User talk:Kudpung

Please sign your message.

Archives

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Imagine a world where all the new page patrollers went on strike - please remain seated with your computers on until Wikipedia comes to a complete stop

Recent reviewers

*Sigh*

Ethanbas is still creating tiny non-notable articles [1], contrary to repeated final warnings. His latest is exactly two sentences (23 words) and has no independent references. (He is edit-warring to prevent it being tagged or re-directed.) Of his last 12 creations (all created within the past 6 weeks) 3 have been deleted, 1 more is still at AfD, and 4 more are highly questionable (and should probably be AfDed). I think it's time to require him to submit all of his creations through AfC. What do you think? Softlavender (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender, I've had problems with him in the past. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think there is any way of forcing someone to use AfC without getting a consensus at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've just quickly checked his tp. There's a load of PRODs too that he's removed without addressing the issues. Those should now be taken to AfD. With enough AfDs it should be a clear case for a tban on producing new pages in mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that it would probably require a community consensus. My question therefore would be, would you support such a consensus? I'm asking you in particular because you were the administrator (or at least the main one) who instructed him back in February to stop posting malformed tiny uncited or mal-cited stubs. Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts from a (talk page stalker)...Kudpung and Softlavender, as you probably know, this situation has some parallels with the indef blocking of Ottawahitech. Having said that, the Ottawahitech problems had gone for years and years and were far more egregious. Ethanbas does have a rationale for his creations [2]. I also know of at least one long-term editor who creates/improves articles to FA level but happily creates junk sub-stubs as well, which cause problems and which some editors find highly annoying. I guess the main problems are the BLPs (these require much more care and effort) and the amount of time taken up by AfDs, some of which are justified, and others not. Voceditenore (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Voceditenore, the problem is, Ethanbas is an extremely problematical editor. He has been extremely disruptive and hostile, even to admins, and has been given a final warning that he can be blocked without notice; he is or has been a paid editor, and his basic M.O. is to thumb his nose at all policies and guidelines. He creates crap articles and stubs and expects everyone else to clean them up. In his five months on Wikipedia he has created havoc all over Wikipedia, has been blocked twice, has an endless rap sheet of warnings on his talk page [3], has had 13+ articles deleted, and is generally costing too much in terms of time and effort in terms of babysitting him. Requiring him to go through AfC would eliminate the need for babysitting. Softlavender (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh I agree that he's been very problematic, Softlavender, and wasted a lot of editors' and administrators' time. Minimally, he should be made to go through AfC, especially for BLP articles. I'm just saying that getting results at ANI might be more difficult than it was for Ottawahitech. But given this, it's definitely worth a try if he won't cut it out. I must also say that the whole Vipul editing "enterprise" in which he was involved was very murky, and although Vipul claims to have ended it in March, I'm pretty sure aspects of it are still going on here sub rosa. But that's maybe another can of worms. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Voceditenore and Softlavender:, it's probably very much the same phenomenon as Ottawahitech. I thing an L3 warning to cut it out or ANI will be the next station for his train. If he doesn't react to that, then ANI it will have to be, and with a call for more than jusr a T-ban from mainspace. Yes, I'm pretty sure I would have to support such a call, but I don't exactly hang out at ANI every day and I actually deliberately don't have it on my watchlist, so I'd need a ping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems like ANI would be the best place for this. Some editor's cannot and will not fix their behavior. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 10:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Voceditenore, Jennica, and Softlavender:, I've asked him to stop with the warning that if he continues he will have to answer to the mob. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

He's still at it. He has created 5+ crap stubs [4] since your two July 22 warnings on his talk page ([5], [6]), and has also created one obviously paid article for Vipul (who pays for articles on nonprofits; obviously that paid-editing pyramid scheme has not actually stopped) [7]. I think at this point, with all of the final warnings Ethanbas has gotten in the past 5 months, he should just be indeffed (or banned). Softlavender (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Softlavender. Draft your case and open an ANI, I'll support a preventative block. Cite this thread too, and all the warnings from me, DSeegel, and others. If you need your draft checking, I'll be happy to do so. FYI: @Voceditenore and Jennica:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

On the basis of his recent creations, I doubt if he's get an indef block, and I'm not really sure I'd !vote for one on the basis that he hasn't changed his ways after warnings. True, Bitcoin Cash was probably an unreferenced substub in its first reincarnation and indicates that he was ignoring warnings. He has since re-created with references, although it should probably be redirected to Bitcoin. But... Hi-Five (Israeli band) and Amir Fryszer Guttman are properly referenced and have lengthy articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Media Rating Council is strange. It is actually a notable org but his stub creation was obviously a place-holder for Vipul. Why didn't Vipul just create it himself? Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at JSH-alive's talk page.
Message added 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I am the original writer of this article, and doesn't infringe any copywrite law.

