to await their fate in silence. Have you seen this morass? Ugh! Voceditenore (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it. Voce, I still wish you were an Admin. There are a lot of RfCs going on right now about Arbcom and RfA reform. Those discussions are also diluted by the usual rubbish but you may wish to take a look and add your 2p. Ask me where they are if you can't find them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Castle Neuschwanstein.jpg Thank You
Thank you for participating in my topic ban. This really is a genuine thank you, no sarcasm is intended. I was in the wrong and I accept that. Rotten regard 23:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you have any suggestions?[edit]

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "neutral". I wonder if you'd like to discuss any concerns of yours, or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus, you had two RfA in fairly close succession that both failed by overwhelming opposition. If you were to run again any time soon, I doubt that the community would be totally convinced that you have changed your natural tendencies in order to adopt the calm and reflected style that is required of admins. Bishonen's comment was probably the most important of all, and all the more because she is a highly respected Wikipedian. I would give it a lot longer before attempting RfA again - at the very least another year, and even longer if possible. We urgently need more admins, but there is no rush for each individul cadidate to acquire to extra toolset. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. I certainly intend to ask Bishonen's for his advice (and I am in no hurry to run again; it is just something I may consider one day again, perhaps next year or so). I am curious, however, what do you mean by "your natural tendencies", could you elaborate on them? In case you hesitate to answer that too quickly, I would also like to invite you to examine my activities in the past few years (my talk page is not redacted, so a few minutes looking at my archives would, I hope, be a useful litmus test). Whereas I certainly have erred in the past (and hence resigned my mop five years ago), I am very curious to learn if there are things that experienced members of the community, such as yourself, think I could have done better since. Cheers! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Something that looks like vandalism[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I prefer to think that this was unintentional. Can you confirm that to be the case? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could first check on a dictionary definition of vandalism. This is not the first time you have come here and grossly and uncivilly, and above all, inappropriately accused me of misconduct. That's all I have to say. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Diffs? I see nothing above that is uncivil. I asked a simple question. Did you make an unintentional edit to my signature, or did you do it on purpose? @Floquenbeam: thinks it was unintentional, and she demanded that I apologize to you (which would make @Bishonen: very cross). I'd like to resolve this, and all you need to do is confirm that when you changed my signature text from "Jehochman" to "bureaucratic Wikipedia" that you had just typed some stray characters in an unfortunate location. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, the issue has now already been brought to my attention by someone who has the amiable decency to point out to me the actual detail what actually happened. To accuse me of vandalism is blatantly ridiculous. Yes, you are indeed rather fast to react on some things. Perhaps you would do well to look before you leap - something admins are expected to do. If you knew me well enough it should have be blatantly obvious to you that what I did was a genuine typo/formatting error But then, as past experience has clearly shown, you don't appear to be too concerned about who you lambast and how and where you go about it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming it was just an error. I included a diff in my first post here so you could see what I was upset about. I don't know you well, so I just take things at face value. In future, if you need to say something bad about me, please include diffs so I can understand what you are talking about. Thank you. Have a nice day. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Jehochman, I'm surprised at you. You've been around long enough to know when not to use the word vandalism. If you don't - have a read of my helpful essay. This looks like a simple mistake and you're meant to assume good faith. WormTT(talk) 13:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
There's some history here that you are not might not be aware of, and it's rather dull so I won't bore you with details. I will read your essay, thanks; I like essays. Jehochman Talk 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You may be surprised, Jehochman, but Worm possibly knows a lot more than you think about what goes on on Wikipedia... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I probably would be surprised. I on the other hand have trouble remembering to upload images locally before installing them on the main page. So...are you going to run for ArbCom? We need more candidates. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I love the idea that I'm some sort of omniscient Wiki-genius. I can't even spell throw. Why don't you both run - I've currently only got about 4-5 candidates I'd be happy to vote for, would love to see 2 more :) WormTT(talk) 14:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Me? Run for Arbcom? You must be kidding. After years of being in the trenches as a 'front line' admin without sustaining a single wound to my integrity, I have gained far too many enemies. Besides which, you told me yourself in London what an awful job it is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you seen the starting line up? At the moment I can think of banned users who may get on! (No offence to the candidates reading, there are some excellent ones - it might be you) Enemies or not, I think you'd get on. As for the awful job... well, yes, it is. But it's getting better, honest! WormTT(talk) 14:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Kudpung, I'd love to see you run. I think you'd make a great arbitrator and surely you have less "enemies" than I do. Jehochman, other than the brash attack on my talk page this morning, I've not had any interaction with you. Perhaps you would make a good arbitrator, maybe not, but I'll say that you'll never know if you don't run. WTT, as much as I'd like to think that "it might be me", I have my doubts. ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Arbitrators are the ones in the pot
I just looked over the list and came up with a count of 5 I'd vote for. Have you seen my picture of ArbCom in action? Kudpung, my excuse is that I ran twice and wasn't elected, and I've added another kid in the meanwhile. You've never run, am I right? So why don't you give it a try? Jehochman Talk 14:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd need to be a clerk for five years to be able to figure out how that place works. People would expect too much of me and my disadvantage is that I'm too well known both on and off Wiki (3 Wikimanias in a row, a batch of meetups around the world, and a quiver of successful major RfC proposals). I really think I'm better of filling the gap that people like Worm and Beeblebrox have left in the firing line down here. I'm not suited for an office job behind the lines. Maybe next year when I've had a full 12 months of drawing my pension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting that it's going to be a "no", but don't take the bureaucracy too seriously. The basics are simple (post where it says arbitrator - vote where you need to), and the clerks tidy up the rest. WormTT(talk) 15:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's all that cleaning out the junk mail and that awful BASC stuf. It was bad enough when I was an active OTRS agent. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Junk mail is only for the people who sign up to be list moderators and I've taken it to a 1/10th of what it was. Technically minded people on the committee may do better if they want to try. BASC only concerns the arbs who want to do it and it can be spun out to the community if it keeps being pushed - but it needs an arb to push... Not getting away with these arguments! WormTT(talk) 15:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
So, Kundpung, is it alright if we just forge a candidate statement on your behalf? (Apropos to a discussion that started about signatures) Jehochman Talk 15:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Yours too Jehochman. WormTT(talk) 15:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What actually happened to Jehochman's signature was that when I copied it to use it in a ping link, I had actually pressed the 'X' key. Realising that a few moments later, I used 'V' to put it it back, not realising that in the meantime I had something new in my clipboard which contained the word bureaucracy which I hate typing because I always get it wrong. When I pressed 'Show preview' I checked the body of my text but I didn't check to see if I had made another mistake in the sig. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a funny error! At the time I was tired or annoyed or both and reacted badly. Sorry. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I happen to think you'd be a great arb. Worm is right about not needing to know all the procedures and processes, that's what the clerks and the arbs who have been there a long time are for. But it is much more of a commitment than just being an admin. There's much less "bystander effect" because there are literally only 12-15 people who can handle any given issue. I would have done two years, but facing the possibility of a total of three years was too much, and I won't run if I don't think I would serve my full term. We Alaskans are a little touchy on that subject ever since Sarah Palin ran out of the governor's office to go be on TV.

