User talk:Kudpung/Archive Feb 2015

Final warning on Awesomeninja's talk page

Hi Kudpung,

I noticed that you put a final warning for disruption on Awesomeninja's talk page. While I must admit that I vehemently despise "cool teen talk", it's my understanding that a final warning was only to be used after several warnings had been previously issued, or when a first instance of vandalism is so gross and severe that it deserves an almost immediate block. I don't see any previous warnings on Awesomeninja's talk page, and I hardly think that a NOTNOW RfA is such a severe offense to require a final warning right off the bat. --Biblioworm 15:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

That's your opinion, Biblioworm. I have been around in life and on Wikipedia a long time and I use my judgement very carefully and do a lot of research before I do anything or criticise anyone's work or actions. I helped rewrite and develop many of the warning templates - I think I understand the guidelines for their use. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but it does not seem to directly address the point. This is the description for the level 4 template: "Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning". How is a newbie (presumably unaware of what admins really are) filing a NOTNOW RfA editing in bad faith? Isn't it policy that users should assume good faith unless there is a very good reason not to? Besides, three users (myself included) messaged the user in almost immediate succession after he transcluded his RfA. I think three rapid-fire messages and a speedy deletion notice was enough to get the point across. In any case, I have no desire to argue, so I won't say any more. --Biblioworm 00:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

It does address the point because it states: do a lot of research before I do anything or criticise anyone's work or actions. That's good advice for anyone, particularly users who have been around for only a relatively short time and start criticising the work of admins who, contrary to what you may have been led to believe, are not all bad, do not all misuse their tools, and do not all apply poor judgement. Experience is the key. Now let's both get back to work, Biblioworm. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The RfC for AfC reviewer requirement

Hey Kudpung, is there any new information on that? I don't think I was actually around when it happened (oops) but... yeah... where can I find the infos...? Thanks! — kikichugirl ^speak up! 01:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kikichugirl. It was based on two RfC that I started. One was for a requirement for qualifications, followed up with one to establish the actual requirement and enact it. Both were carried by consensus. It's all history now.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria

There was another one proposed by Anne Delong which was an attempt to get the imp;ementation sharpened up, but although I supported it, the RfC was not heavily subscribed:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission implementation

That said, we have reached the stage now where the technical implementation needs to be seriously reviewd, or to implement the consensus of April last year to scrap AfC and either replace it with a software package similar to that of NPP, or to merge the whole process to NPP entirely. I support both proposals wholeheartedly and the community just needs to decide which one they want. The problem we are currently faced with is that AfC has become a battleground for volunteer programmers vying for first place, and is fast turning into a walled garden. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I might be elitist or have high standards, but the dubious reviews I've seen today, from several users, make me want to quit the project and cry instead... we definitely need to fix up the criteria. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 08:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kikichugirl check out the current discussion at WT:AFC, and if you can, provide diffs for the poor reviews, something is going to break soon if DGG and I can convince the stone wallers at AfC that someting needs to be done. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it. My question is: Why is AfC so complicated? When I did NPP, I felt myself getting increasingly bitey (I'm increasingly lenient at AfC) but AfC is starting to seem like a mess of blah. If there's a bad patrol at NPP, you stick the CSD tag on right where someone else didn't see it. If there's a bad review, then you gotta revert the review, confuse the newbie, and badness all around. Ugh. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 08:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - One particularly bad review I can think of is here: Brad Craddock. The reviewer declined it as "unnotable" when the topic clearly passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. It was written like an advertisement but extensive copyeditting turned it into a viable article. It's going to be shown on the Main Page (DYK) in a few days. AfC reviewers have a lot of power in their hands: In many cases, you can either uplift or destroy the spirit of a newbie and their willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. A bad review and a new editor may never want to come back or they get deep misconceptions about Wikipedia. To tell you the truth, the Brad Craddock, article made me rather sad. I had to go into full damage control. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon. Kikichugirl. I can only reiterate that AfC is only a very tiny project when compared with the workload at NPP which is a serious vetting process and not a cosy little hobby for some who want to save a handfull of crap articles every day. Sure, the quality of patrolling at NPP is lousy, and it will remain so until the community stops refusing to believe that we need some criteria of competency for patrollers . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I support scrapping AfC and merging it into NPP or replacing it with and extension/guidedTour replacement as well. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In which case Technical 13, you've done yourself and us a misfavour by voting as you did here. Scrapping AfC is the obvious solution but before we get there we have to prove to the community that AfC is not working in its present concept. History has shown that on Wikipedia, little changes lead to bigger ones. This would have been a valuable stepping stone, and still can be if you would reconsider. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am not against merging the AfC and NPP processes, but the reason I have support AfC for now is, as Kudpung says, due to bad patrolling at NPP. Some NPPers (eg: Mr X, WikiDan61, RandyKitty, SL93) do good work, but there is still WP:BITEing going on, so I really think that if we want to put up a hard barrier to reviewing new articles, we apply it consistently across the board. I have some shortcuts on my userpage to check articles nominated for CSD, particularly A7 and G11, and try and salvage anything that I can where possible. (example) However, where I can't I consistently see confused newbies who don't understand why their work will be deleted. As long as a reasonable explanation is given, ideally suggesting another article or website where some of the content could go, is a better approach. Unfortunately it's a more time consuming one. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't argue with that, Ritchie. That's why it's a total paradox that NPPers don't require any qualifications at all. They refuse to read what instructions there are (the ones Scottywong and I wrote at WP:NPP), rarely make use of the handwritten note feature of the curation tool, and never move an article to Draft namespace. That said, in a way, AfC and NPP are almost identical processes with NPP being by far the most important of the two. Merging would be ideal if the regular experienced AfC reviewers would migrate with the move. That way, we would have the best of both worlds. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start moving stuff to draft (first example) and see if takes up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Buster7

