User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2013

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

Question (2)[edit]

Hi Kudpung. Can I ask whether I should put on my User:Jianhui67/CVUA/Tasks Rollback section asking the students to request rollback on WP:PERM/R? I would need them to request rollback right so that I can let them practise rollback and later there is another Tools section below the Rollback section. STiki and Huggle requires the rollback right. I remembered you said 'one gets rollback rights after one have successfully completed the course' in the past. So I am asking your opinion here. And by the way, there are a lot of requests at PERM waiting for you tor review. Jianhui67 Talk 08:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Such requests would probably be declined - we don't accord rights for practice purposes. Users must already demonstrate that they are ready for user rights for such tools, and generally by having done a large number of correct manual reverts. The usual criterion for Rollback is that students have at least 200 edits before they can even enroll at the WP:CVUA.
I may appear to be a very busy admin at times at PERM, but there are other admins that work there too. At the moment I'm rather strapped for time to do all but the easy ones. You could perhaps give admin Beeblebrox a nudge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
They had some experience in CVUA course up to the progress test already when they reach the rollback section. Please see my tasks page again. If there is no rollback right, I can't do anything planned there in Tools section. I had put on my page 'Rollback is not an award or status. Misuse of rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator' in Italics and Bold. This is to strongly remind them about rollback. Or perhaps I should talk to them separately on rollback? That's why I'm asking for advice on Rollback section of my tasks page. Jianhui67 Talk 11:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Your CVUA syllabus is certainly impressive and well thought out. However, by the time they reach the rollback section, they should have already completed the course and be fully fledged for the use of the tool, and there would be no need to continue the course. I would say that if they have done 200 edits before they enroll, and sail through all the other sections and have done a couple of hundred manual reverts or with twinkle, without any problems, then they should apply for rollback on your recommendation and see if it's granted, then you would be having nothing more to do ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
That seems like a good idea. But I would want to monitor their use of rollback and tools for a while (see Monitoring Period section) before their final exam. When they pass the final exam with a score of 75%, that will mean the student have successfully completed the course. If they fail the final exam, I have even set up another section for areas of improvement and also a 2nd final exam. Jianhui67 Talk 12:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
What you are doing is excellent and I don't want to dent your enthusiasm at all, but having tools 'on probation' is not done. I'm going to ask Theopolisme to weigh in here, because although he's not an admin he had a lot of experience with the CVU and CVUA a while back and his opinions and advice are worth hearing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. And by the way, the link you posted on Theopolisme's talk page links to another 'Question' section above. Jianhui67 Talk 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I have changed the link on both here and Theopolisme's talk page. You don't need to fix anymore. Jianhui67 Talk 13:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no reply from Theopolisme. Jianhui67 Talk 03:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I've sent him a reminder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi guys, sorry for my delay in responding here. Rollback is really a fairly meaningless tool to be completely honest, and its only value comes from access to STiki and Huggle. With that said, these tools (as I'm sure you're aware) obfuscate the counter-vandalism process a good deal (reducing users to button-clicking monkeys, in essence...ClueBots). Before being granted access to STiki or Huggle, users should demonstrate their understanding of the pseudo-manual anti-vandalism process (it's still quite automated given Twinkle or even the undo button...and to think, people used to have to manually edit articles and use their delete keys to remove vandalism... ;) ). Like Kudpung said, "by the time they reach the rollback section, they should have already completed the course and be fully fledged for the use of the tool." Theopolisme (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Newman[edit]

Thanks for tagging it instead of proposing a deletion (other editors might do the opposite). The thing is, is that so far I only found that source. Others were no reliable, such as Facebook and Tweeter accounts (and who knows, maybe its not that Mark Newman), or there was his gallery with no bio what so ever. There was a site with his works being for sale, but I don't want to breach our no ads policy. I hope a careful editor like yourself will be generous enough to help me find a better source. One positive thing; He is notable!--Mishae (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked already for more sources before tagging, but as you say, I was careful enough not to tag for deletion. The policy expressly states that lack of sources is not necessarily an indication of non-notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello Kudpung, I want to talk to you about Deauxma's article, which you just closed the AfD for, deleted, and salted. I'm not here to argue about the article's deletion. Even though I don't agree with it, I have no choice but to admit that the consensus clearly demonstrated that the article should be deleted. My question is, why did you salt the article again? The consensus in the DRV was clearly to unsalt the article, and no one in the AfD, not a single one of the participants, not even the "Delete" voters, said anything about salting the article again. I don't plan on recreating the article again unless new and significant information were to come out, proving that the subject is notable beyond a reasonable doubt. So, would you please unsalt the article? Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rebecca. Please see my closing rationale. If an article has been recreated or been deleted following several AfD I will generally salt them irrespective of whetherv this was requested by the participants. If you or anyone wishes to recreate the article, they are welcome to follow the procedure described in the creation instructions for that article. My decision to close an AfD is based solely on the AfD without prejudice to any DRV which I do not read or take into account. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You said "Taking into account the attempts to recreate this article under sligtly different orthography, it will also be salted." At deletion review the administrator said "This means that I'm moving the draft article at User:Rebecca1990/sandbox to mainspace and nominating that for deletion". So an administrator recreated the article, and then sent it to AFD, to redo the previous deletion discussion from years past. So your reason given for salting it is invalid. Dream Focus 10:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deauxmae. Please note again that I was only interested in evaluating the consensus at the AfD and preventing any other recreations without admin sanction. Anyone is free to recreate the article in their user space or through a submission at AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Please be considerate. I have spent several hours every day for the past three weeks creating and editing that article and participating in the discussions. I wouldn't have wasted my time like that if I wasn't so sure I had a convincing argument about keeping the article. I lost that battle and I have no choice but to accept that, but at least let me walk away with something. You do not have the slightest idea how stressful those two discussions have been for me. Please review the DRV if you haven't yet and consider unsalting the article. It has been over six years and it is unreasonable for the article to remain salted. It makes sense to salt an article on a non-notable subject if it has been recreated multiple times, but WP articles are usually given more chances before being salted. For example: Abbey Brooks (salted after 6 deletions), Kacey Jordan (salted after 8 deletions), and Sara Jay and Bridgette B (both salted after 9 deletions). And I also found something interesting. Cody Lane, an article that has been deleted 10 times, is not salted, even though consensus in a deletion discussion determined that it should be. So, why is Deauxma's article salted after only 5 deletions and in defiance of the community's decision in a DRV? Rebecca1990 (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
In defiance of what? The DRV simply found no consensus to keep the article deleted right then & there, thus referring it to the community to decide at AfD. There, we decided to delete. File another DRV if you wish, but it's becoming a bit of a dead horse. Tarc (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#DRV treatment of porn-related content. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, this popped up at RfPP. GedUK  11:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Ged. I'll just add the permalink to RFPP here for my talk page archive in case I need it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[edit]

This is an IP address from a public school setting, you may want to block it from editing without an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, but blocking for persistent, long term vandalism might be a good idea. Seems like the kind of edits bored children do to randomly selected articles. All this kind of thing does is make more work for genuine editors who have to clean up the mess; it's what we have to put up with by being generous enough to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Perhaps if the kids were to make some constructive edits they would have something to be proud of. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


I've been thinking about what you posted on my talk page a while ago:

[...] So you could start by familiarising yourself with policies such as WP:Deletion, WP:COI, WP:Sock, WP:Username, WP:Notability, WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verifiability, etc. When you've done all that, you'd be ready to take part in WP:AfD, WP:NPP,WP:AIV, WP:ANI, depending how quickly you can get the pages to load. You'll also come across some familiar faces, and you'll learn who to make friends with and who to avoid!

So, I was thinking about getting involved in WP:COI, WP:Username and WP:Reliable sources -mostly WP:COI. I do have to ask, can you guide me a little bit? I don't know where to start. Thanks, cheers! Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

After thinking about this for a while, probably the best way to start would be doing some patrolling of new pages. This would expose you to most of the issues we have to contend with. Read up everything at WP:NPP (it's a project I've been looking after for years), then read WP:Page Curation, then read WP:Deletion, and then start doing some patrolling - it's an area where we desperately need help. One you have done a few hundred patrols and successfully tagged plenty of articles for CSD, AfD, and PROD, you may like to move on to help out at WP:AfC but I would leave that for later. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! I will start reading them at lunch :) Need to finish to work on an article :D Thanks again. Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 11:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Admin Stats[edit]