This situation right now is exactly how I wound up on the committee in the first place. I hadn't intended to run but I didn't see enough qualified candidates to fill the available spots, so I nominated myself. Lo and behold, at the eleventh hour a dozen more people also nominated themselves, yet somehow I got in... barely. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your ArbCom candidatcy[edit]

I saw the last minute attempt while clicking recent changes, you could still run for the position as you created your statement before the deadline. Thanks Secret account 00:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried at around 06:45 this morning after sleeping on it but I made a mess of it and had to withdraw it because the deadline had expired before I could fix it. I might try again next year but thats a long way off just now and in the meantime I still have more than enough to do as a common and garden admin.
Nevertheless Beeb, Dave, Jehochman, Technical 13, and all the others who throughout the past 3 months have repeatedly suggested I should run, thank you for your confidence.
Secret, I still wasn't really sure whether or not I really wanted to run, so I'll leave the withdrawal as it is. Perhaps another admin can delete the page - I couldn't even figure out how to do that either (not very convincing for an arb candidate!). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think you should undelete the statement, sort out whatever was wrong with it, and transclude it (sharpish, before the voting starts). And the powers that be should allow it per NOTBURO. I think you'd get a lot of support, and you'd make a great arb. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank's for the kind words Harry, but I'll sit it out for another year. Time will pass quickly and I know of one candidate who is almost sure to pass and who will be a wonderful Arb and voice of calm, reason, and stability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping there won't be too many years left of Arbcom ;) WormTT(talk) 14:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
OOee! That's strong stuff, coming from you;) Let's just hope at least that *I* still have few years left in me. I can find plenty to do on Wikipedia if I set my mind to it :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you please email me so I can set up a email chain between you, myself, and the other two commissioners to discuss this?--v/r - TP 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Please let me know one way or another on whether you're going to pursue a discussion with us or not.--v/r - TP 22:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
TParis: What discussion? To discuss what? What discussion can involve/concern me? If there is a discussion, why does it need to be held in camera? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A question about rfcs and different proposal[edit]