Hello there. I would appreciate it of you could keep me informed of the case I buster7. I would appreciate it if there could be a sutiable warning for violation rules and his extra rights as a rollbacker. How could there be an accidental rollback? Thank you very muchTheMagikCow (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magic Cow It's a very strict rule that editors should not refactor, re-edit, or remove anything from other users' talk pages or user pages. It is in fact quite easy to click a Rollback button by mistake, that's why we're so strict about handing out Rollback rights. In view of the events of earlier today (or tonight according to wherever you are) Buster7 could have every reason to take a swipe at one of my edits. It would be a huge coincidence if it were an accident, but I guess we have to stretch the rubber band of AGF and presume it was. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For all your work with AfC reform. — kikichugirl speak up! 00:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00

56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ER

You're always welcomed at WP:RETENTION -- GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Shane Ferguson

Hello, could you please semi-protect Shane Ferguson as it's getting a lot of disruptive editors at the moment. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Paracommunications

Hi Kudpung

I don't understand your reasons for proposing deletion of my Paracommunications entry. Please would you explain, as this is my first entry to Wikipedia. What does dicdef mean? And, how should I edit this entry so it is not deleted. Thank you.

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanolan (talk • contribs) 03:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi David. Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. There is a very big difference (dicdef = dictionary definition). That said, the page will not be suitable for Wikipedia at all, even the more so that the word is not to be found anywhere else. You could try publishing it at Wiktionary which is a Wikimedia web site., but although Wiktionary is in the same group, we here don't work there. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Done, thanks for the tip. Please feel free to delete, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmanolan (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit summary usage

Hi Kudpung! I just need some advice. Is it okay to use words like "Fu*k off" in edit summaries when directing other users? Isn't it violates our core policy, WP:CIVILITY? Today, I came across an editor who often uses those words in edit summaries. See this. When I asked him not to use such words, he said this. It is not the first time he is using profanity when talking about other fellow editors. Here some one warned him too when he said someone a "miserable shit". You will get to see more such things in his talk page history and elsewhere. I think it's time for an admin to step in and warn. What you think? Jim Carter 06:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's never alright to use such language either on edit summaries or anywhere else. But remember, I am very old fashioned and come from a British background where such language was never used. It might be more modern and more tolerated nowadays, but I don't really think it is, and it's certainly not the kind of language that should be used on Wikipedia. I looked at the edit history and it seems you may have done something wrong but I guess it wasn't intentional. I very much liked one comment of yours I came across (I seem to have seen something very similar before...), you should use it more often, but carefully of course, and only if you are sure that the person is a child (well, under 18 or so). I made myself a golden rule many years ago: always check out an editor's user page before you hit them with anything. If the page looks like a teenager's bedroom wall, chances ar that they are a teenager (or even younger), but on the other hand, while there are lots of children who act like mature adults on Wikipedia, there are lots of adults who behave like children ;) Keep up the good work, Jim! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I strongly condemn the use of such language on Wikipedia. Actually, I don't know what exactly happened but I guess his comment was removed due to an edit conflict. His behavior was so childish that I didn't have to check his user page. Anyway, thank you. I'm just trying to follow your commands :) Cheers, Jim Carter 10:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jim - Your comment had gone from polite to and I quote "This is not a playground for kids. You're here to build an encyclopedia, why don’t you just grow up and behave as if you are working on the world’s biggest single source of information? A huge number of users are much older than you might think. Try to give others respect in talk pages as well as in edit summaries - How do you expect me to react?,