Please check your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moafrika01 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing WP proposal

about your comment here, see my response here. We do not see the same world, and that is surprising to me. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I hear you, Jytdog, but do you really believe that foxes guarding the henhouse will 'have a keen interest in keeping bad apples out of their basket'? Your Wikiwork and mine have different focuses - I see things from my corner that you don't, and vice versa. I'm not allowed to show the evidence of some of the things I know, so that's why my posts often sound as if I'm just driven by opinion and emotion. I'd be interested to get TonyBallioni's opinion - he and I share a lot of ideas on cleaning up Wikipedia, but sometimes we don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the distinction Tryptofish made immediately above Jytdog's post is helpful. There seem to be two main types of paid editors: those creating new content and those working on existing articles. Those of us who work new pages see what is often irredeemable spam. Like the discussion at WT:CSD has shown us, in these cases talk of paid editing and TOU can often be a distraction from the fact that these pages have no place on Wikipedia for reasons other than TOU violations. In these cases I also think that a WikiProject would be harmful because it would shift the conversation on any page created by these editors away from the core content issues and onto the paid question.

In the case of existing content, the proposal would have probably made it easier for the COIN crowd to keep up the integrity of existing articles. I mainly deal with paid editing from a new content stance, so I'm opposed to any organization like this that is quasi-official. I could get behind a centralized listing of all pages people have declared themselves paid to edit, which I think would be a nice way to split the baby between the two groups of volunteer editors who have the most interaction with paid contributors. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have discussed this with TonyBallioni who has also opposed, and also from the perspective of someone who does NPP work. As I understand it (and Tony please correct me if I have misunderstood) he has said that he is concerned that paid or conflicted editors will seek support for each other at such a WikiProject, and that its existence will increase their ... tendency to batter for what they want.

What I have tried to say to him and also will say to you, is that one of the points for this is that more clueful paid editors, like User:MaryGaulke or User:FacultiesIntact will take on leadership roles and advise the kinds of people you are concerned about, from the perspective of clueful paid editors. Them saying "hey don't shit in our backyard, you are fucking things up for all of us and it is hard enough as it is -- and you are doing your client no favors, nor yourself" sounds entirely different from them, than for you or me saying that.

first I want to be clear. Paid editors exploit the volunteer community. There is no doubt about that.

Clueful paid editors understand that and act accordingly - without arrogance, and with care.

Clueful paid editors disclose and put all edits through peer review, and work graciously with feedback (see above)

Clueful paid editors turn down clients if they can't generate policy-compliant content about them.

Clueful paid editors will not argue to remove legitimate negative content.

Clueful paid editors teach their clients what WP is, what WP is not.

These people do exist!

They are a rarity, but they exist. I want to build on that core via this project.

What bothered me about what you wrote, was a) the notion of " relaxation in our view on paid editing" and b) "Every single paid edit whether it is written neutrally or not, is COI and an attempt to promote a company, a product, a person, or a non-profit.".

As for the second, clueful paid editors are not necessarily promoting. I gutted the Parker Hannifin article because most of it was unsourced promotion. They tried to fix it themselves, which wasted my time reverting them and trying to explain the deal here. They finally hired Mary and she proposed content on talk that fleshed out the history, and 90% of that was useable. I was grateful she provided that, as it was bothering me that there was no history. The same cycle happened at Memorial Sloan Kettering and they hired FacultiesIntact, and it is way better now than it was before. (I did a lot of work on that with FacultiesIntact - probably way more than FacultiesIntact wanted, but they never came even close to pushing me away)

Clueful paid editors can actually contribute valuable content.

As for the first, the moralistic statement that "paid editing is bad" has been entirely ineffective in changing whether paid editing happens at all, and in changing the quality of paid edits. This is just a fact. Paid editing is a reality and moralizing over it is pointless. I want us to try to manage the market. I am going to set the following off, as I am writing too much and I want to make sure this doesn't get lost in my own clutter here.

I want to make clear to the public the following: Wikipedia is a public good, like a national park, that provides knowledge to the public for free. There is a black market of paid editors who violate Wikipedia policy and who are like people who dump industrial waste in our national parks. There are also legitimate paid editors who respect WP's policies and its mission. You should not buy paid editing services from black market paid editors who will pollute Wikipedia. This harms Wikipedia, and harms you. If you want to explore paid editing services, do so with a legitimate paid editor. You can find some at X. They can explain to you why following Wikipedia policies matters to you, and to everybody else who uses Wikipedia every day.

This is a message that the public can use and that speaks to the reality of the market.

You can think about this like needle exchanges, which are also controversial. But which work.