At [2] you said, "If you have a different proposal for Community Desysoping, start your own RfC.". I would like to propose decreasing the sysops' tenure to, say, one or two years. What are the steps for me to pipe this to an RFC? Gryllida (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida. In my experience of RfCs - which is quite broad - I would not 'pipe it' into an existing discussion. That's a sure fire way to detract from the matter in hand, and to confuse the participants. RfCs always work much better when the topic under discussion is kept as narrow as possible. Your proposal is an excellent example of one for a stand alone RfC at Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC_for Administrator term limits, for example. It's simple, it's straightforward; you would need to offer some rationale for it but at the same time keeping it as neutral as possible, i.e. not leading the audience to  !vote either way, whatever you would like the outcome to be. RfA terms limits is going to be a loaded topic and will attract some drama so the RfC needs to be crafted as carefully as possible. Now is probably a good time to start such an RfC. Some would advise against having too many related, concurrent RfCs, but in this instance I think it would be a plus because the community is currently thinking a lot about Admin/Arbcom issues. For every RfC that I launch, I always get some feeedback on my fraft before I go live with it. In fact my current RfC was drafted over a year ago with some excellent suggestions for improvement. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox has written some advice on going through the Request for Comments process that is useful. Personally, I like the format used during the 2012 discussions on pending changes (for example, see Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC 1), where each person can make a brief statement in support or against, and all discussion is held in a separate section. This makes it a bit easier to avoid redundant discussion threads, thereby making it easier for everyone to follow what is going on. However, it hasn't caught on. isaacl (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox gives some of the best advice around but his essays can't cover every eventuality. Nor do mine. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Naturally; it's just some useful advice. (On a side note, now that you've chosen to reply to my post, I'm a bit confused as to why you changed it to be a response to your first post, as I was replying directly to the original poster.) isaacl (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Admin Review Board[edit]

I am favorably inclined to the Admin Review Board but wanted to ask a couple questions before weighing in. I am not asking on that page, because they may cross the border into mechanics, and I do not want to do that.

I am unclear whether you envision the BARC to be a subset of the Bureaucrats, or if they would operate as a committee of the whole? If a proper subset, I'm happy to wait for general agreement (or not) on the concept, before fine-tuning the selection process, but if you were contemplating that the group as a whole would take on this process, I may feel differently than if there is a defined committee, much smaller than the whole group. (one of the reasons I lean support is the hope that this group would have a timelier response to issues, which may be hopeless if all 34 are involved)

On a related point, did you have an opinion on whether the committee would be crats only? I would be supportive of a committee structure with some non-crats, specifically more than one non-admin. Exact makeup is beyond the scope at this time, but if the answer to the first question is the crat group as a whole, it is unlikely you were thinking of including non-admins.

Did you run any of this by any of the crats? I understand that you might have had private conversations, and may not be able to share details, but if the crats say “no way, no how” it doesn't sound like a good use of time to even discuss. I hope they would be willing to take on this task, and it won't surprise me if they are less than enthusiastic about jumping on it, but I would like to hear that they wouldn't reject it out of hand.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick. All the things you find vague are the items I deliberately left open for future discussion. That's why I will not personally be commenting on the RfC or badgering the respondents. It's a pre-RfC discussion and not a voting process; it's designed to get feedback to see if it's worth going ahead with a firm proposal for a system which by then would be designed right down to the last nut and bolt.
My own personal thoughts? I would like to see a few things devolved from Arbcom and this is one of them. I believe that we need to come down harder and quicker on admins who let the side down and that the process for it should be community driven and maintained by Bureaucrats. Possibly a sub-committee of 'crats that might include a couple of admins and/or users in extremely good standing. We'll see.
No, I have not asked the Bureaucrats if they want the additional task. The 'crats, in spite of their elevation to a high office, actually have very little to do and certainly when compared with the monumental workload on every member of the Arbcom. Accepting this additional mandate may give them more raison d'etre. I can't imagine a conscientious 'crat refusing. If they do refufuse out of hand, then we have a good argument to create a new, high level user group (heaven forbid) for an Admin Review Board. Whatever happens, arbs are complaining that they have too much work and that's why some of them resign or won't run for another term, and it's my guess that's why we don't get sufficient arb candidates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC) please block urgently[edit]

Sustained vile attacks on user:Malik Shabazz's page. Im rollbacking here in real time. Please can you act quick Irondome (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It's ok. Been sorted. Had no idea what to do there apart from keep rollbacking. Cheers K Irondome (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Irondome, LadyofShalott beat me to it by three minutes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I've also deleted the offending edits. That crap is not remotely acceptable. LadyofShalott 05:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. Wish I had the tools just sometimes...Irondome (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to do something about it, but you'd have to go through an 'interesting' 7 days like we all did. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 :) I would not last 30 minutes in that arena. However I am feeling a growing sense of duty about it. Admins are precious. Sadly I am utterly unsuited. Maybe in a year or so. Irondome (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


I wish to inform you that I only have a new account but I am a "Veteran" Wikipedia editor. I lost the information for the other account and somehow forgot the password. Thank you for your concern, but I do fully understand the guidlines for article inclusion and deletion. I apologize if my methods have offended you but, my criteria for article inclusion does follow the Wikipedia but may slightly differ from yours as I tend to be slightly lenient when it comes to new editors to encourage them to stay on Wikipedia and not scare them off. Forgive me if my methods have in any way offended yours, but I have been with Wikipedia for many years and understand all of the guidliness and procedures.

Thank you for your assistance and consideration, STJMLCC (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@STJMLCC: I am not confident that your editing pattern (even here) and knowledge of guidelines are representative of an experienced editor. You are not obliged to reveal any past accounts so I have no alternative other than to regard your contributions and knowledge as those of a new user. I am not offended by anything - I am just doing my job. Thank you for your comprehension. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


See my comment at User talk:Waynejayes. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)