Had you left it at the section where you said you disagreed with my use of words I'd of been more than happy to apologize, As for my "miserable shit" comment elsewhere ... I realized I was wrong and had removed it[1] so it's not really relevant here

Sorry Kudpung for barging in here hope you don't mind :) –Davey2010^Talk 10:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davey. I don't really mind - if it helps clear the air. However, "This is not a playground for kids. You're here to build an encyclopedia, why don’t you just grow up and behave as if you are working on the world’s biggest single source of information? A huge number of users are much older than you might think." is is a brilliant statement if used wisely and one I would recommend being used more often by young editors who are concerned about the crap and strife caused by other young editors. Someone like me though, and an admin to boot, would get shot down in flames as a child hater if we said it. Even the word children is considered taboo on Wikipedia - by the children of course. You're probably not aware of it yet, but as one of the most regular contrubutors to WP:WER I have retired from that project - namely due to the antics of some younger editors and three or four adults who behave like kids a lot of the time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hiya Kudpung, I agree with the statement providing its used wisely, Everyone knows I'm the least patient/short tempered person here so It was obvious saying something like that would tick me off easily,

I've not really dealt with any kids really but then again you're alot more active in other areas like NPP etc :)

When you overwritten my comment twice, Being very confused and without thinking I simply asked myself "what I stated in the edit summary" ...

Anyway I apologize to both Kudpung and to Jim if they were offended/upset - Despite it may not seem like it at times - It's never my intention to offend or upset anyone,

Life's too short to start arguments & all that :)

Anyway I admit I shouldn't of said it and I sincerely apologize,

Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 13:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Little experience

She (Kristin Sutton) doesn't look like she needs a wiki page. And who said I had little experience? It sounds like you're saying I'm dumb. --Satouyoukun (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Satouyoukun, I am saying that with only 182 edits to the encycolpedia pages and wthout having read and thoroughly understood our deletion policies, you are not ready to be doing such maintenance tasks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Note for myself: Satouyoukun has been blocked as a sock.Link title

You mentioned HJ mitchen

http://theralphretort.com/wikipedia-blocks-veteran-editor-for-being-pro-gamergate-off-site-1715/ Check this article please — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntelligenceMonkey (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

So what? And who are you, if I may ask? I do not take any notice of any crap that is written about Wikipedia on other websites. Also I have every confidence in the adminstrative acts and decisions of HJ Mitchell. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, the block was based completely on something he said somewhere else on the Internet and on a site I don't even read. It wouldn't have anything at all to do with the series of nasty BLP violations and personal attacks! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Problematic new page patroller

Kudpung,

You, I, and about five other editors have cautioned Kges1901 that he or she is making serious mistakes patrolling and speedying new pages. I just noticed another incorrect speedy nom on Yashvardhan Shukla (I converted it to an AfD). Obviously the cautions have not gotten through—do you know what the next step should be?