Folded to make room, but not closed

Hello, Kudpung,
I was just looking at Comparison of RfA on other Wikipedias that you worked on (the data was from 2011). I thought it was stunning that less than 50% of Admins on are active when the percentage is closer to 100% on other wikis.
I understand that there has been a change to desysop Admins that have been inactive for longer than a year. But I was wondering if any newer data was available that could be used as a comparison to see if this has changed the % of active Admins. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there are any other data, and I wouldn't know how it would be possible to provide any that would be of any use. What we have to bear in mind is that the en.Wiki is very old compared to other Wikipedias and it is unlikely that that editors and admins will continue editing for life. It might be interesting to see how many registered accounts have continued editing for more than, say, 7 years (but there are about 14 million registered account!). Our criterion for 'active admins' is [administrators] who have made 30 or more edits in the last 2 months; note that this is any edit, not just logable admin actions; IMO a far more realistic picture would be provided by showing admin who have made 30 logged admin actions in the past 3 months. That said, there are also plenty of tasks that are recommended to be done only by admins, such as, for example, closures of debates, AfD, and participation at AN and ANI that are not logged as admin actions. See more at Wikipedia:List of administrators. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you. But for the purpose of removing inactive Admins from the list of Admins, I think the period they look at is at least a year of inactivity before they desysop (and they send out plenty of advance warnings). I read on someone's page that a surprising number of Admins aren't active on Wikipedia 6 weeks after they become Admins but I don't know what time period that was based could be Admins were easier to get in the early years (2003-2006) and it wasn't uncommon to quit editing after getting "the bit".
I think it would be quite interesting to get some stats on the longest active Editors, look at their pattern of usage, find out why they still edit. I've noticed with some Editors, there will be a period of activity (say, 2007-2009), then no activity (2009-2012) and then a return to activity (2012- ). I assume it has to do with events occurring in Editors off-line life (job changes, new babies, moves, etc.).
There was a series of Editor surveys that were done in 2011 by WMF but they seem to have been discontinued. I posted a message asking if there was updated data but I haven't checked back to see if they have replied. I'm not too optimistic though. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Just as an example, I'm an extremely active editor and admin (in terms of time spent working on Wikipedia issues rather than reflected in my edit count or admin logs) and having led a couple of major campaigns in the past 2 or 3 years, such as (but not only) RfA and NPP reform I'm pretty well personally up to date on developments, thus I do not think that much has changed anywhere on anything much since the stats reflected by 2011 extrapolations; in any case, the Foundation does not generally continue to update stats gleaned from one-off research initiatives, and WP:RFA2011 has done its job in identifying the issues and voting patterns. It takes a long time for stats to become conclusive. For example, some editors claim that the problem with RfA has bottomed out and is on the road to recovery, but I think the number of recent successful nominations is still far to low to really demonstrate such a trend. It's interesting to see how nominations have serious nosedived over the past 4 years - see User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month.
The problem with RfA is, and always has been, the behaviour of the voters and because the majority of them are a transient pool of editors it is not easy to get them potty trained. The number of established users who regularly participate at RfA is quite low and even this core of regular editors changes almost 100% over a time cycle of about 2 years. There are hardly any of the old regulars still taking part there since I started voting on every RfA about 3 or 4 years ago. There are two things that would change the reputation of the RfA process to attract more candidates of the right calibre: A more substantial group of regular voters who know what they are doing, and behavioural control for those who don't. You may find these essays I wrote interesting: Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates (now a major resource), and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm familiar with those two articles as I did some extra reading today. Great pieces! Those RfA by month stats are really terrible, I had no idea that the success rate of RfA candidates was so low in comparison to, say, 2007. I have looked at some old RfAs (mid-2000s) and was pretty shocked to see people becoming Admins who had been editing 2 or 3 months and had less than 2,000 edits. Standards have changed phenomenally. I looked at your Advice for RfA candidates and even though I'm pretty active, it's because I have some free time right now. I can imagine editing for 2 or 3 years and not meeting your standards.
So, I haven't been active very long but the bad RfA situation seems like a combination of a) standards higher than almost anyone but long-time Editors can meet (and many current Admins couldn't meet, ever) and b) the caustic RfA process where voters, for some unknown reason, just can't Oppose a RfA candidate, they feel compelled to detail how that Editor has failed to meet their criteria. And regarding the latter, sometimes people will oppose a candidate based on one action they took, one article that they judge inferior, one comment made at AN/I, one 36 hour block that happened when they were a newbie, one hasty tagging of CSD.
RfA candidates are now expected to be insanely well-rounded, not only aware of all policies but have created great articles and brought them to GA/FA standards, have lots of DYKs, spend significant time on new page patrol, fighting vandalism, working in AfD, reviewing new articles in AfC. It's nuts! What if one, sound, well-grounded, intelligent, experienced Editor wants to focus on vandalism efforts. Why expect them to have created GA-level articles?
I get that it's difficult to desysop an Admin so people are gun-shy about approving candidates that are less than ideal. But the fact is there aren't enough active Admins, the standards are too high and the process of going through an RfA can be an ordeal. Why would anyone want to go through an RfA? I have no idea. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Have you taken a look at my RfA? Would you or anyone like to go through that where even admins lied through their back teeth and were uncivil to an extent that would have got them blocked anywhere else? My RfA was one of the worst examples in recent history - there have only been four of five others that were so mean. Fortunately, I passed and with flying colours. That said, I began my campaign to improve RfA long before I ever dreamed of being an admin. However, to answer some of your other points: the standards are higher now than they used to be because Wikipedia is much bigger. Take an analogy like as more people buy cars, more traffic uses the road, and hence the speed limits and other new controls have to introduced. There is no actual proof that speed kills (the German autobahns have no speed limit), whereas some countries have extremely low speed limits even on long, safe, empty roads. There are far more younger users attracted to Wikipedia these days too (and as cars get cheaper, a lot more very young drivers on the reads!) , and although no stats can prove it, empirical experience will probably demonstrate that before WP:Advice for RfA candidates was written, and I put a big warning banner up on the RfA transclusion page, the majority of failed candidates were younger users who were possibly just looking for prestige. The bottom line is that although we are now very low on candidates to replace attrition, we're still coping - at least in all the important areas. You are right in way that there is a faction of users who oppose because because they are worried that it is too difficult to desyop rogue admins. You will also find this current thread very interesting: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 145#Fixing broken 2013 RfA process but this is nothing compared to the billions of bytes of discussion at WT:RfA where you might wish to delve into the archives; you'll see that everything that can be discussed has already been discussed many, many times over. New discussions are generally started by relative newcomers who are not aware of the history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Stalking an interesting convo. With regard to measuring Admin activity, a once a year bot could be utilised. "Do you consider yourself at the moment an active member of the community?" this would allow a far easier measurement of who is actually active, or who percieves themselves to be, even if their activity does not reflect it. RfA is become increasingly Orwellian. I have participated in a few. Terrifying. I would suggest an application form type initial application. This could be on measurable behaviours and skills. There could be 3 admins reviews apps on a rotating basis. Those who pass, the community pressure of the RfA would be much diminished. The admins who checked the application have final say, although community input would still be a factor. This would stop the wild torch bearing witch hunts that so often seem to be the case. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I know I use the expression anti-admin brigade a lot which gets me accused of PA against an 'identifiable group' of editors, but the irony is that the identification is only by those whom the cap fits and have to wear it. It would be easy to compile a list but they are not really a cabal. They are made up of people who have failed an RfA or who have been justifiably blocked or criticised for inappropriate behaviour. They are the ones who regard all admins as a pool of power-hungry persecutors and they tar all admins with the same brush. We want to avoid witch hunts - which are never successful anyway; if there is a badmin on the prowl they will get caught out sooner or later. There have been some recent desysops where I said the writing was on the wall a long time ago. I just kept quiet, bided my time, and stayed out of it because I knew it would happen sooner or later.
We only have a borderline number of admins now to do all the admin tasks and what we want to do is avoid introducing any measures that would unnecessarily reduce them even more - new successful promotions are not replacing the attrition. Systematic admin review or re-sysoping when not called for is a bad idea. We have to bear in mind that all active admins(or at least the 30 or so front-line admins) are going to accumulate enemies simply in the course of their work and doing their job correctly and conscientiously. I'm one of those front-liners working without a kevlar vest, and although I believe I've never put a foot wrong, I doubt whether they would let me get past a re-admin RfA - such a process would be blighted with the same issues as the current RfA system. I've sometimes thought I would put it to the test and run for Bureaucrat and see what happens. In my opinion, we need to keep the criteria for adminship as high as they are, but come down harder and faster on those admins who can't behave - but of course, without witch hunts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
No, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, I don't believe I've read through your RfA so I'll take your word for it that it was brutal. An additional problem, along with the anti-admin brigade, is that I'm pretty sure that most of the discussion buried in those RfA archives is Admins talking about Adminship. I'm curious to know the opinion of regular Editors on why they would or would not participate in an RfA.
I've done some study of the Sociology of Professions and there is a tendency for those with status to maintain a high barrier to entry to the group. By making it difficult to become an Admin, by having an RfA be a "trial by fire" and lesson in humility, it's kind of a hazing that can be used to weed out Editors who are judged to be not good enough to join the club. So, lying, exaggerating faults or bad decisions, canvassing to get inactive Editors to cast votes (pro or con), using persuasion to coax friends to vote one way or another, these are not a surprise, especially on a site like Wikipedia where anyone can register an account, create an anonymous username and there are no requirements to vote. And I imagine that there are a handful of very influential Admins who other Admins and Editors will side with, simply because they trust that person's opinion.
What does this have to do with my first point? Well, it takes a special kind of Admin to actually propose that the standards on becoming an Admin should be relaxed and it be made easier for Editors to qualify and pass a RfA. It will only be Admins who see the big picture, who see how much of a load a small group of Admins are carrying, who look towards the future of Wikipedia and how it functions and are aware of the backlog of work in some areas. Admins, and I think a large portion of people who vote in RfA are Admins, have a natural inclination to make the process a pain in the ass. And unless a) there are a few influential Admins who become far-sighted and look towards next year and five years beyond or b) there is much more participation of Editors in the RfA voting, nothing is going to change. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Actually Liz you're wrong on a couple of assumptions ;) At WT:RfA everyone talks about admins and adminship and probably non-admins are in the majority of participants on that talk page. Secondly, if you are using pop-ups, if you move you mouse over the user signatures, you will see who are admins there and also on RfAs. At RfA admnis are certainly not in the majority of voters and you'll find that their votes are generally the cleanest and most objective. What happened on my RfA was an exception. The admin is now desysoped for something else but I saw it coming for years - in fact his bullying me (and that is why I have never contributed again to one of the topics I have most to offer Wikipedia on) was the very reason I got interested in what adminship is all about and lo and behold, it turns out that he was also a pre-2007 admin from the days when RfA was very lax.

That admins collaborate to exclude new candidates is a complete myth put around by the anti-admin brigade. In fact quite to the contrary, several of us are very active in our search for users of the right calibre whom we can nominate. The very reason why WP:RFA2011 finally dies out after its monumental efforts was due the the incivility, PA, and heckling from the sidelines by who? - the anti-admin brigade of course - ironically they actually killed off the very initiative that would have answered what they are demanding, they continue to stifle every new idea for RfA reform. Some of them have since been topic banned from RfA stuff or even completely blocked and banned from Wikipedia and these are Arbcom decisions, not admin. As a very active admin and as a very active user who also goes to meet up and Wikimania conferences, I can assure you that there's no such thing as admin cabals. Naturally we discuss things off-Wiki by email and Skype, but it's always extremely positive and with the best intentions for Wikipedia. I've checked out your editing history and I see no immediate reason why you should not be able to make a successful RfA in the not too distant future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, first, I don't know what the pop-ups are so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. Are they somewhere in Preferences.
Second, I was drawing from my study of leadership and hierarchy in organizations, especially the professions. I grant that you have many years of experience on Wikipedia and my assumptions might be inaccurate. In the theory vs. practice debate, practice usually wins out because that reflects people's lived experience.
I never said that Admins collaborate in an organized way. But people who edit Wikipedia daily, especially those who participate on article Talk Pages and Noticeboards, run into each other a lot. It's not a cabal, it's just informal connection, collegiality and familiarity. Shared experience creates feelings of community (and the positive and negative feelings that are part of that). I'm sure that after this exchange, you might take note of how I vote on a future RfA that you probably wouldn't have done if we hadn't had a conversation.
Thanks for the compliment in thinking I could have a successful RfA but I don't see myself doing a lot of article creation (of substantial articles) and that seems to be pretty much a requirement for many who vote. And the only Admin role I can see myself doing is closing discussions and helping groups come to consensus. But I appreciate your confidence in me, it's appreciated. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups - probably one of the most useful tools for anyone doing admin or meta work, or if you use your watchlist as your central motor. If you need help installing it don't hesitate to ask me.
The vast majority of the 14 million accounts are content contributors and they probably are not interested in the way the project is managed behind the scenes - until of course they get involved in some contentious issue or disagreement or have to ask for advice on something somewhere. Let's face it, we all have kids (or even grandchildren) in school but how many of the parents are actually interested in the way the school is run? (I speak from experience from many years as a teacher) If all the parents were to arrive at a PTA meeting there wouldn't be a room in the school big enough to accommodate them all (it's possible however that USA parents are more PTA active than European ones).
You're completely right of course in your theory about how users who are active come across each other a lot, but if you frequent those places you'll also see that admins also frequently disagree with each other although they don't get into each others hair about it - healthy disagreement is a good thing and leads eventually to consensus.
Article creation per se, DYK, FA, and GA are not major components of RfA criteria; what is expected is that candidates who have created articles have created clean ones that demonstrate their knowledge of article policies. Adding content or significantly improving existing articles is of course a plus - the mantra is ' users who police pages should be proficient in producing them ', if they can demonstrate that then they are well on the way to adminship if they can check most of the other boxes. BTW, more again on Jimbo's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz. About a year back I helped get a rule implemented that once admins have been inactive for three years I think then they have to be stripped of their tools and have to go through RFA again if they return. So eventually those numbers will fall if they're inactive. As for your civility rant at me on Prashant's talk page given what he'd said and done, there's little more irritating on wikipedia than somebody turning up and brandishing the civility stick over things they're not involved in and not even looking into the context. If you want harsh and uncivil look at RFA.. Calling somebody a little boy in light of his incredibly childish behaviour is about as mild as it gets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Blofeld, that sounds like a great rule although I think three years is too long to be inactive before desysoping. We're talking about Admins who haven't been active since 2010! I think by 2012 one could tell they weren't coming back.
As for Prashant's Talk Page (which has nothing to do with this discussion), I said:

That is harsh and uncivil, Dr. Blofeld. You could have said what you needed to say without the name-calling. Liz Read! Talk! 11:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