OK, I wrote too much, but I am really bummed by your stance on this issue. I don't want to us, as a community, to keep doing the same ineffective things. I want us to influence the market with our moral vision and mission, instead of trying to will the paid editing market out of existence. Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course we'll never will the paid editing market out of existence, Jytdog, but by maintaining a firm policy that it clearly exploits the volunteer community - which it does - plus some measures that we are working on to make it even more difficult for them, we'll maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. What you'll get otherwise is a lot of negative public opinion,and a lot more people clambouring to make money out if it. I don't know what we can do about the organised spammers who are sending emails to admins though. If I were not an honest person, from the offers I've been made I could have bought myself a very nice new automobile already and flown 1st class to Wikimania next month. And that would be hard for some to resist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Maintaining clarity that WP is a volunteer project that aims to provide knowledge to the public, and being more clear about what legitimate paid editing looks like - and that paid editors exploit the volunteer community - are not contradictory. Are they? I asked over at WT:COI, but are the offers that you (and I assume other admins) getting something new, or something that has been happening off and on? I encourage you to publish these emails on WP btw. As far as I know there is no bar to that, and daylight is the best disinfectant. There are any number of levels of joe-jobbing that could be going on but better to go full public than partial, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The offers I receive are passed on to Arbcom where the senders get quietly CU'd and blocked, usually revealing many socks. No one knows how many emails get sent and from whom until it's reported. No other admins have admitted to me that they've received any. I would assume that admins who have demonstrated having a good knowledge of policies are the ones who get targeted. Even me who is obviously vehemently opposed to paid editing in all its forms - they probably believe that if their offers are big enough even I can become corrupt. I think what I see is only the tip of an iceberg.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hm! Thanks for explaining what you do with them. And for this dialogue. :) Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

My last word (in this thread ) on this Jytdog, is that in my opinion the people who make money out of the unpaid work of Wikipedia's non-spam content contributors and volunteer clean up force are no morally better than people who steal pennies out of a blind man's begging bowl. I don't care who they are and I hope they're reading this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that this is a stance developed from years of standing in front of the torrent of absolute shit that is pumped into Wikipedia every day and I cannot begrudge any stance you take that keeps you sane in the face of all that. I respect the work you have done and do, immensely. We do agree that there are way too many undisclosed paid editors who dump industrial waste in Wikipedia, every day.

I do ask you to think about how we can influence the market that exists all around us. Shaking our finger at it, has done no good. What can we do differently with regard to what we say to the public? I ask you to think about this, and let me know your thoughts. (I thought about this, and came up with this proposal, and keep finding new ways it could be useful externally and internally, the more I stew on it) Jytdog (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what results the coming trial comes up with. There's nowt much we can do about corrupt admins though. I think Wifione was the last one we smoked out, and I hate to say it, but it's my guess that there are others. I know most of the popular ones personally from my (cattle class) travels around the world to conferences and meet ups; it's the 1,100 others whose names rarely crop up anywhere but do a sly edit once in a while to keep their bit from expiring that give me pause. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there an admin newsletter or IRC channel or whatever? Has this been discussed among you all? I can imagine CUs being run quietly to check for socking by admins that looks like paid editing.... Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I thank Tony for the mention, which is what brought me here. I really like very much what Jytdog said in the indented paragraph. Other that what I have said before, please let me suggest that Kudpung and Jytdog might not be as far apart in your views as it may appear. As I see it, this may be a case where "needle exchanges" can be a good thing as an informal effort, rather than as something that has an "official" name conferred upon it. White-hat editors can say "hey don't shit in our backyard, you are fucking things up for all of us..." as individual editors, without needing a formal project that could be misconstrued as enabling or endorsing black-hat efforts. In fact, the message might even be more effective if it is individualized instead of organized. And for the few white hats, they should realize that they actually have a vested interest in helping as individual editors. So I find myself feeling like I agree with Jytdog about the value of "needle exchanges" while also agreeing with Kudpung that creating formal projects is likely to be counter-productive. I hope that helps! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Requested

I have read the above exchange, and am not entirely sure what User:Jytdog is proposing about paid editors. I am a little surprised and intrigued that Jytdog, a defender of neutral science (against pseudo-science and against leftist and rightist science crap) and of neutral editing, is proposing what sounds like a policy of toleration of paid editors, but that further makes me think that I don’t fully understand the proposal. First, are we all in agreement that undisclosed paid editors are poisonous parasites and can no more be tolerated than H1N1 and Ebola? Second, so is the question about some sort of accommodation with the disclosed paid editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The very short story...