Thanks!—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but wasn't the page previously deleted using the same cause because a nomination by me? and wasn't it also exactly the same content on the page? I tried my best after reading the cautions to not make any mistakes, but... Kges1901 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn:. The problem with Kges1901's patrolling is that he has been asked by an administrator to stop patrolling but in defiance of the request he is continuing to do so. It took me nearly an hour this morning to check his last 100 or so patrolls and while most of them are OK the accuracy rate is still too low. Thus the issue is not whether or not his patrols are accurate but the enormous work he is creating for admins and other editors in having to check his work. His editing history shows that he cannot normaly have accumulated sufficient experience for this type of work. The alternatives are that he either stops patrolling, or it will be discussed at ANI with a risk of him being blocked or at least T-banned from patrolling. Perhaps however, a couple more warnings may do the trick-. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Kges1901: now that you mention it, I see that Yashvardhan Shukla was speedy deleted before, but if the content was the same, I would also consider that deletion incorrect. The problem is that the criterion you used, A7, is for pages that don't make a "credible claim of significance." That page does: it claims that Shukla is significant because he published a novel at age 13, which is certainly credible (young authors do exist) and could theoretically make him notable (the author actually included a link to a profile of him in a national magazine). I around five minutes searching for other sources to check whether he was actually notable, and decided he wasn't—but I had to use articles for deletion process because it didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. There's a good reason for this—if it doesn't meet the criteria, it's worth using AfD, which takes more time but makes more sure that we didn't miss any reasons to keep the article.

Also, Kges, one of the reasons I was concerned was that you didn't seem interested in talking to any of the people who cautioned you so you could learn more about how to avoid mistakes. I feel a bit better since you responded here. I'd advise you to be much more careful, read the guidelines for speedy deletion very carefully, and above all, ask someone like me or Kupung for advice if you have any doubts about whether an article can be speedy deleted. This will allow you to keep contributing to the encyclopedia without creating unnecessary work for other editors.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Neil P. Quinn: - again apologies for barging in here. Just wanted to say something in regards to: "didn't seem interested in talking to any of the people who cautioned you". I am often accused of the same wiki-crime, so I am wondering if you may be interested in my perspective? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in. As someone who has lost countless articles to wp:CSDs, I always assumed that it is the admin's job to make sure that articles they are deleting are being deleted for the right reason. Is my assumption correct ? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

In theory, yes. At least that's what *I* do - and willingly too because I like to catch those clueless patrollers and bend them over my knee. That said, even if some sloppy admins do not check what they are deleting, there's always Delrev where anything worth keeping is generally refunded without much fuss. More difficult of course if the deletion was on a community consensus at XfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Kudpung. I am just wondering if there are statistics kept somewhere about the number of "sloppy admins do not check what they are deleting"? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it, Ottawahitech. I can't see how it would be possible to extract suc a statistic. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

A good place to start would be on my own talkpage :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

King's Norton Boys' School

Hi, In response to the message you sent me the only thing I have added is the school logo change, and a picture of the head for the news sake. If these are against the rules that you sent me I will gladly change the box to meet the required expectations of a schools Wikipedia Page. The whole page has been restored, is there a huge problem with adding texts of information. I understand the quotes but why can't there be other history, details about the curriculum. Also the motto box was already there, so why is it removed.

Thanks James Byford — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja5by101 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ja5by101 Hi James. I don't think the photo is appropriate, Wikipedia is not a news site and such content gets quickly out of date. It would be good if you could restore the original formal school logo. I have also removed some text from the article but I can't remember if it was added by you. You are most welcome to continue to expand the article but do check out WP:WPSCH first. I am the coordinator there so if you have any questions don't hesitate to contact me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi yes sorry for the inconvenience. I currently go to the school and they have changed the logo to the one I have put on there. The reason why I put the news on there is because I was planning on updating it. I will remove the content. Also the school motto, is that aloud to be put back up? I am really really sorry. Thanks for Your Help

James — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ja5by101 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry James, I have restored everything the way it should be. By all means add the motto to the motto section in the infobox, but preferably don't add any content to the article body before asking me first if you are not sure. Do check out WP:WPSCH/AG too - you'll soon get the hang of things and you'll soon be improving other articles. Make yourself a user page too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, I actually really appreciate things and I am sincerely sorry for the inconvience I have caused for you! I will add the motto but I shall not add anything else as it does cause an inconvenience and I can understand why the changes were made now and I do appreciate it!

Thank you so much again! James

Ja5by101 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

RAN

Actually, proxying Mr. Norton's new starts is permitted under terms of his original sanction, as I recall, so long as the person moving the start into mainspace accepts full responsibility for any possible copyright violation it contains. The logical and obvious solution for the betterment of the encyclopedia is to get rid of his punitive topic ban against direct new creations, of course, but as long as CCI is hot and bothered about 10 year old copyvios that nobody can or will ever fix, that doesn't seem too likely either. It's a stupid situation. Carrite (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bitey?