...that is a comment, an observation, not a rant. According to Wikitionary, a rant is:
  1. A criticism done by ranting. (Noun)
  2. A wild, incoherent, emotional articulation. (Noun)
  3. To speak or shout at length in an uncontrollable anger. (Verb)
  4. To criticize by ranting. (Verb)
My comment was not wild, incoherent (I hope you were able to understand it) or emotional, I didn't shout or speak at length and I wasn't angry, much less uncontrollably angry. It was a criticism but it was not "done by ranting" (I actually thought it was pretty gentle). So, I think you are pretty off-base with that characterization.
As for turning up and participating in a discussion "they're not involved in", well, I think that is what you are doing in your comment above on this Talk Page, but no one is chastising you for jumping in.
Apologies to Kudpung for this tangent on his Talk Page. I had enjoyed our conversation about the RfA process, where we agreed and where we disagreed. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 16:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Black Flag[edit]

Hi, that’s ok, I only change the release date as email me saying that my PS4 copy of Black Flag would be delivered on the 22rd, plus it’s on Ubisofts own website, plus Eurogramer, IGN and CVG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Black Flag PS4[edit]

Folded to make room, but not closed

Hi why did you keep deleting my edits about the UK release date, if you go to the uk ubisoft site it tells you the release dates, and I'm right I not doing it to cause trouble. Thanks MP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I can see I've never edited or deleted anything you have worked on. Please provide diffs and I'll look into it. Please also sign your messages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is the relevant dispute.
case study of a minor conflict over when a videogame would be released for a particular hardware platform in a particular market region
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(cur | prev) 08:04, 4 October 2013‎ BG19bot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (25,744 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (WP:CHECKWIKI error fix for #61. Punctuation goes before References. Do general fixes if a problem exists. - using AWB (9506)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:41, 4 October 2013‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,743 bytes) (+619)‎ . . (reason for pc delay, updated ps4 europe date) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:32, 3 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (25,124 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Cleaned up this citation here.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:18, 3 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (25,120 bytes) (+243)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:18, 3 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (25,120 bytes) (+243)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:03, 3 October 2013‎ Besieged (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (24,877 bytes) (-26)‎ . . (Reverted edits by (talk) to last revision by Besieged (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 01:02, 3 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (24,903 bytes) (+26)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:50, 3 October 2013‎ Besieged (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (24,877 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (Reverted edits by (talk) to last revision by Favre1fan93 (HG)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 00:49, 3 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (24,910 bytes) (+33)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 23:28, 2 October 2013‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,877 bytes) (-407)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by (talk): Reverting vandalism. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:59, 2 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (25,284 bytes) (-202)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:57, 2 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (25,486 bytes) (+609)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 20:26, 2 October 2013‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,877 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by (talk): Amazon is not a reliable source. (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:01, 2 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (24,900 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
(cur | prev) 18:24, 1 October 2013‎ Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,877 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by (talk). (TW)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:48, 1 October 2013‎ (talk)‎ . . (24,877 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Release) (undo)
192 started editing in 2012, or maybe in 2002, depending on whether you believe the talkpage or the contribution-history. The page is question is Assassin's_Creed_IV:_Black_Flag, which is a fighting-videogame for various consoles. 192 changed the EU release-date from 29th to 22nd with no cite, revert, changed it again with a cite of, revert, changed it again with the content of the amazon page pasted in between ref-tags, revert with allegation of vandalism, changed it again to cite which is the manufacturer of the particular videogame, this time reverted by Besieged (presumably so that Favre1fan could avoid 3rr), changed again by obviously-frustrated 192 who shouts in allcaps that the reference is UBISOFT WEBSITE, revert, tried one last time citing the exact subpage of the manufacturer website with article title and date, shortly afterwards cite was cleaned up by editor with 137 uid, and at this point -- sixty hours and eight attempts by 192 later -- Favre1fan finally accepts the new release-date, and makes an edit to update some other portion of the page to reflect the new info.
     Note that after the first revert, besieged left a note on 192's talkpage, but 192 got confused, and thought Kudpung had left the note (it is unclear why exactly), which 192 responded to above. Not only is 192 confused by responding to Kudpung instead of Besieged, they were also confused in thinking that one admin kept reverting them, when in fact Favre1fan performed all reverts except one up to that point. Later, besieged performed a second revert, and put a second message on 192's talkpage, which successfully started a conversation[1] between besieged and 192, in which besieged wrote *three hundred* words (plus pasted some boilerplate) to explain to 192 about how to cite something properly. All along, at no time, was the talkpage of the article utilized. All along, from what I can tell, at no time did Favre1fan ever speak with 192, unless you count reverting with no comment, or with a one-word comment of vandalism, as talking. From a brief perusal of the talkpage, this is an article that Favre1fan considers their turf (along with Jasca and to a lesser extent Darklink). Presumably one of them called on Besieged, but I don't have evidence how.
     Analysis -- from a certain point of view, this is a happy ending. 192 improved their knowledge of how to cite sources, the article ended up with the correct (as in TrueToReality) release-date for the software in the EU, and the three admins involved in the process all devoted less than fifteen minutes of their lives combined to this particular tempest in a teapot.
     From a meta-wikipedia point of view, this is a bleepity-bleep disaster. The editor that owns the article is given new unsourced info, and reverts it with no comment. Well, that's par for the course on wikipedia, right? So I guess I cannot argue with that. Half the time, the person who made the edit disappears, but the glass is still half full: sooner or later, if it really is true, somebody will come along with the gumption to make the change stick. In this particular story, 192 had that gumption, which is what makes it an interesting case-study. We'll just skip over blow-by-blow analysis, and say that Favre1fan did a great job at being bitey. Never used the talkpage of the article. Never contacted 192 via their talkpage. No comments. Just revert revert revert-as-vandalism. (Maybe the vandalism-template is what alerted besieged to the trouble?)
     But the most damning thing, to my mind, is whether Favre1fan ever bothered googling for the *facts*. I realize wikipedia is all about consensus, not truth, but when you are getting close to 3rr, maybe some truth-seeking is a good idea. When I -- having no knowledge of the game except I heard from somebody once that it *was* a videogame -- spent two minutes doing so just now, the first three hits for (assassin creed black flag release date usa eu) were the originally scheduled ones, from back in 2013q1. The fourth hit was wikipedia, that now thanks to 192 has the correct release-dates. However, when I changed my search by adding (delay ...) as the first keyword, wikipedia was again hit#4, and one of the other top-three hits was a repeat claiming the old info, but hit#2[2] had correct info, and was citable. Reading further, however, it became clear that this info was for another platform, not the PS4 which 192 and Favre1fan were arguing about. Predicting the future is hard. As far as I can tell, this is definitely a case where the future is simply *not* being predicted by reliable sources... except ones that are regurgitating what Ubisoft the manufacturer told them, and then failing to get the message that plans have changed. 192's info is from a retailer (amazon), which got the info from the manufacturer (ubisoft), and emailed the change in plans to the customer (192). Eventually, 192 was able to find a page on the manufacturer website, specifying the new release-date for AC4BF_PS4_EU, which was considered acceptable by both Besieged and Favre1fan.
     To me, though, this is just a primary source, and proves the data-point is absolutely positively non-encyclopedic. There are *plenty* of subpages on the very same manufacturer website which claim the ship-date for AC4BL is October 29th or 31st or something else incorrect; wikipedia lists the *true* date, at the moment anyways, but only by pulling from a primary source, and using a judgement call to justify ignoring that same source's unreliability elsewhere. Centuries from now, nobody will care if AC4BF_PS4_EU was released in october, or in november, or in december... let alone what *day* it was released. Maybe future historians will use wikipedia's vast dataset on the exact day of specific videogame-version releases for specific-platform-version in specific geographic-regions as a kind of chronological sequencer, the same way modern historians use ancient eclipses. But is that outside possibility worth cluttering wikipedia with trivia? No. Here is the trivia in question, reformatted tabularly, rather than in the prose-form which WP:VG/RELDATE considers de riguer:
platform&region usa aus eu jp misc
PlayStation 3 10-29 10-31 11-1 11-28 master
Xbox 360 10-29 10-31 11-1 11-28 master
Wii U 10-29 10-31 11-22 11-28 delayed
Xbox One 11-22 11-22 11-22 11-22 launch
PlayStation 4 11-15 unk 11-22r9 unk launch
Windows PC 11-19 unk 11-22 unk delayed
'Official' policy for wikipedia is that all that detail is non-encyclopedic (aka pillar numero uno). WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTCHANGELOG, WP:VGSCOPE #8 (rumors) and #9 (exhaustive version-histories). "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics." Emphasis added. Speculation by reliable sources about whether powerful politician $foo migth run for president in two years is Notable, even if they don't... because if they did, the event itself would be notable. Speculation by the manufacturer about when they might ship a videogame for some proprietary platform in some specific market is *not* notable in the same way, at all.
     So, why *do* we have exhaustive platform-specific release-dates for future videogames? We even have WP:VG/RELDATE which flatly states release-dates "should be included" and gives details on exactly how, as well as consensus information on when a retail-store like amazon is considered reliable about the release date, and when they are considered unreliable. Favre1fan definitely knows these rules, and uses them properly in all cases, so far as I've been able to see. But what about my contention that the info itself is fundamentally non-encyclopedic in nature? Well, although it might violated encyclopedicity (if that were a word of course), the release-date section does not violate NPOV, freedom, or civility (usually -- this instance of 192 versus Favre1fan being an exception). Arguably, the fifth pillar is the saving grace of this article, and the vastly-over-detailed release-date section thereof, because rules are *never* firm if the end result is a better encyclopedia. Even the pillar-number-one violation comes with a big caveat tacked onto the end: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." Reviews of video-games, with month-by-month updates of their tabular info on release-date-by-platform-and-region, make people interested in editing wikipedia. People like 192, and prolly people like Favre1fan, if I might be presumptious -- I have merely glanced over their edit-histories, and do not know them personally in any way.
     Most of the edits from 192 concern cars, computer hardware/software, music, movies... but also geography, biography, privaty equity, insurance, nuclear power, formal logic, and so on. A nice smattering, with mistakes to be sure, but with tons of good stuff as well. Favre1fan has a much different editing profile, concentrating exclusively on media: tv, movies, videogames, music, televised sports, filmized comic books, and the like... plus various admin-level and policy-level pages related to easier maintenance of those media-pages, where Favre1fan has generated a truly massive amount of editing. Both of these users have something in common: they were initially attracted to wikipedia because of pop-subjects, but after some time, those initial interests branched out. In the case of 192, they branched out into 'more encyclopedic' topics, with small but useful edits. In the case of Favre1fan, the topic has always been media-stuff, but the scope and depth of effort has grown larger over time, and as a result significant admin-tool expertise and policy-expertise was generated. In both cases, the pop-subjects acted as a gateway drug: wikipedia tricked 192 into making useful edits on both the AC4BF videogame page, as well as on the Bayesian inference page. Simultaneously, wikipedia tricked Favre1fan into learning how to use twinkle, into proposing an article for deletion, and into the ability to use vandalism templates.
     Thus, it turns out I don't think the release-date stuff should be removed... it might be non-encyclopedic, in the sense that a decade from now, the entire table will be replaced with 'was released in 2013q4 for all major game platforms except then-nascent Steam-on-Linux'. However, it is absolutely material that belongs in wikipedia, because it helps build community. Unfortunately, the kind of community it builds is admin-deletionists like Favre1fan engaging in edit-wars with uncited-original-researchers like 192. My apologies to both of them for characterizing them this way; I'm not trying to insult them, or pick a fight, but I am trying to characterize their interaction over the AC4BF article during the first few days of October for exactly what it was. One person was not following the rules, the other person was using their ban-hammer, and both were ignoring the Civility Pillar. So the trick here is, how do we improve the way wikipedia works, so that we can keep the civility pillar functional? Everything else in this picture looks pretty good, to my eyes. The truth ended up in the article, with a not-too-unreliable cite. The editors both got what they wanted most, Favre1fan a decent citation for the change, and 192 the change itself. But it was a frustrating process for both of them. They never talked directly, that I can perceive. Probably if they run into each other again, they will hold a conscious or unconscious grudge/bias/bad-feeling/somesuch. That is, of course, Not Good... but the worst is that, except for exceptionally gumption-filled folks like 192, sixty hours of reverts would be enough to kill their career as an editor. Bitey? More like, off with their head.
     My other big question is, why did the three registered uid folks never perform an edit which improved the article? Favre1fan made one, at the very end, after the 60-hour battle, once the factoid was confirmed. Kudpung edited a talkpage paragraph, and asked for a link, but never sought out the problem-area. Besieged edited a couple talkpage paragraphs, including a mini-article on how to cite sources, specifically tailored to the 192-versus-Favre1fan situation, but never edited the actual article. I realize that wikipedia does not force any of those editors to engage in work they don't particularly like, such as researching conversations they are not involved in personally, researching factoids they are not attempting to assert themselves personally, or fixing up citations that do not meet standards for one reason or another. But prima facie, all the work in improving wikipedia's actual *content* was performed by 192, with an assist at the end by 137. This is the key, methinks, to why there is frustration on both sides. Favre1fan wants 192 to make proper edits in the first place, so that Favre1fan will not have to keep reverting the slop. 192 wants to make wikipedia reflect the truth, and wants Favre1fan to stop getting in the way. Neither one of them is cooperating with the other; they are just smashing their noggins together, until Besieged is brought in by the 3rr. What *I* would want is for the 3rr never to have been hit, and for the talkpage of the article to have been utilized, and for Favre1fan and 192 to actually WORK TOGETHER in a fully civil fashion to improve wikipedia. There was no reason they could not both have been satisfied. 192 was willing to do the necessary work, to get the cite up to standards. Favre1fan definitely knows the rules of WP:VG/RELDATE well enough to guide 192 through the process. But that did not happen, and that is too bad, dammit. Disappointing and frustrating process, even though the outcome was quite reasonable overall.
     Now, the point of this rant is not merely to whine. I have some ways that I think the process can be improved, related to ways that the admin-count might be improved, and also to how the civility of the process could have been helped. But before I reveal all my secrets, I will first ask: am I just overly picky? To me, this looks like a very flawed episode, and symptomatic of wider problems (admin drop and bitterness of RfA and such) that threaten wikipedia as a whole. But I fully realize that sometimes life is not fair, and maybe this flawed process is one of those the-worst-system-except-for-all-the-rest sorts of things. So, speaking frankly, please assess: was the sixty hours well spent? Is the hope that a better way might be found unrealistic? Is this just an anomalous episode with no wider consequence? Thanks. (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I apreciate the confidence shown in coming here with these problems but I really think this is a case for one of the help boards such as WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, WP:3O or WP:DRN, for example, where the case would be handled by a team , or if no other solution is in sight and admin action were the only last recourse, to WP:ANI. That said, 192 is registered to BMW (Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft), a huge company, and the IP, located in the centre of Munich, is probably a network sharing device or a proxy in the BMW head office building. Literally thousands of users could be editing from that IP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Kudpung, thanks for your response. Please realize, none of the three editors involved -- 192 or Favre1fan or Besieged -- thinks there really *was* a problem. Certainly nobody thinks there is a problem now, even if they might have been frustrated momentarily at the time. They all got what they wanted fully accomplished. As for myself, I don't have a problem with their behavior either; they all followed the pathway they thought was best, and it all worked out in the end. So, there is no reason for DRN or ANI or other such drastic actions. Everybody is calm, cool, and collected. No drama here. That said....
   The reason that I brought it up on your talkpage was not because there was some *current* problem, but rather because I have a yearning for us editors that care about retention of editors in the *future* to start Doing Way Better. In the case-study above, which is pretty much par for the course on wikipedia right now, it took two article-editors, a 3rr, and two admins about 30 edits over the course of 60 *hours* of wall-time to get two keystrokes worth of text changed on a page about a videogame. Nobody got *angry* at anybody, there were no significant violations of Pillar#4, but it was frustrating for me to even *read* about it. I think wikipedia can do better, by providing better tools (I have a specific idea that ought to help dramatically in scenarios like this case-study), better beginner-friendly culture, and so on.
   From reading some of your comments elsewhere related to RfA stuff, you seem to be interested in such things, so when I noticed this question on your talkpage, and backtracked through the history, I picked here to have a discussion about this case-study. Sorry about the wall of text.  :-) As it turns out, in the meantime I have *found* the correct place to discuss such things -- WP:RETENTION. You are already a member of that group, along with other folks I have noticed in my wiki-travels. Folks seem to be using the talkpage Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention to mull over general ideas. Should I post my proposed tool-solution (to the perceived problems explained in the wall-of-text above) over there, and point back here for the raw case-study? Or better yet, summarize the key points of the case-study into a low-slung-rock-fence of text, rather than the current wall of text, and post that summary along with the proposed tool-solution? Or is there a better place for this sort of topic? Please ping me on my talkpage if I don't respond promptly. Thanks. (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If what you are suggesting is directly related to editor retention, then yes, WT:WER is the place to discuss it. Remember though, that the shorter you first post is, the more likely it is to get attention and avoid any misunderstanding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have already made a series of short posts there.  :-) I will try to keep verbosity on a leash; please feel free to point out if you think I've gone overboard, in the future. Thanks. p.s. In a nutshell, my proposal is that wikipedia badly could use a personal-recent-edit-history panel, over on the lefthand sidebar. In the ACBF saga, there was never any communication that I saw between 192 and Favre1fan, just three reverts in a row by Favre1fan, with 192 trying (in WP:AGF fashion) to guess what they wanted. Similarly, when an admin was called in, there was another communications mishap... which added another day's delay, and ten pointless talkpage messages. My scheme would eliminate 99% of the hassle, and as a bonus, encourage edit-comments; this should lead directly to better communication with new editors (the #2 most discouraging thing is when your edit gets reverted with no explanation... and the #1 thing is when more experienced editors treat you like dirt). Not sure that counts as *directly* related to editor retention; but the only thing that would directly retain editors, is some kind of malware that kept their browser from ever navigating away from, not really the sort of retention we're looking for here methinks. I've worked out most of the design details for what I'm after; implementation details are not necessarily trivial, but should not be earthshakingly difficult, since all the info already exists inside wikipedia now (edit-comments + edit-history + usernames + timestamps + comm-channels). Anyhoo, I'll see how people respond to my initial contacts, and then go from there. See you around. (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