• Paid editing remains a big problem, despite all our efforts and the consistent line denouncing paid editing as "bad", a thriving marketplace has grown up all around us, where people buy and sell paid editing services.
• I've been asking myself, what can we do differently??
• I have been thinking about Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms and how that is kind of an informal community.
• At an MfD concerning that statement this spring (where we overwhelmingly kept it) I wrote this: ... I agree that this being an "essay" is not really appropriate.... One thing I have been considering for a while, is whether there should be a WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing or the like (the name would be one of the hardest things) -- a sort of guild of paid editors within WP that would actually a) create and maintain best practices consistent with the policies and guidelines (per this statement); b) help educate new PR people who show up so we wouldn't have to spend so much time doing that; and c) of course be careful as hell to avoid becoming a lobbying group itself or to do bad things like peer reviewing each other's's proposed articles and content. So I would almost want to see this moved to a new WikiProject. I wasn't really ready to propose that yet, but this seems as good a time and place as any. So keep for now.
• this reported piece in the The Entrepreneur magazine a month ago really struck me. There was no sense in it that there is a black market of undisclosed paid editors who are like people who sneak into national parks and dump industrial waste, and legit paid editors who follow policy and respect the nature of WP and their (tenuous) position here.
• Nobody is defining the market for paid editing. It struck me, that nobody but us would ever do that. We have not done it so of course it hasn't happened, and so what the public sees, is a blur of undifferentiated paid editing companies. All we do is shake our "bad dog" finger at it, and people just shrug that off, like New Yorkers drink beer on their stoops at night (the law against that is just silly, right)
• I have lately started proposing this "paid Wikiproject", and how we could use it internally as well as in our communications with the world (examples of legit paid editing that we can contrast with "black market"/illegitimate paid editors), in various places to take the temperature of the community. It is pretty hot!  :)
• A discussion at the village pump here was pretty opposed but several folks suggested re-vivifying WP:WikiProject Cooperation. There is another discussion at Jimbo's talk page and another at WT:COI.
• I am actually starting to try this "public diplomacy". See my comments on this horrible blogpiece by an undisclosed paid editor here.

There you go. I hope you don't regret asking. I am very interested in your thoughts, Robert. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - I don't regret having asked. However, the horrible blogpiece seems to illustrate what Kudpung is saying about paid editors, which is that they are stealing pennies from blind beggars' bowls. You mention "defining the market" for paid editing, but are there enough honest paid editors (given that there are a few of them) for "market definition" to be feasible (let alone for them to try to make a dishonest business honest)? I will comment more later, but it looks like an effort to persuade an illegal business to practice ethical business. Maybe you haven't made your case yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

What I am more interested in, is informing consumers of paid editing about the difference. As long as there are ignorant consumers there will be people selling shit to them. The Entrepreneur piece really killed me - the reporter actually talked to a PR person from the WMF. I am hoping to talk to that person next week to find out how the discussion went (it may be that she tried hard to communicate the situation and the reporter wasn't hearing it; but i am concerned that the message was weak or garbled). We should all be giving a very clear message that undisclosed paid editors = people who dump industrial waste in national parks. In my view that is not enough, however. People who want to explore buying paid editing services should know where to go. So we should be pointing them somewhere. My metaphor for this is needle exchange.

But when I talk about influencing the market, I am talking the demand side, not the supply side. There is nothing we can do about that. Although.. i have pushed to have WMF legal become more aggressive where they can - where people are using WMF trademarks in advertising, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

However much one pleads for the honesty of the editors who have disclosed their paid involvement, the fact remains that not one single man jack of them has any scruples about their blatant exploitation of us, the blind beggars, whose party the are gate crashing and freeloading on our food and booze. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The question that we now find ourselves asking 16 years after Jimmy and Larry got together to launch this website thinking it be cool but not realizing how massive an impact it would have on humanity is whether or not the simple existence of a page on Wikipedia for a local fish and chips shop in Ipswich is a form of advertisement. If exposure on Wikipedia is the most significant form of coverage it has ever receive and the editor is paid, I'd argue yes. This is a huge credibility issue and where the GNG and NOT intersect to have real world consequences (and could even cause Citogenesis in some cases). I suppose Kudpung and I come at it from a different angle than Jytdog. I don't think we can ever dry up or educate the consumer end of the market enough to make an impact, but I do think we can catch a good amount of the spam, and I think that is more critical to maintaining our credibility than having consumers know who the people they can pay without breaking the legal conditions for using this website are. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

About the "more critical" bit - this is often where efforts to generate movement get ground to a halt. People say "X is more of a problem/more critical/etc." This isn't a zero sum thing. Jytdog (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Tragedy of the Commons and Paid Editors

By the way, I wonder if the undisclosed paid editors understand that each of them is engaged in a tragedy of the commons, in that each of them is competing not only against honest editors but against other undisclosed paid editors, because if the paid editing reaches a certain point, Wikipedia will lose its current reputation as being worth having an article in, and will become just another vanity directory. Each paid editor should be (in their own rational dishonest interest) trying to expose and destroy other paid editors, because Wikipedia can only sustain a certain level of parasitic infection before becoming worthless. Maybe it is worth publicizing that truth in order to get the paid editors to turn on each other, as long as we don’t do anything to encourage them such as offering a bounty for each tail. (Yes, tail. Trolls have tails, and so probably do paid editors.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Tragedy of the commons, @Robert McClenon, Jytdog, and TonyBallioni: is a very easy concept to understand for anyone in the world of an age of over 10. The article's own tragedy is that it now so long and repetitive that no one in their right mind would do more than scan through it. Interestingly it was one one of the very first Wikipedia articles ever, and its third edit was by Larry Sanger himself.