How about you try not to be, eh? Squinge (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Squinge: No, not in the slightest. A bit direct maybe, but only with those who should know better. I don't bite newcomers. If you are trying to do maintenance tasks you are hardly a newcomer, so how about you reading the instructions before you do anything and perhaps also talk page headers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing NPP - its not a fucking new page! Squinge (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Squinge: Nobody, just nobody, uses language like that on my talk page and never has in 9 years. Read the instructions, in particular these too and do not come here again - under an circumstances. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the rude word, I withdraw it and I've struck it now. If you'd like to discuss the fact that you were wrong about it being a new page then I'll be happy to do so, or I'll never post here again (other than when mandatory) as you wish - just let me know. Squinge (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Squinge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Help understanding a chart

The most recent vote concerning RfA at VPR included a chart, the first one at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_115#Time to replace RfA. Can you help me interpret the numbers? Have they been updated? - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank, how are you doin'? Nice to see you. I'm still not quite sure which chart you mean, but all the graphs and tables are pretty accurate. The discussion was only 3 months ago so not much will have changed since. Reading through it, I still stand by all my comments which, summa sumarum, is that RfA is now as good as it's ever going to get, doesn't need any major changes except perhaps for more consequent removal of inapropriate questions, votes, and comments, but it's a start. RfA is actually doing a good job, demonstrated by one candidate whom I dragged kicking and screaming to the process and who then skipped through it like a lamb through a field of buttercups. If you are thinking of starting a new reform campaign, you'll probably have my support, but I think we need to give RfA time now for people to realise that it's no longer the horrible & brioken process that I and Wales suggested it was four years ago, and we need to make more publicity for it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh ... wasn't thinking of starting an RfA reform discussion, I've got something else in mind, a followup to the current RfC at VPR on user-rights. Not disputing that the chart is accurate ... I just don't know what the numbers mean. Here it is. - Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014 (projected)
Active admins	943	870	766	744	674	633	570
Admin promotions	201	121	78	52	28	34	21
Admin attrition (actual, not net)	263	194	182	74	98	75	85

Dank, do you by any chance mean any of the graphs or charts I uploaded from my Excel spreadsheet? I'm pretty sure I still have that spreadsheet if you want me to email it to you or something, just let me know. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on that, but I think if I can find out what the numbers above represent, I'm good. (I get what the middle row means.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dank, most of these charts are created and maintained by WereSpielChequers. I don't find the figures particularly difficult to understand. Active admins are those who by some some silly criterion (not created by WereSpielChequers) that gives a totally false picture. IMO the actual number of truly active admins is about one tenth of that. Promotions is of course the actual number who passed an fA, and attrition is the total number lost through all kinds of desysoping. The projected number for 2014 was pretty accurate, in fact the actual number was 22. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that it would be nice to have numbers that are based on a higher bar for activity ... do either of you happen to have numbers that reflect that? I'll ask WSC too. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Dank, I don't but anyone who knows how to run a regex through the actual admin action logs can soon find out. I would suggest that a truly active admin should be based on the uses of the admin tools over the previous 60 days, plus the number of edits to ANI over the same period and then divide by 2. If the answer is 40 or greater, then I would consider them as active, Scottywong used to be brilliant at pulling stats but he's gone AWOL as far as I can see. He did most of the stats for us at WP:RFA2011. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've asked WSC if he has numbers. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

AfC

Hi. You removed me from Articles for Creation participants list because you thought I was too inexperienced. When do I know if I am experienced enough? When I reach 1000 edits? Thanks. William2001 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, William that's something else which you have misunderstood. If you had read the page before putting your name on it and my comments on your talk page you would have seen that 500 edits / 90 days are only a starting point and that more important is having sufficient experience that can't simply be measured by an edit count. We are shorly going to change the system and reviewers will have to request an admin to include them on the list just as we do for PC Reviewer, Rollbacker, and AWB user. I suggest that you might like to do some less complex maintenance tasks until the new system is up and running and make a new application then. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. William2001 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Recreated