PS4 ACBF[edit]

Hi I was replying to Besieged and the message goes to you sorry. (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I have already added references/ external links to the article "valshe" made by me. i hope its not gonna be deleted anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtsyJelly (talkcontribs) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Unfortunately none of the sources you added are reliable. To see what are required for reliable sources please see WP:RS, and to see how to assert notability for people, please see WP:BLP. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

stop messing my works...pleeeaaaaaasssssssssseeeeeeeeeeee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yajeevh (talkcontribs) 11:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) well, could you please review the article again? i'm sure its alright now. also hope that its not gonna be deleted...

Replied on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Panchayatana puja set[edit]

Uh oh, although it says what it is, it should probably still be redirected to Panchayatana puja, with discussion in that article. I meant to do something, because I cannot find English sources, and I don't read any Indian languages. Can I now just merge it into Panchayatana puja without discussing, and make this aricle a redirect? --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC))

Sure, go ahead, that sounds uncontroversial enough. I have already removed the wrong CSD template and asked the patroller to stop patrolling until he has understood what NPP is all about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Questionable links[edit]

Hi Kudpung. I wonder if I might ask for your opinion about something I've noticed about some references and external links a user has added to several articles. I outlined my concerns at WP:COIN but my report is languishing there, the user has replied with a comment that I can't think of a constructive way to respond to, and I'm not sure how best to proceed. (Additional related thread is on my talk page.) Any advice or assistance would be much appreciated. Rivertorch (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether the sources are reliable or not, he should not be linking to them through his CV - that's just blatant ostentation. The links should go direct to the sources, and it's inappropriate for him to tell you to do it when the onus is on him to do it himself because he is fully aware of how to do it. We are not here to clean up after lazy editors. Also, to accuse you of having a COI, or having something against the topic is borderline PA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. At least that confirms that I'm not reading the situation wrong. I'm still at something of a loss as to what to do next. I'm not willing to just fix the links—not because it's not my problem (even though it isn't) but because I'm not confident they meet either WP:RS or WP:EL. I guess that tomorrow I'll just remove the external links and replace the refs with dead-link tags. I hope that won't be misconstrued, but I can't think of what else to do. The lack of response at WP:COIN is very unsettling; I'm glad I wasn't reporting something really awful and urgent. (Guess I'm the new lead responder at that noticeboard!) Rivertorch (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I admit that I haven't looked at the concerned Wikipedia article, but links such as these [3] and [4] are blatantly self-promotional - they are not even WP:RS and wouldn't even be allowed in support of notability in a Wikipedia article about him if there was one. They also have no place in an article as EL. I would almost be inclined to remove them as 'spamlinks' and add 'citation needed' templates in their place. You may wish to check his entire editing history to see if he has been doing this kind of thing elsewhere and if he has,send him a Twinkle warning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
A bunch of articles are involved. I'm going to begin removing the links, tagging the ones used as references. (I meant "citation needed"—I don't know why I typed "dead link".) Thanks for the advice. Rivertorch (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
If his disruption is excessive, don't hesitate to place some various template warnings on his tp. If you think he needs blocking let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, will do. Given his rather belligerent approach to communicating with me, I'm inclined to hold off on templating him. If he begins reinserting the link, I'll definitely warn him. Rivertorch (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey Kudpung just saw make a minor edit to remove typo from Questionable links, can typos be removed from saved edit summaries? By Admins ofcource. Sohambanerjee1998 06:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Saved edit summaries cannot be edited. They can only be suppressed (removed entirely) together with the revision by admins, but they need to have a very good reason to do so, such as for example, grossly offensive, or libelous material. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see, then nothing can be done for a typo I made. Thanks for your time. Sohambanerjee1998 07:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Hey since I noticed you wanna get the page for the band Rings of Saturn deleted, I figured maybe you should check out this page for a singer called Brian Calzini since it was a self created page that barely asserts any importance let alone any encyclopedic information period. In short this guy made an article on wikipedia about himself for shameless self promotion and I'm kind of assuming that this at least deserves a deletion proprosal. Its sad how people crave attention like that. Anyway take care


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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Rehman 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

PageTriage toolbar code[edit]

The code for the toolbar itself is in two places. The model code is in here and the view code is in here. The MVC framework that is uses is backbone. Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed, Kaldari. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


Check out 18-20 minutes!Dr. Blofeld 20:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speechless ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Pre - RfC/U Dispute Resolution on WP:CIVIL question[edit]

Hi - I apologize in advance if this is an inappropriate request and constitutes canvassing, however, I was hoping to engage you in informal dispute resolution on a WP:CIVIL issue in a two-editor thread that appears not to be self-resolving. For full disclosure, I'd previously made a request of User:Dougweller & User:OrangeMike, but they're unavailable ATM. I chose you at random to request informal dispute resolution, if you have a few minutes available (I certainly understand if you do not). I've posted a brief summary below and I'm certain the other involved editor will shortly provide his perspective, as well.