However, its no good appealing to paid 'editors' to use common sense when the goal is making an easy or a fast buck - and the advertising industry is one of the largest and most lucrative on the planet. They are, as I mention above, like the people who steal the pennies from a blind beggar's bowl - they have no morals. IMO the only way to reduce (we'll never completely eradicate it) paid editing is to remain firm and make it known as widely and loudly as possible that it simply is not tolerated in any shape or form. I appeal to anyone who wants to understand what Wikipedia is being allowed to mutate into to spend an hour or two patrolling new articles. That's all they need to do. Nothing else. Our problem is that the 450 New Page Patrollers, once they are accorded the right, quickly despair and look for something else to do. 80% of new articles today have their origins in South Asia. 80% of those articles are spam, while of the remaining 20% of them half of them are stubs about villages, a quarter are about Asian deisms, movies, and autobios, and the rest are incomprehensible nonsense. This is also one of the reasons why NPP and NPR require highly active coordination.

Two related measures tat are going to have to be discussed in the not to distant future (to the dismay of te Wiki idealists) is the need to relax somewhat the restraints of use imposed on our Check Users, and to allow the flag to a few more highly highly experienced and trusted admins. A significant amount of spam and paid editing done through the creation of multiple accounts and VPN; there is always a backlog at SPI, and it always looks as if of the 10 Check Users (excepting present and former Arbs) Bbb23 has for a long time been having to do do most of the work himself, relying on the background evidence examined by the clerks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, in April 2015, I introduced an idea at Jimbo's TP to deal with topics in the encyclopedia that create the majority of COI issues. It was an idea, not a planned proposal by any means, but I still believe it has merit if given proper consideration. Is it agreed that the bulk of paid editing stems from business entities and/or self-promotion (excluding anything academic in nature which is easily remedied by current methods)? If we study the primary attraction for businesses wanting a page in Wikipedia, we can better treat the cancer. Robert McClenon provided a chilling look into the future if we sit back and do nothing while the invasion continues. What is so wrong about organizing the pedia into sections (we already have "categories" but haven't explored their potential)? For example all corporations and businesses (hospitals and private schools are businesses, too) would be sectioned into bus.Wikipedia to protect the integrity of en.Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a book or set of books giving information on many subjects or on many aspects of one subject and typically arranged alphabetically. Ok, so why not take it one step further and arrange it categorically into "books" or "volumes"? Each can have their own main pages. We already know we have a slew of paid editing going on now, and we know those editors will object to anything that threatens their "livelihoods" - those numbers are growing. I can assure you there are editors sitting at home wondering why they should be doing all the work for free while others are taking advantage of their volunteer work. Something has to give. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Atsme - I don't understand, or maybe I do understand and think that it is a poorly thought out idea that can't work. Are you proposing to create sub-encyclopedias, with one for businesses? Would paid editing be allowed there? Based on the comment below by Kudpung, I will be taking this to your talk page, but I really don't understand. I certainly don't see what cause they have to "object" to a threat to their illegal livelihood, but I don't see how this answers anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to the recent insults from Beyond My Ken (known for his inapropriate behaviour) , I am withdrawing from all comments and further work to combat paid editing. I will concentrate my efforts on seeing ACTRIAL through and then I will retire definitively from this madhouse. I have better things to do here at home. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(1) I did not intend to insult you, and I don't believe I did. (2) Please stop pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

FIRST Global

Hi, you marked my contribution on FIRST Global for speedy deletion. I answered back on the talk page - could you explain if it is still unsatisfactory, and what specifically in good faith must be done to fix it? You suggested I was paid to write the article - which is not at all the truth - I'm just an alumni of the competition who, like for FIRST Robotics Competition, FIRST Tech Challenge and other FIRST programs by Dean Kamen, wanted to create a wikipedia page so that more people are aware of its existence. Korfan12 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

This is your lucky day, Korfan12. It's the first time in 10 years and almost 10,000 pages I've deleted as an admin that I've let myself by convinced by a contested CSD ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello K. I saw your report here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gramjames/Archive and thought you should be aware of the edits by this new account Grahamdalby123 (talk · contribs). There may not be anything to do but as you are aware of the previous situation I wanted to alert you to this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, MarnetteD. Blocked as another sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 00:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi,

I AM a native of Bucharest, THAT is Romania (formerly known as DACIA). I AM a working bank employee with over 20 years experience in the financial system (banking but not only banking). I AM seeking wisdom and an answer to all the questions! How can I get admin rights on Wikipedia? Dragos vik (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC) αβ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos vik (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Welcome to Wikipedia, Dragos. I'll answer for Kudpung. Admin rights are granted to people who have been constructive editors here for a long time and demonstrated a broad understanding of Wikipedia policies. Generally an administrator is expected to have been actively editing for at least a year and to have many thousands of constructive edits. Kudpung himself has written an essay, Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, with more detail. Someone like yourself - a brand new editor with only a few edits - is not ready to think about becoming an administrator. Do good editing here, starting in areas that interest you, and maybe someday you can think about it. --MelanieN (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