Background: The entry Ronan Farrow has recently been heavily edited through insertion of promotional language by a large number of single-purpose sockpuppets. A seven-identity sock was recently uncovered and banned. The two remaining editors, myself and Tenebrae, had been engaged in a cooperative process of resolving much of the promotional language that had been inserted in the article, but came to a disagreement on one sentence. I believed the source of our disagreement to be grammatical in nature. Tenebrae believed the source of our disagreement was content-based and thought my suggested edit constituted POV insertion. Since there were only two active editors, and to resolve this impasse, I posted a RfC. Unfortunately, the RfC has become - I believe - derailed through aggressive name-calling by Tenebrae who - prior to the RfC - had been extremely gregarious and civil. Specifically, in the last 24 hours:

  • accusing me of being a single-purpose account that exists for the sole purpose of inserting "derogatory" content in Ronan Farrow [x3]
  • describing my contributions in the RfC as "child-like" [x1]
  • describing my contributions in Ronan Farrow as "biased" [x3]
  • summarizing my contributions in the RfC with "la la la" [x1]
  • calling me an "extremist" [x1]
  • calling me a "liar" [x1]
  • describing my opinion in the RfC as a "smokescreen" and 3x declaring he will get an admin to block me if I do not publicly state my agreement with him that my suggested edit is POV
  • several other name-calling episodes that can be read in the original RfC but I have not included here for sake of brevity

I don't have a problem with being the subject of name-calling, but it has become so singular - to the exclusion of anything else - that I believe it may be scaring other editors away from commenting on the RfC, which is why I'm seeking some informal mediation.

Attempted Resolutions to Date: I requested, seven times, not to be name-called, however, this has not helped resolve the situation. After all of the above were posted, I told Tenebrae I would not engage with him further until he "calmed down a little." This has also not helped resolve the situation. At this point there are only 2 confirmed editors participating in the RfC - Tenebrae and myself - and a single IP editor has posted his first comment ever to WP in this thread as well, though dealing with the RfC and not the User Conduct question. (For full disclosure, I have expressed a sense of reserved skepticism about a first-time IP editor appearing in a lightly-trafficked, but sock-heavy, thread almost immediately after the RfC was opened.)

Other Factors: Separate from this issue, I posted two quotes from Tenebrae (about me) in my userspace as self-deprecating humor/page personalization. Tenebrae told me he was offended and requested I remove them. I apologized and stated I would remove them, though Tenebrae edited my userspace himself before I could (which I don't have a problem with as I had planned on editing it anyway). This occurred following the spate of name-calling and it was not my intent to offend Tenebrae, but I acknowledge it had that effect and take ownership for using his content in my userspace.

Again, I don't have a problem with being called names, I'm just concerned the core question of the RfC will never be resolved now that the thread has evolved into a discussion of my value as a human, instead of the article. Thank you for any counsel you can provide to us. BlueSalix (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am weighing in as a fellow editor assisting in insert neutral tone after BlueSalix's repeated disruptive, single-purpose editing of the article Ronan Farrow. User Tenebrae appears to have been the only objective counterbalance over the course of several days of apparently biased editing from BlueSalix, who has over the course of hundreds of edits inserted derogatory quotes and characterizations and stripped out neutral discussion of the article's subject. BlueSalix caused considerable damage to the article's neutrality, and to Tenebrae's reputation in the course of his canvassing for support in the wake of this dispute. Other editors such as myself have only been able to begin inserting neutral voice to the article due to Tenebrae's considerable help in chastening BlueSalix for his or her disruptive behavior. AsadR (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And I am just now hearing of this since BlueSalix never notified me. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd note that much of what BlueSalix says is spin and out of context. I'd suggest interested parties read the RfC thread at Talk:Ronan Farrow to see for themselves. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Although I appreciate your confidence in me coming here with these problems, it's really an issue for WP:DRN where the specialists in dispute resolution work. Also it would take me a lot of time, perhaps more than an hour or so to even fully understand what is happening here before I could comment objectively. This is time I do not have at the moment. A few things to bear in mind:
  • Incivility and/or personal attacks are a big no no;
  • The editing on the articles although not (yet) 3r by anybody is certainly borderline disruptive (possible slow editwarring) in places.
  • The article is a BLP. While all articles should be sourced, this is particularly important with BLPs. Sources must be independent and reliable; only sources of the highest quality are allowed otherwise contentious content, rumour, or unfounded fact can and will be radically removed.
These rules are not difficult to follow. If users can't agree on content, they should go tho WP:DRN as suggested - avoid bothering the admins at WP:ANI) or the community at RFC/Ubecause that may simply result in an iBan or topic ban for one or more of the editors. This particular article will not suffer from being left alone for a while by its regular editors - indeed, it's almost already too detailed and borderline laudatory for a straight encyclopedic Bio. Of course, any admin could simply fully protect the article, but I won't do this here in the anticipation that you can all resolve this by stepping away from the article and from each other for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello Kudpung, judging that you were last person to delete the SwizZz article I am guessing you are the one that salted it. I created the article for him at Swizzz, where any sourcing or notability issue has been resolved. I wanted to ask if you could unprotect SwizZz and move Swizzz there due to "SwizZz" being the correct stylization of his name. STATic message me! 02:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Note, the salt logs are mostly public. e.g. [5] --Jeremyb (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, the issue of sources and notability has not been entirely resolved. A plethora of refs looks good at first sight but a thorough examination of them reveals that many are to the same sites ~ some sites are clearly not reliable, while some are disallowed blogs, YouTube links, and reviews on download sites. Perhaps you could remove all those that do not fall within WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Verifiability, and any content for which they are the only support, and see what you are left with. At the moment I see the recreation as a possible candidate for WP:AfC. The criterion for notability is WP:Band. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
You are mistaken and must not be very familiar with music. The majority of the references appear at WP:ALBUM/REVSITE, which is a incomplete gathering a reliable music sources. Sources include LA Weekly, HipHopDX (owned by Townsquare Media), XXL Magazine, Complex Magazine, AllMusic, DatPiff, Smoking Section, and Respect, among others that are considered borderline reliable, and are not an issue since they are not citing controversial information. Also there are no outstanding blogs proven unreliable at the WP:RSN, not one single YouTube link, and no reviews on download sites, only citations to support official retail releases of the projects. He also meets multiple points of WP:MUSICBIO, and the article is drastically improved from the previous half-assed articles that were made over a year or two ago, when he was not notable. STATic message me! 02:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
So what's this then if it isn't YouTube? Please consider addressing the issues I mentioned, or I will have to send the article to WP:AfD for a community decision - whether they will agree with me there or not is not an issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello, I've seen that the page of codecity has been deleted despite the fact that there were a number of new edits with respect to the first version. All these edits were addressing the "quick deletion" issue. Moreover, the history now is gone. Luckily we are setting up the page again. How can we recover the history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sback (talkcontribs) 09:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you can't recover anything from this as it was a blatant copyright violation. I've also just deleted the next incarnation for the same reason. You may not use any content that is copied or even closely paraphrased from another web site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
It was not a copyright violation, there was a lot of additional material: For example the table explaining when it was released, the authors, and so on. I am doing this in the context of the "Wikipedia Education Program" and there are a number of students who are trying to give their contribution to the page; of course they are not affiliated with CodeCity authors. I must say that I am very very disappointed by the outcome. You cancelled twice the content, without really looking into it. There were a number of scientific articles mentioned and clear information. How comes you decide by your own to delete--without discussion--a page on which many people are working? This doesn't do a good favor to Wikipedia since the 130 students attending my course are not very happy about seeing their work deleted without clear reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sback (talkcontribs) 10:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Moreover, how was it different from, for example, the Netbeans page? or the Eclipse page? or the Freenet page?
Using your approach none of these pages would have ever been created.
The reason was clear, and I checked it out yet again. You may not use material that is taken from other websites. If you are teaching people to edit Wikipedia, the first things on the syllabus should be about what is not allowed here. The onus is on the teachers to familiarise themselves with the rules. I'm sorry if Wikipedia is a complex place, but these are not my personal approaches - you may also find WP:OTHERSTUFF instructional. If you wish, I'll email you a copy of the page source, but you may not reuse any of the content that as copied from elsewhere. You may also wish to consider creating a draft in your user space which would temporarily avoid deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
PS. You may also wish to learn some of the more basic operations here - see: WP:Talk page guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Every single reputable educational institution has policies and guidelines related to plagiarism and copyright. Instructors at those institutions have a requirement in their job description to uphold copyright and plagiarism, and in the majority of reputable schools, to report their students should they violate those policies. At most institutions, plagiarism or publishing copyrighted materials will lead to expulsion - whether performed by students or instructors. On the internet, the minute you click "save", you have formally "published" the content - if it contains anything that is copyrighted or plagiarism, you have at that moment formally violated your institutional ethical standards. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously as well - and by deleting copyright violations, admins have saved the careers of many professors and/or students. The OP should review WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, WP:COPYRIGHT, and the WEP requirement to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia before attempting to use Wikipedia in the classroom. The first time anyone violates copyright, it's often merely a rookie mistake and generally excusable - after that, it's intentional. Don't teach your students to break the law :-) ES&L 11:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
And if you are 'doing this in the context of the "Wikipedia Education Program" ', you may wish to join some parts of those programmes. See: Wikipedia:Education program/Educators. We offer a huge amount of support for teachers and professors, sometimes even on campus. Look for editors with a 'Ambassador' badge on their user pages - that said, you may also wish to create a user page yourself, or get your students to create theirs, it's a good starting point. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you to both of you for your valuable feedback, it was indeed a Wikipedia-rookie mistake from my side. I will ask my students to work on a draft that I created on my user space (as you also suggested), once they will finish the assignment, I will check whether they follow the basic rules against plagiarism and to support copyright. Of course, it is not in my intent to let them copy&paste information from other websites. In fact, I gave them a number of references for learning about the taught subject, and I did not expect they would simply go for copy&paste. After the page will be a good draft, I will ask someone from Wikipedia to revise it before trying to publish it again. Thank you, once more, for your help and for keeping Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Sback (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kudpung. Can I ask if you can provide me a revision copy of a deleted article, Leonard Lim? I will still need it. When it was deleted by A7, I wasn't notified. So please give me the revision copy of the deleted article. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 12:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I have mailed you a copy of the page source. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

CCS, Inc.[edit]

Hello Kudpung,

I noticed that you have deleted the page with regard to CCS, Inc. CCS is a legacy company who has had a great impact on the embedded industry. We are the first to develop a compiler used to program Microchip PIC microcontrollers. We are in direct competition with Mikroelektronika who also has a Wikipedia page found here: I followed the same principles and guidelines found within the Wikipedia policies, and referred to Mikroelektronika's page for guidance as well. Can you please rethink your deletion, and repost what you have removed? I was also responsible for creating the,_Inc. page, when I was with them - which has been up for many years now.

Please advise and hope you can find it within yourself to put the page back up. Thanks and let me know if you have any questions. (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC

HI. There's nothing in there that will help you, and unfortunately I will only consider requests for refunds from registered users. As you have a huge WP:COI editing on behalf of your company, you probably know more about the company than anyone here, so please consider writing a very neutral new one and submitting it through WP:AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Some admin questions[edit]

Hello Kudpung! How are things? Sorry for the long post ahead.

Well, It's been a couple of months and I'm still slowly getting started. As you may have seen, I haven't explored much beyond a bit of CSD and blocking a few spam/vandal accounts.

I started at PERM but gave up. After researching a few requests, somebody got there first and handled them. I will take another shot at some point, and expand into other areas.

I'd love some guidance or comments from you or your talk stalkers on the following matter:

Handling brand new users' inappropriate userpages[edit]

I am worried about how I handle cases that are on the line. I'm worried if I'm drawing the line in the right place. Many variables produce unique cases that need a judgement call.

Some considerations:

  • How promotional is the userpage?
  • Did they edit other than own userpage? Constructively? Promotionally?
  • External links at userpage? How many? Commercial nature of links?
  • Is the subject of promo userpage the user or another subject?

Some ways I handle it:

  • Ignore it
  • Add {{userpage}}
  • Add {{userspace draft}}
  • Move it to a courtesy sandbox and leave a note explaining at user talk
  • Leave a note asking user to remove some of the promo content
  • Remove promo content myself and leave a note explaining at user talk
  • Delete the page and leave a note explaining at user talk
  • Delete it and block user

There are special cases too, like a totally inappropriate username but a very notable subject created as a very promotional draft at the userpage. Sometimes it's tricky.

I have yet to send anything to MfD. Should I? If a user restores the page after I delete, maybe that's best. I have been avoiding MfD because I just don't want to waste community resources.

When I delete a userpage, the user almost never restores it. When don't delete and just monitor a userpage, almost always a month or two later, they still haven't returned. It really looks like the vast majority of users who create promo/long bio userpages are just using Wikipedia as a webhosting service.

For me, the hard thing is deciding what is over the line. I use policies and guidelines, of course. When I'm not sure about a page, I leave it and monitor to see what long term admins do. I also use common sense based on those things, and do my best to be more forgiving than many other admins. I AGF and consider mainly: What's the chance of my action chasing away a potential editor? vs. Is this acceptable as a userpage?

Should I ask for admin review? Are other admins keeping an eye on my log and contribs? I check in at IRC to see if I'm making the right call. I've asked a few admins to check my log. So far, everyone has said I'm doing okay. I just fear that months will pass and suddenly everyone will say I've been way off the mark and then pianos rain down on me.

Thanks for any feedback you can offer.

Very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There are a lot of PERM requests waiting for an admin to review. See WP:PERM/R and WP:PERM/RV. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Jianhui67. I will need some time to get ready. I didn't take notes last time, and I'm still looking for an administrator instructions page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing about Handling brand new users' inappropriate userpages: Sometimes the username is something like User:Armchair and he's written an article at his userpage about armchairs. But, swap the word "armchair" for a notable subject that isn't a person or group or organization. Do you see the trouble? The username isn't a vio, but the user registered thinking he was writing an article about armchairs and that's how it's done. Lots of times it's a TV series like User:The Whamo Hour (TV series) episode list and the userpage is a list of episodes. There are so many of these odd things. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that a username such as User:FallandSpringOlympics may be treated as impersonation of Summer Olympic Games and Winter Olympic Games. Granted it is not the International Olympic Committee but still I am not sure this username is a good idea. I do not want to sound deterministic as I am uncertain if this username is a problem. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I erred on the side of good faith. I deleted and protected his userpage to prevent him from getting himself blocked for persistently restoring that content and removing the userpage and userpage draft templates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kudpung, just to let you know that I have reverted your edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and left a comment on the talk page of the user in question. Suggesting that someone needs to have several thousand edits before they are ready to review articles is frankly ridiculous. This user has demonstrated their competence and should be welcomed into the project with open arms. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That was an obvious error. Being the most regular admin at PERM, I was thinking of something else. However, your research will certainly have established that this user registered at AfC with sole sole purpose of reviewing their own creations. KudpungMobile (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I need your special admin x-ray vision[edit]

Hi Kudpung. I need your special admin x-ray vision. Can you tell me if this user talk page is a copy of the original deleted version of Mayuto Correa. See [6]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC) most

No, it bears no resemblance. Sorry for the late reply, I've been mostly away from Internet connections or tjhe last three or four days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! The text on the user talk page was later copied to this blog, but that's a case of reverse copyvio. I first stumbled on all this when I saw this edit to WP:COPYPASTE. (The IP traces back to the town where Correa lives). As he is reasonably notable and is mentioned in quite a few WP articles, I decided to put him out of his misery and recreate the article as a referenced stub. A little diversion from my usual repertoire. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I suppose that talk page ought to be procedurally blanked. We can't delete it because we very rarely delete talk pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest moving to a user space draft e.g. User:Mayuto Correa/sandbox, and leaving a note on his talk page explaining why. Want me to do it? I'm happy to. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, go on. Thanks. 09:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Done! :) Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for a review of a block[edit]

Hello, Kudpung. I wonder whether you would be willing to review a case concerning an editor who is currently blocked by me. I am asking you because I believe that you would give it a fair, impartial, assessment, but if you would prefer not to do it then please let me know, and I will ask another administrator. Other editors have suggested changes ranging from removing talk page access to unblocking, so it is clearly by no means an uncontroversial case, and if you prefer not to take it on then I will fully accept that. If, however, you are willing to review the case, I will accept whatever you decide, whether an increase or decrease of sanctions, or leaving things as they are.

The case concerns an editor by the name of Viriditas. As far as I can see you have not had any involvement with the editor, and certainly neither of you has ever edited one another's talk page.

I first became involved in May, when I blocked the editor for "feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing". How the case came to my attention I don't remember: probably a report at AIV or something of the kind. However, since then I have repeatedly been drawn back to the case because editors now see me as the admin who has blocked Viriditas, and so they come to me with any concerns related to that editor. (My talk page has received requests both from editors wanting heavier sanctions, and from editors wanting lifting of sanctions.) A consequence of this is that, since that initial block, I have unblocked the account once, and blocked it again twice. It is not the sort of block that I find easy to make, because Viriditas does a good deal of good editing, but there are long-term persistent problems too. I was most recently called back to the case by two editors who posted on my talk page because they regard Viriditas's talk page editing while unblocked as inappropriate. I posted a message on Viriditas's talk page about the concerns. Since then, he/she has made further talk page edits that might possibly be considered to be subject to similar criticisms, including a call for a sockpuppet investigation, and some people might consider continuing to make such questionable edits, following my message, as justifying loss of talk page access.

Rather than write out a detailed account of the history, I will give you links to all the posts I have ever made at User talk:Viriditas, together with a few other relevant links, and you can judge it for yourself.

  • My edits to Viriditas's talk page: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].
  • The posts on my talk page which led me back to this case most recently: [16] [17].
  • If you do review the case, you will no doubt wish to consider all the views expressed by editors relating to this block, including those on Viriditas's talk page, those I have linked to on my talk page, and those which Viriditas removed in this edit.

Once again, if you don't want to take this on, that is fine, but please let me know, so that I can try someone else, but if you do review the case I will accept your decision, whatever it may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi James, it's 9:30 Monday moring and I've just walked into my office after having been przctically out of touch for the last 3 or4 days. I've had a first look at tbis, but I need to review it more deeply. I'll post back here again asap; Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
There have been recent high profile cases concerning prolific and good content contributors who may have been thinking that their work is a free pass to breaking the rules. My personal view is that it should not be a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card even if there is to be quasi colateral damage to the encylopedia through their absence while blocked and/or banned.
The policies at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK on editing while blocked or banned are as vague as they are clear on proxy editing and are somewhat open to their implementation on a case-by-case basis. Again, expressing a personal view, I firmly do not believe that conducting 'business as usual' through a blocked user's talk page is permissible during a block. I do not see where the current block notice is on the user's talk page and hence do not see where they may have used it as an unblock request template. In the absence of a formal unblock request, I would probably do nothing and let the remainder of the block run its course, and evaluate the the comments of the other admins as to whether a talk page block should be incurred to prevent 'business as usual' within the guidelines at WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK, and implement it if there is, after a formal request to take a complete break from Wiki until the block expires. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and sorry to dump this on you at an inconvenient time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Happy to be of help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

advised to avoid any controversies[edit]

A bit long, this. Folding to make space. A link to my post would have been better.

(quote)'s inadmissible to lose mature adult editors of social, academic, and professional standing who are able to contribute to traditionally important encyclopedic articles and bring them to FA, I find it absurd that they might allow themselves to risk being baited into issues [infoboxes in this case] that may either result in blocks, bans, or voluntary retirement. ...editors who do great work for the project, both on, and especially off Wiki would also probably be best advised to avoid any controversies that would end in them being blocked, particularly bearing in mind the caveat that the Arbcom system might be flawed and that findings of the committee may possibly not always be appropriate under the circumstances, even if it means backing down from the bickering. -- written by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC), at WT:WER

I've been reading through the talkpage backlog that I wasn't around for. This stuck out at me. Since the discussion on that talkpage-section is long over, and this was kind of in the middle anyways and thus hard to reply to inline, I figured I would ask over here. If you'd rather I just open up a new discussion-section at WT:WER, that's fine, just let me know.
   There are a couple ways to read what you're saying here. One is, do not bicker, that will just lead to you eventually losing your temper, violating pillar four, and getting properly banned... and even if you are not actually banned, the stress might cause you to voluntarily retire/withdraw/whatever. That is certainly good advice. But you seem to be going much much further, which I will exaggerate here to illustrate my point, not because I believe you are actually saying it this strongly: if you want to remain an editor, never make edits to a controversial topic, especially the obvious ones. ArbCom publishes that list of censored topics *because* they plan to ban anybody who makes a misstep. Similarly, if you do make an edit that seems harmless to you, on *any* article, and somebody reverts it, just let them win, go somewhere else. They might secretly call in an admin, bait you and troll you to the brink of insanity, and then get you banned. Everybody knows that ban-hammers are weapons of retribution, and the only way to avoid them is to never rock the boat, even if that means wikipedia's quality goes downhill. Just let whoever is screaming the loudest win -- they must have friends in high places, you don't want to risk getting banned by getting in their way. Okay, end of exaggeration.
   What you are describing is nowhere near that over the top, of course. To be specific, I guess my main question is particularly about this: "best advised to avoid any controversies that would end in them being blocked". Are you trying to say, know your own limits? Don't go edit the article on $insert_hated_politician_here, if you *know* you will just get into a huge fight, without being able to control yourself? If so, that's good, but the wording is not exactly conveying that sentiment clearly, especially when you immediately mention arbcom *is* flawed... and doubly-especially when you don't come right out and state your actual opinion by say that it some people claim that it might be flawed. The other way to read that fragment, is that if the current pointless controversy is infobox / ayn rand / bradley manning / mayors of puerto rico / whatever, don't stick your neck out, just give up? That seems like it might be *pragmatic* advice... but it also tends to lead wikipedia downhill, does it not? Nobody wants to fear arbitration-committee will become arbitrary-committee, and the only way to improve the process is to stay engaged.
   Anyhoo, as you might be able to tell, I feel strongly about this.  :-) But I'm not here to bicker with *you*, or convince you to join my crusade to right great wrongs, or whatever. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant to say, above, because I keep bickering back and forth in my own head, about your intended meaning. Thanks. p.s. If you fear retribution from the cabal, should you say anything publicly, blink twice and nod once, I'll understand your secret message. <grin> (talk) 23:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What exactly is your position on this, Your understanding is evident in the way you present and critique the view of others but I don't see you coming right out and saying what you think, in just a sentence or two. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Liz, pleasure to see you again. I'm not sure which "this" you refer to. But I'll give you my one-sentence position on each of the biggies. Hope this helps. (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
* infoboxen fiasco. ArbCom ruling that person X cannot create any more infoboxen? Stupid, but par for the course. ArbCom ruling *no* editor can create infoboxen that person X *might* have approved of? Asinine beyond words, and a symptom wikipedia is headed for fatal collapse, or glorious revolution.
* editors should avoid controversial topics. Wrong -- wikipedia should not permit warzones, and when one develops, wikiDiplomats from WP:RETENTION should be sent in to broker peace, rather than wikiWarriors ready to ban-hammer anybody in the vicinity. Caveat, over on Sheldrake both Liz and myself attempted diplomacy, but five people were ban-hammered anyways, and many left holding bitter grudges. Think the long-term solution is to have hundreds of thousands of 5+edits/mo folks, so there are always a bunch of nice people hanging around controversial articles; cf insta-block-for-baiting, next point.
* editors should not allow themselves to be baited. Wrong -- wikipedia should have pillar five as our uppermost rule, followed by pillar four. Breach of pillar four (baiting) should be punished with a block unemotionally administered by the nearest admin, of 5 minutes. Next offense, 10 mins, then 20, then 40, doubling every time. The least hint of baiting is enough. Soon: no more trolls.
* ArbCom might be flawed. Let me count the ways. Okay, I won't be, I said two sentences each; suffice to say, support that ArbCom positively is flawed, no hedging required.
* know your own limits? always good advice. don't bicker? not just a good idea, it's the law, pillar four. cabal? if there was one, which there is not, it would WP:NICE nazis, mostly. Ping my talkpage if you want more details, Liz, or Kudpung, or talkpage stalkers. HTH. (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
TL;DR. There are better ways to spend time on Wikipedia than attempting to psychoanalyse every word I have written on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree! About the TLDR portion, of course, which is my disease -- I attempt to better cope with the symptoms... but am unlikely to ever fully overcome it. Also agree about the pointlessness of re-reading all your words from the past. No worries, given how often we lose editors, I'll get your position figured out someday. Makes me sad I'm 100% positive the previous sentence is 100% true. Best, (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kidderminster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Bain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kudpung