P.S. And you should NOT make edits like this. That kind of thing is vandalism. Please make only edits that are helpful and improve the article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Melanie! I appologize if I made a mistake. I am still learning about Wikipedia and the principles that it follows. Can you pls help me to learn more quickly? For example, what does it mean EDITING? What can I edit as a low-level user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragos vik (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dragos vik: I've left some helpful information and links on your talk page. I highly recommend you read through them for advice. Regards, GAB^gab 21:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks GAB, I appreciate it! Dragos vik (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible Paid Editing Controversy

Is anyone following this controversy about a possible paid editor? WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#International_Project_Management_Association. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

We are contesting deletion on rapper/producer Don P. We left out promotional material to comply with Wiki standards, we'd be happy to submit more information on said artist. The article was fine until we post a different article that did not meet Wikipedia standards. Thank you for your time. - Admin@TheSouthBeachTimes.com

Mogul Media

'We' has just been blocked for block evasion. The draft has been tagged G5, and it's still as non notable as the salted article it tries to replace. (FYI Materialscientist). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Faux Pas (band)

Hi

I was asked to explain why the article shouldn't be deleted (I think - I'm new to Wikipedia). Might I suggest that upon proposing deletion (and deleting), that you give some explicit reasons for doing so, and ways to improve the article so that it won't be deleted. I'm not saying the deletion was dubious, but probably wasn't necessary either. I only want to contribute and learn in the process. Unfortunately, I don't get any smarter if I don't what I'm doing wrong.

Thanks. Iwersen (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iversen. The reasons were provided. You were given 7 days to react and you have waited a further 9 days before coming back to Wikipedia to find out what happened to the article you created. Every new user is given links and guidelines before creating articles and the onus is on them to ensure that what they create is in compliance with Wikipedia requirements. Unfortunately '..the encyclopedia anyone can edit' does not mean drive by, drop something off, and take for granted it will be kept. You can rest assured the deletion (if I did it) was necessary, and if you would like to read WP:My first article, and WP:BAND and you then believe it would sand a chance, you are welcome to ask me to undelete it and we'll take it from there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Baseball WA & SA

Hi there, I noted after following a redlink on a template that you recently deleted Baseball WA (and Baseball SA). (20:07, 5 June 2017 Kudpung (talk | contribs) deleted page Baseball WA (Expired PROD, concern was: Notability issue. Wikipedia isnt a list.)) Are you able to userfy these for me, as they are almost certainly valid topics, but maybe the article didn't appropriately reflect or cover the topic. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See user:The-Pope/Baseball WA, and user:The-Pope/Baseball SA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Appreciation

Sorry about this random comment, but I have learned 3 new useful vocabularies from one of your recent comment. Thank you! Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

? :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Peanut gallery. Alex Shih^Talk 17:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I will always appreciate your encouragement, understanding and guidance. I look forward to meeting you in real life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Cullen328, but I think that in future, you will probably be the one to whom I will be turning for understanding and guidance. Nevertheless, if you need any help finding and using your new bells and whistles, don't hesitate to ask. There are also several excellent scripts (made by others) in my vector.js page that are of particular help to adminsKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Schloss Ledenburg

Sigh. Don't you think a reader notices that the refs are in external links, without a tag? I will get to that article when I'll nominate for DYK, most often a week after creation. I try to fill one red link per day, often translated from German, and they typically come without inline citation, - today Gerhild Romberger, go tag (the one inline citation that was there didn't suppport the fact until I changed it) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

I am very sorry if I am making any disruptive vandalism. I don't see myself vandalizing. I just like to edit articles so it could give them facts and knowledge. Please don't make me feel like a vandal even though I am not. Tallahassle (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

NPP additional software/tool-set...

Hi, Kudpung,

• Would you mind adding my name to User:Timotheus Canens/Kissle/permissions?Quite interested to engage with NPP in a different work-flow!TC is only sporadically active on en.wiki and the last few requests date years back but still have no responses!
• Further, I have decided to remove User:Martinp23/NPWatcher from as a historical software.See the notice at User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage.
• Lastly, does this script work for you? It failed in my case!

Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 10:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added your name. Be extremely careful with this because it is out of date and has not been maintained for 4 years and may not be compatible with the current version of MediaWiki. Nobody is currently using it. You are entirely responsible for what you do with it and if things go wrong you could be sanctioned.

NPWatcher is totally dead.