I'm curious why I received a message from you regarding a conflict of interest out of the blue? There is no conflict of interest, I'm a huge fan of Jason and his career. I was curious why this person THE BANNER deleted Jason's entire discography of official remixes. I sent a message to him but he didn't respond. But oddly enough, you messaged me the day after I messaged him ? Hummmm, odd coincidence.

You should look at this guy THE BANNER and see why he keeps deleting Jason's entire remix discography. If you Google or check EBay, you can see almost all those records he did which proves the legitimacy. I think I'm more curious now than ever of this entire concept of Wikipedia on how someone thinks they can have the right to alter people's pages because they simply want to. Who made this guy the expert on Jason Nevins to delete entire sections of his page. It seems to me a bit of a witch hunt or some weird reason this guy keeps deleting things on the page on Jason. Oddly enough, since I'm learning as I go, I see he has his page "locked". So how can the guy who edits tons of pages have his own page locked ?

Popmusicgirl1988 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's probably coincidence - I have many music and music-related pages on my 15,000 page strong watchlist and I often follow up on pages with a COI tag. The message on your talk page is one of the standard Welcome messages and not a warning (warnings are accompanied by a warning icon). Hence it is not an accusation, if you read it carefully the message is very much an 'if'. This is appropriate because you have self-admitted to being employed in the industry. The Jason Nevins article in its current cast is in fact a candidate for deletion under our WP:BLP policy (tagged for sources since March 2011), but I will not delete it or tag it for deletion for the moment. That said, in my opinion, the huge list of 'official remixes' is superfluous detail for a biographical article and borderline promotional. A suitable substitute would be a short paragraph such as "Among his more important remixes are...." with just a very short list of the most prominent ones (with sources). Try to resolve the issues through normal article and user talk page discussions and if that does not bear fruit, you can always go to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would point out however that eBay and many pages listed by a Google search do not assert notability or may not be WP:Reliable Sources; again, if you would like confirmation of the sources you provide(d), you can ask at the WP:Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Advanced permissions[edit]

Hello Kudpung. Considering the recent addition of autopatrolled and this article created as a copyvio of this source, I think you should ensure that the advance permission is well placed. Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Flag removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

spacing in your edits[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering if you noticed or knew about some of your edits having spaces that don't belong. Some people may have different opinions about spaces at the end of sentences but it (IMHO) looks weird to have multiple spaces between words inside a sentence.

I guess it doesn't matter (i.e. there is no practical difference) most of the time because MediaWiki and HTML both collapse runs of consecutive whitespace into one space. (although I did see one occasion where an apparently out of place non-breaking space char was added) Was just curious if there was some explanation. (maybe a sticky keyboard? :P)

--Jeremyb (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should notice. There are more here too! I'm actually more careful when editing article pages. It's a problem I have been aware of for years. It's a strange habit from clicking twice on the space bar when I'm typing very fast (60+ wpm), once with my thumb and for some reason again with another finger. Perhaps I should see a therapist ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, interesting :) do you hunt+peck? (I know several people that do). anyway, see you around the pump/water cooler :) --Jeremyb (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I touch type using all 10 fingers. Been using keyboards since 1955. Strangely enough I don't play double notes when playing the pianna :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure why I was notified Jeremyb mentioned you on Kudpung talk page in "spacing in your edits". to this section as I don't see my username here anywhere... For the record, I always double space at the end of a sentence and occasionally in a sentence by accident. (I've even been known to force the extra space at the end of a sentence with &nbsp;) Technical 13 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
probably because of this: // (got 1 out of 3 diff links correct) :/ --Jeremyb (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
@Technical 13: I was wrongly pinged here too. Jeremy accidentally transcluded the Template editor permission request page before, which had our names on it. -- t numbermaniac c 04:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I had better join the queue. I was pinged too. How odd Irondome (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Numbermaniac, he linked it, and in the revision he linked, it only says "::[[Template:notdone|{{notdone}}]] (for now). I realise that you are a highly motivated and engaged Wikipedian, but I tend to concur with [[User:Acalamari|[[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]]]] regarding template editing. [[User:Kudpung|[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]]]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|[[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]]]) 9:38 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)", we shouldn't have been pinged for that. Technical 13 (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I was pinged too... is there a concert here? Am I invited? Miss Bono [hello, hello!] 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You should look for your usernames on // and the immediately preceding edit. Should be fairly straightforward. --Jeremyb (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
He transcluded the whole page... -- t numbermaniac c 04:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah! That explains why I've been summoned too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry! btw, did I forget to mention it's a potluck? I'll start off the party with Slide-mille-feuille.jpg --Jeremyb (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Good timing - it's lunchtime here ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
You'd think we could find it, with all these spaces (by the way, see APA style and MLA format for more info on double-spaces at the end of sentences) ES&L 09:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the food and drink! Last to leave, as per :) Irondome (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi- I was pinged too. I have noticed in templates where there are double spaces (or when there is a line break w/o an asterick), that this can cause some unusual rendering in the way the template displays. In articles, I've found that double spaces don't seem to present a problem, but triple spacing can, and sometimes I just delete the spaces to leave just one space because it is easier to see the one space instead of having to count whether there are 2 or 3 white spaces after a period. Hope I'm not last to join or leave this party, I don't want to be stuck with the bar bill!! (just kiddin...) Funandtrvl (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Nachos for the Kudpung party!
Hey guys! How's it going? I brought some Nachos! Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for closure[edit]

Kudpung, thanks for closing this lengthy discussion. I did notice that the self-professed president of this company, AKonanykhin (talk · contribs), had not either been notified of the result or blocked, and there is no entry at the list of banned users. Would you be willing to do these as necessary? I'm not really comfortable doing so myself since I initiated the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Actually, I've never enacted a community ban so I need to look up what to do. I'll start by notifying the concerned user of the ANI verdict though and doing the indef block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 Done. If you wouldn't mind, please check his talk page, his block log and Wikipedia:List of banned users to verify that i have done everything correctly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a new one on me too, to be quite honest. I've worked with several cases of community bans on editors, but never one on a company. I think perhaps the banned users entry should note that it's editing for pay on behalf of the company which is banned, not just that one editor? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about that either. Unless you'd like to get an opinion from another, very experienced admin (DGG, MoonRiddenGirl, Risker, Worm, etc. or perhaps one of the 'crats), I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie and let SPI take care of the rest. All known meats have been blocked, and the community will just have to be on it's vigil for any new accounts which if obvious Ducks can blocked immediately, added to the community ban list, and their edits removed. The SPI clerk declined a CU because the quacking was obvious, but I would have thought a search for sleepers would have been appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Please see this. I will not be responding as this will be the remit of other admins who wish to review the situation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeking your concurrence[edit]

Hello Kudpung. I took the wp:bold action of removing my off topic comment as well as your very much appreciated reply. I feel it added prose that detracted from the overall discussion while serving a single purpose, benefiting me alone. I hope you concur with my action understanding entirely if you chose to revert it instead. I am only interested in seeing the RfC achieve its best possible outcome, as you clearly are as well. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

John, I hope that's what you wanted to do and I have no objections at all. I see you around a lot and I am fully aware that you have the very best interests for Wikipedia at heart. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Split discussion?[edit]

Dear Kudpung: There are a couple of comments about the reviewer permission on the talk page, and the rest of the discussion is on the Rfc page. Is this a problem? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anne. This is perfectly normal on an RfC. Parallel discussions of this kind are indeed encouraged. It saves cluttering the actual debate with relevant questions, but which are not strictly to do with the RfC's main objective and do not contribute to the consensus gathering. Pity not more participants do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kudupung, this is arunanandta, regaring the page Profoundis. May I request your kind attention to the following explanation:

This page is neither created by its owners nor to promote the company. As I understand that this company is one of the best startups funded by the Govt. of Kerala, India and have acclaimed international awards and recognitions as specified in the page, I think this page deserves to be there. If you think any information given in there are of the nature of any promotion, we can remove it. And this is a registered commpany with more than 40 millions Indian Rupee of assessed wealth within in the first year of their operation. Hence, it is deemed to be a fast growing entity.