I don't know what the VoA script does and I can't find a description of it. Probably also a deprecated script.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I will be using Kissle on a per-article tag-and-check basis.But even I'm doubtful if it will work!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, you got it correct!(Assuming the password to be entered is my account-password and not something dispatched by TS), the software is dead.It does not proceed beyond the login screen and returns a 403(Access Forbidden) error.Winged Blades ^Godric 11:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Also, can you kindly add my name to this page?And, do you know of any way to check the last date a particular script was used on en.wiki? Gen. a script-edit suffixes a link to it's page in the edit summary.This could be useful but I couldn't find any tool to sift through all contributions on en.wiki possessing a particular edit-summary!Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please ask KingPin directly. Nobody has used that either for over 3 years. I think you would get more satisfaction by examining new ideas and new developments and helping with beta testing when the time comes, rather than experimenting with scripts that are out of date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah! I too have little interest in using dated software and tools/scripts---esp. in lieu of new software! I just wished to evaluate whether they were in working condition failing which I would have removed them from the NPP guide.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Godric, you might want to subscribe to the Phabractor tasks at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements that are listed as tracked. Commenting on T167475 both on-wiki and in phab in support would be particularly appreciated (yes, I'm boldly canvassing per IAR since this is the one easy to do feature that virtually everyone wants and that is already incorporated into other MediaWiki software features.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:-- Done.Winged Blades ^Godric 16:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology Cookie

I am very sorry for giving out barnstars too much. And I am very sorry for any other upcoming action that I might accidentally cause. Tallahassle (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Jhoven Sulla (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)This Tireless Contributor Barnstar i give to you, thanks to add the sources that iv'e done Jhoven Sulla (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Emoji Movie

I understand why you protected the page, but you removed many important sections that shouldn't have been removed. Can you please revert back to Adamtb24's last edit on that page? --RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed. There are just too many reverted. In fact I've now also full protected it. I've discovered a lot of the vandalism is coming from proxies. All this vandalism occured within 48 hours of the last long pp expiring. For the moment, at least until I've finished blocking all the IPs, you'll have to be patient. I'll then revert to semi-protected. After I have done that, I'll block anyone for disruption who makes a restore of a previous version. and then you can restore any edits one-by-one (there are not many). Thanks for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Emoji Movie

Please add the information regarding the critical reception and box office info on the Emoji Movie. This is important detail as it is seen on other movies. Why remove it anyway? They've been sourced. Add the sources. It is helpful. -- Adamtb24 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

See the thread above. Sorry Adamtb24, there are just too many reverts. In fact I've now also full protected it. I've discovered a lot of the vandalism is coming from proxies. All this vandalism occured within 48 hours of the last long pp expiring. For the moment, at least until I've finished blocking all the IPs, you'll have to be patient. I'll then revert to semi-protected. After I have done that, I'll block anyone for disruption who makes a restore of a previous version. and then you can restore any edits one-by-one (there are not many). Thanks for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Emoji Movie reception

When you protected the Emoji Movie page, you deleted the Reception section, which was written just fine and properly sourced. Could you add that back? Gameman18 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

See the thread above. Sorry Gameman18, there are just too many reverts. A lot of the vandalism is coming from proxies. All this vandalism occurred within 48 hours of the last long pp expiring. The page has now been placed under a lower level of editing restriction. Please see the talk page for details. I'll block anyone for disruption who makes a restore of a previous version(there are not many good edits). Thanks for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

A new proposal to give the community desysopping powers

Hi Kudpung. I know you have a vested interest in RfA related matters as well as community desysop procedures. So I would like to invite you to co-propose a new proposal that I have brewing in my head. It's probably easier to discuss this via email. I will be building the RfC at User:Cyberpower678/Community Desysopping Procedures Workshop. I welcome your participation.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Tag

FYI the master was not the one named on the SPI (confirmed by two CUs). You might want to delete the tag on that user page you blocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Which one? Can't remember. This is a mess and there's going to be some unavoidable collateral damage. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

here. The named master doesn't match the socks and the SPI hasn't been moved yet because the clerks need to figure out what title it needs to go under. Now I'm actually off to bed. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting things...