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The company may in fact be notable but you may not use text taken from other websites, and the article must not be written like a promotional piece. You are also editing on behalf of a company or group of people which is also not allowed here. Please read our policies on Copyright Violations and Conflict of Interest. PLease also remember to log in when you post or you may be blocked for using multiple accounts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Upendra 2[edit]

You tagged this poorly written early version for deletion, and when I saw it AFD'd as UPENDRA 2, I went and restored the earlier sourcable title to then set a redirect. However, with research I found that filming HAS begun and the topic has enough coverage for its production to meet the requisites set by WP:NFF.[18][19] I will be moving the old version into a userspace for a short time and then would like to restore the original article with far better sourcing and more content. Fair enough? Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

More than fair enough. You hardly even need to ask me to concur ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality control on NPP[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I reviewed my first new article a few days ago. Lakireddy Bali Reddy. Today I reviewed two more and I was wondering if you could check my work and give me feedback ie. any mistakes?, areas I can improve etc. John Ewing (Nebraska), Elainee Presley Many thanks in advance. -- KeithbobTalk 21:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, including the deleted one. Keep up the good work :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for all you do at NPP! KeithbobTalk 13:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban and then block[edit]

What we are talking about: Community ban proposal for paid editing firm

I think you were obnoxious needlessly antagonistic to block an inexperienced user's IP when they were trying to appeal a ban [20], stating that they would comply with the conditions to be unbanned. You could have kindly removed the content and instructed them how to appeal properly. It is doubly obnoxious was also not optimal for you to block and run (whatever the reason may be, which is personal and none of our business). If you foresee being unavailable for a time, you should not make potentially contentious administrative actions. Jehochman Talk 05:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I think, especially for an admin, that your comment above is obnoxious and your assumptions that I am cutting and running are a classic example of lack of good faith, and a personal attack. Please investigate more thoroughly before making such claims. I closed a discussion at AN and enacted what ever I had to within the rules, and the concerned user is perfectly aware of the discussion and what they are expected to within the instructions at WP:UNBAN and If I have to dash and and sort out flood damage here (see the met reports if you need convincing - I am in NE Thailand), that's none of your business. You may wish to recall that some of us here are unpaid volunteers and do the damn best we can. Another comment like the one above and I will go straight to Arbcom - and that will set a precedent for my long and dedicated tenure here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Please explain why you blocked the IP after it self-reverted its post.[21] Second, please explain why you did not inform the IP of the correct method to appeal your ban (which may be dubious). Please answer the questions and stop attempting to threaten me. I've been to arbitration dozens of times and it doesn't scare me at all. I've been editing since 2005, and an admin since 2007. My concern is that you are taking an editor who could be reasoned with, and batting him around until he becomes a very hostile (and troublesome) adversary of Wikipedia. We do not need that sort of administration. Our goal is to solve problems, not to enforce the rules. Rules are a tool we use when they can solve a problem. Jehochman Talk 06:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Just logging back in to answer this before I 'cut and run'. The kind of administrations we don't need here are those that don't respect our policies on PA and civility. The explanation you are looking for is at WP:BAN. The consensus to enact was not mine, but the rules at WP:BAN are clear and I'll block any account or IP that ostensibly contravenes the policy. The dynamic IP post was quite clearly from the blocked/banned user who had been adequately and procedurally instructed on WP:UNBAN. I suggest you read the AN thread before jumping to conclusions and coming here with your vitriolic comments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC). You or any other user are welcome to take up the ban appeal on behalf of the banned user according to policy. I will not, because I only technically enacted the block and the ban, and on the behalf of the community. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think your reading of that discussion was miserable. Nobody even presented a single diff evidencing a violation of policy. It is not a violation for a newbie to say that they don't like a vague and squishy guideline like WP:COI. Moreover, before you placed the ban, and then again afterwards, the user in question stated that he would follow policy. You rubber stamped a thoughtless and illogical rush to judgement based on rhetoric and emotion. People were upset about Wiki-PR, so they expressed their frustration by turning around and banning somebody completely unrelated. Did simply counted votes and apply the rules for the sake of rules? Very nice indeed. When this case goes to arbitration, I think your involvement, while good faith and not sanctionable, will be viewed as not particularly wise. Best practice in this case would have been to heed the thoughtful opposes by long established users and referred the matter to arbitration. WP:COI is NOT policy. It's a guideline only. Without evidence of policy violations (such as WP:NPOV) you cannot ban somebody under that guideline alone. Jehochman Talk 13:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that you keep dodging my questions. We are talking about your actions, not mine.

Per WP:BAN: "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.[2] When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments."

Please show me diffs of the editor you banned being "repeatedly disruptive". I expect that these diffs will be forthcoming, or else you will revert the ban you (erroneously) placed. Secondly, please write a detailed rationale assessing the strength and quality of the arguments presented. This was a long discussion and we need more than your pro forma closing statement. Per WP:ADMINACCT you are required to explain your actions when challenged. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Since it appears you can not respond timely, I have started a discussion at WP:AN. The banned user's appeal should not be kept in limbo during your absence. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Candidate for Autoreviewed status[edit]

Hi friend. Could you take a look at the contributions of User:Ozhistory. I suggest that he's ready for autoconfirmed status. Just found a piece of his in the New Pages Queue, it seems he gets it. Best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 02:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


I am not an admin, but I would like to be. Could you please look at my contributions and tell me what you think? Eastmain (talkcontribs) 07:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Eastmain, talkpage stalker 74 here. Kudpung has a list, actually -- User:Kudpung/RfA_criteria#My_criteria. From my limited personal experience with you/WikiDan/Pratham, and my limited ability to check kudpung's criteria without manually browsing your edit-history (there are tools but I don't know how to use them), you pass with flying colors on way more than half. Your votes at the 2k AfDs you've attended were not deletionist enough, but are close. You haven't participated in any recent RfA's as a voter, which is bad, Kudpung wants to see you involved in wikiPolitics. However, per criteria#29, you are never supposed to ask anybody if you can be an admin; like in the days of Washington/Adams/Jefferson, you are supposed to wait for the community to draft you.
   Which I suppose is fair enough: I hereby draft you.  :-)   As an anon, I can claim to represent the 100+M uniques per month which do *not* edit wikipedia, and they've personally instructed me that Eastmain should try for adminship during the 2013 december-25th-centered holidays, or if that is too hasty, in the summer of 2014. Make sure you satisfy the other criteria on Kudpung's long list (you prolly personally know better than the wiki-tools whether you pass or not and if so by how much). Be fore-warned, RfA demands a very thick skin. And make sure you grok #30; why do you want the admin-bit? Good luck! ...and Kudpung, if you are against me answering such questions here on your talkpage, please feel free to zap this comment. Danke. (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
p.s. See also User_talk:Kudpung#Possibility_of_Future_RfA and User_talk:Kudpung#About_AfC_and_the_RfCs on the same subject, which have pointers to the advice-for-RfA-candidates essay by Kudpung. (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-imagining Mentorship IEG proposal[edit]

Hi there. I'm working on an IEG proposal to re-think the way we do mentorship and adoption on Wikipedia, and would appreciate your input and ideas on the proposal. If you're interested, you can find the proposal on Meta. I look forward to your feedback. Steven Zhang (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Rollback on phone[edit]

Hi Kudpung. I am here to ask you how to hide rollback on my phone. I am using this main account on my phone. Because my phone is a touch-screen, I can accidentally press rollback on my phone. I do not want to resign my rollback rights, so can you tell me whether there is a way to hide rollback on my phone. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea and I don't think it's technically possible. I never use my main account for editing on mobile devices or public Internet access. Perhaps create a second legitimate account without rollback rights for use on your phone? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have actually another account, Jianhui68, which is for testing on my home computer and reverting vandalism on public computers, and have rollback rights. I am not sure who holds more than two accounts, and I am not sure if that is legitimate or not to hold 3 accounts. I use my phone everyday, to access Wikipedia and playing games. I do not patrol RC on my phone, but will review pending changes on my phone. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 09:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There's not really a limit as far as I know to the number of accounts one can have as long as they are all for legitimate purposes and declared and cross linked on your user pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) These discussions might help, Compromised_account, Rollback_button_on_Contributions_special_page. They both talk of ways of hiding the rollback link from Recent changes and watch lists. Hope this helps. Cheers. Mlpearc (powwow) 09:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a CSS code snippet that hides the rollback links on my watchlist only when I'm on my phone. Just put this:
@media (max-width: 999px){ .mw-rollback-link {display: none;} }
into your common.css page if you want to try it. I came to 999px through some trial and error, though, and I don't know what the real best number to use in that is; it *should* work for you as is, but if it doesn't, the number probably needs to be tweaked (higher if it's still showing up on your phone, and lower if it's not showing up on your PC). Caveat emptor and all that. Writ Keeper  10:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have created my mobile account. Thanks for all your comments. Kudpung, can you grant only the confirmed user and reviewer right on my mobile account, JianhuiMobile? Do not grant rollback on that account. I do not want that rollback mess to come up again, especially after it had happened last time on the page Fated to Love You, when I accidentally pressed rollback to revert my edits on my mobile phone. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 10:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I've been unable to get custom js/css run on mobile devices (although if you are viewing in desktop mode it will run as much as whatever you have in your common.js/css as your device can handle. Also related is possibly bugzilla:46247. Technical 13 (talk) 11:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Heh, that's true; I switched my phone to desktop view so long ago that I tend to forget that a mobile version even exists. :) Though, surely the mobile version doesn't have rollback links to be misclicked in the first place, right? Writ Keeper  21:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
@Kudpung: please see my message above Technical 13's message. Thanks. JianhuiMobile talk 12:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you make an application at WP:PERM. Due to current time constraints I'm not working so much on user permissions at the moment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Since I have made the request here, will you please do the granting? Confirmed and reviewer. Thanks. JianhuiMobile talk 05:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Since no admin is now at work at AIV, there is a vandal, Special:Contributions/, who keeps vandalizing Wikipedia after his last warning. Please block him immediately. Thanks. Jianhui67 talkcontribs 07:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Copy right notice on Effort-reward Imbalance[edit]

Hi Kudpung, I am the author of the Effort-Reward Imbalance wiki. I was wondering why you flagged the page for copy right violation. This page was created for a graduate school project. I cite all my sources, which are journal articles and are available to the public for research purposes. All sources were included to provide support for the theory. It does not look like you flagged any particular section of the page, so I am not sure what to do to fix any potential issues/to reinstate the page. Please let me know as soon as possible; as I mentioned earlier, this page was an assignment for a graduate course and my professor would like to view it. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERIWiki2013 (talkcontribs) 16:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi ERIWiki2013. Yes, as I said, it was clearly recognisable as a student's paper and that's why it was flagged as WP:Original research; we don't write encyclopedic article like college dissertations. You may cite your sources, but please read how to do this at WP:RS and WP:CITE. What you may not do on Wikipedia is close paraphrasing of the content of your sources even if they are available for reading on the Internet. I fail also to understand how creating a Wikipedia article can be set as a requirement for a graduate course. Perhaps your professor would like to understand more about Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I see it's already been deleted. Evidently another admin had even stronger views about it that I did. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

About AfC and the RfCs[edit]

I don't want you to get the wrong impression, I support what you are getting at. AfC is very important and I appreciate the work you do there and the work you do to improve it. I agree 100% that some reviewers are taking AfC too lightly. Sometimes when I see the backlog drop too quickly it concerns me whether people are getting good enough reviews, or whether we are just blasting through them too quickly.

So anyway I just wanted to let you know I like what you are doing, I just have concerns about the way you are going about it. Gigs (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gigs. Don't worry too much about the way I'm going about it, the main thing is that I am doing something about it. I suppose a lot of it has to do with the experience I have here on some important and hairy RfCs over the years that concern things I feel strongly about. None of those feelings are subjective though - you have admitted yourself that AfC is in desperate need of repair and I'm glad you share my concerns and those of many others of the old hands here. At the end of the day, the community decides, not I. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
BTW: Isn't it time you had a look at this ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you are saying I'd make a good admin, or I'm doing things that might damage my chances at RfA. If it's the former, thanks, if it's the latter, I've never particularly worried about acting in a certain way to appease RfA, and I'm always suspect of those candidates who are apparently doing that. Gigs (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I would have hoped that you know me well enough to know that it was a hint at the former :) After all, I did write the page... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah OK, thanks. I have read that page before, never knew you wrote it. You might be interested in my previous unsuccessful RfA. Part of why I had trouble at RfA is that I often engage in policy development and debate that some misinterpreted as a lack of understanding of (or willingness to follow) policy. It was frustrating to see people claim I didn't understand policies that I helped write and/or rewrite. That, combined with my very occasional use of hyperbole to make a point (such as the GLAM MfD comment) pretty much sunk me. Gigs (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... I'd forgotten all about that. I went neutral but it wasn't for any of those reasons. Anyway, by Wiki standards it was a long time ago. If you haven't got any skellies in the cupboard now, and if you check all my boxes, or most of them, you may be ready for another chance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Maybe in a few months. My edit counts have been too low lately and I'd draw inevitable "activity level" opposition. I have been meaning to get back into AfC reviewing anyway. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)