Recently Basalisk reverted my G5ing James Bradby.Now, his concerns if correct, probably means that all your deletions at WP:COIN#Four new sock farms don't stand.(And we have to proceed with all the articles through AfD/Prod since the whole farm was banned today.)I think I'm definitely somewhere wrong in my understanding of the policies but could not pick it out!Any opinion??Winged Blades ^Godric 15:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Bbb23, TonyBallioni, and GeneralizationsAreBad:.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Basilisk's decline of the g5 and their edit summary were both absolutely correct. The timing is not amenable to a g5.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23:So now that, Basilik's de-CSDing stands, supposedly an account Mr.X claims at WP:UNDELETE that the afore-mentioned deletions failed the rigor of policies and seeked a refund to mainspace.What do we do?Winged Blades ^Godric 15:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You didn't provide a direct link within UNDELETE, so I don't know which articles we're talking about. In any event, if Kudpung incorrectly g5ed some articles, he should restore them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Bbb23. When working on massive sock farms like these that concern blatant misuse of our policies, a certain amount of flexibility is required, otherwise we can all shut up shop and go home. IAR means Wikilayering is inappropriate. Why hasn't Tomwsulcer been blocked yet? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that we should apply IAR to g5. Tomwsulcer is, as I found,  Unrelated. He should not be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bbb23:--What does  Unrelated mean? Are you confirmed there's no behavioral overlap? Or it's just on the technical fine-tunes?Winged Blades ^Godric 15:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It means that Bbb23 is confident from technical details that I made a mistake when I named the case after that user. I was wrong. As I stated at the COIN board and at WT:NPR when letting people know to watch out for similar creations: the named user was not connected based on CU details. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course; strictly that only means that you associated the wrong sockmaster. I suppose it doesn't actually mean that X is not a sock. — fortunavelut luna 16:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Bbb23 found ~20 socks confirmed to one another as a part of "group one". These socks do have significant overlap on some articles with similar accounts that are stale. Kudpung yesterday did observe a connection to an old account with over 300 article creations. These creations followed a similar style to some of the socks from yesterday. When I compared it to a random sampling of the confirmed socks there were 42 pages that the user was the first to edit on. This doesn't mean that we should G5 all of those article: but it does mean that we should likely review them for notability and COI. I don't know the technical details here, but I have been told by two CUs (Bbb23 and Katie) that this was a very complicated case. I trust them to do their job, but also recognizing that there is a strong possibility that there are a significant number of stale accounts out there. We should go through the sock contributions, check them. See if there are any issues, and deal with them accordingly. Being methodical in checking through this is important. No rushes to judgement, while recognizing that some of these accounts have been around for a long time. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that they might be stale is precisely the reason why qucking must be taken into account. Why should we believe that paid socking is a new phenonenon? We already know that some users had a long term agenda before they were finally discovered. Getting a VPN is also cheap and easy. And now I've also been on this for 17 hours, it's nearly midnight (again), and I'm going to bed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fry that spam!

@TonyBallioni:--I dare say, despite your like for methodism, you messed it in this edit!I would be happy to see it vanish but things are bleak for sure...I don't know why I started this goddamn thread!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This case is a major headache, and I haven't even begun evaluating much of it. I'll try to bring in another clerk or two. GAB^gab 16:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is disagreement amongst administrators as to how G5 applies to cases like this: some, like DGG, Kudpung, and Doc James view it as applying since we can be reasonably confident that there was an initial blocked account. Others prefer to know the initial blocked account's name and date before doing so. I tagged to get more eyes on it. If someone declines, I don't mind prodding it as a TOU violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup with these massive families of sock puppets the chance of there not being a prior blocked sock is around zero. Thus I am happy to see G5 applied in these cases and do deleted articles with this as a basis myself. At this point we need to decide do we want to be an independent encyclopedia. I am on the side of yes :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable applying G5 in this case. The criteria for speedy deletion are deliberately defined very narrowly by the community, and by the letter of the law G5 should not apply here. I don't think "there is probably another blocked sock out there somewhere" is a strong justification for bending the CSD rules and deleting articles simply because we think the editor is paid. That is a misapplication of the policy. I don't feel particularly strongly about it and wouldn't call another admin out for doing it, but sometimes I think we run the risk of cutting off the nose to spite the face. G5 is supposed to be a tool that deters editors from evading blocks, not being paid for editing. If we apply it broadly like this we risk deleting perfectly good articles simply because we don't like how they came into being. That's not building an encyclopaedia, that's enforcing a moot legal system. If we are really ignoring all rules, I think a lot of the time in cases like this the best thing for the project is to retain the articles. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

David Watson

Thanks for the review, I removed wordpress supported exhibition and found an alternative reference (newspaper) to support another exhibition.

CootMoorCootMoor (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Theodora Lee

Had to decline the A7 as there are two news pieces here and here, but I can't rescue an article whose top news hits are to tabloids. I'll have a quick look for anything else, and if I find nothing, I'll AfD it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

That's OK Ritchie. I was not comfortable with tagging that article and a dozen others like it that all arrived within a few minutes of each oher, and lo and behold, I discovered that an editathon was taking place in South Africa. I don't know who organised it. I've left a message on Peter Gallert's talk page because if anyone knows, he's probably the bet bet. I know Peter personally. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's here, Ritchie : See [8] where it was launched on television. Unfortunately a lot of the pages can't be used. Which is a shame. Do you have any contacts in the SA chapter? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Kudpung, I saw your message to TonyBallioni and managed to figure out that you had deleted Bruce Flatt. I found a copy of the article in Google's cache. Here are three of the references that were used: a long bio in the New York Times, a long bio in the Globe and Mail, and a piece on CNBC that calls him "the Warren Buffett of Canada". Why on earth would you delete an article on someone who obviously passes the notability guideline just because the article was created by a sockpuppet? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)