Hi just letting you know that I have recreated the pre-speedy tag. This is for purpose of demonstration for the discussion started here. Please know that until the discussion has ended I will not use the tag. If a consensus is not reached I will tag it for deletion myself - Thanks. Unit388 (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, you owe this user an apology. You already have 4 editors at criteria for speedy deletion who consider this deletion inappropriate. What's described at that page is not an ambiguous misrepresentation of policy (altho I can't speak for the template itself). Deleting a template so quickly while it's still under discussion at the appropriate page because you personally disagree is, in my opinion, a mis-use of administrator tools. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, I don't really care for your opinion. It hasn't gone unnoticed by several editors that since you arrived at Wikipedia recently, you appear to have a disproportionate interest in policing the product to adding content to its articles. You are not likely to be an admin any time soon so if you don't understand our policies, kindly stay out of them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Something came in my mind

Is it possible some how to physically hide this page from new editors. I mean restricting new editors (who have less than 200 mainspace) to visit that page. I was thinking maybe WMF can do this but we need consensus first. What you say? Jim Carter 06:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jim. Well, theoretically that old feed ought to be deprecated. If the new NPP system has been in operation for a full two years (and if it hasn't it will be soon) the best way would be to start a major RfC to get it deprecated. At the moment, paradoxically, there are no requirements of minimm experiemce to patrol new pages but if the RfC for AfC goes through in a few days I will be starting a similar one for NPP and that will be the one to ask the Foundation how they can deny access to the curation system for non privileged patrollers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I started drafting an RfC. Currently there are two ways to see the log of new pages. 1) Special:NewPages and 2) Special:NewPagesFeed. As there are no requirements of minimum experience so my proposal would be: an editor with a minimum of 500 mainspace edits, account 90 days old will be able to view those two pages. The old feed cannot be shut down because older browsers are not able to open Special:NewPagesFeed page as the curation system uses JavaScript. So my RfC will ask the Foundation to set a filter such that users with less experience than the requirement will not be able access that page. I will be setting the RfC by tomorrow. I will inform you before it goes live. Cheers, Jim Carter 09:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

.js page

Hello. When you need to put a template on a javascript page please put two slashes // before the template so that the browser does no try to interpret it as code. The slashed tell the interpreter what follows is a comment and not code. Remember when you edit another persons javascript page you are effecting the code ran on their browser, given the shear number of browsers and their idiosyncratic interpretation of javascript it can be problematic. Chillum 07:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I have no idea what you are talking about except that I know that two slashes signifies a comment that is not part of the code. All the js sripts in my vector.js page have been copied and pasted as is and I have not tried to modify them. If you see something there that is not correct I would appreciate a hint rather than a vague message. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I may have communicated poorly, I was referring to this edit. To put it simply pages that end in .js have the potential to run code on the users browsers. While administrators are able to edit these pages they should only do so if they understand javascript enough to not screw things up. The tip about putting the slashes in front of the template was my 5 cent lesson on not messing up scripts.

When a javascript interpreter sees {{mfd}} it goes SYNTAX ERROR and depending on the browser various difficult to predict symptoms can arise. Chillum 07:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Chillum, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. I followed the link but it did not provide any clues that I understand either. Perhaps the Twinkle MfD script is not working correctly but that is nothing to do with me, and I'm too old to be learning javascript - I am a common or garden admin, and nothing about adminship (and believe me, I know says sysops have to be computer programmers to get the mop. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to learn javascript, but you are responsible for the edits you make with javascript tools like twinkle. Tools like twinkle save a lot of time but they aren't perfect. I cannot explain it any simpler than this: you made an edit to another users javascript page that would result in the script crashing on their browser, if you don't understand javascript then do not edit those pages.

As I said the only reason you were able to edit it at all is because you are an admin and admins have been given special access to other users javascript pages. If it is a problem with twinkle then you may wish to report a bug, stop using it, or audit the edits it makes for you. Chillum 07:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, You are not being very helpful. Are you suggesting that I am in someway in misuse of my admin tools for innocently using a broken Twinkle script available to anyone that I had not edited? If all you come here to do is to continue to stalk my work, I suggest you start worrying about your own admin attitude. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

He actually is being helpful, Kudpung. Don't add non-code stuff to any .js page without sticking // in front of it, or else you can break the code and weird things can happen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

{{tps}As I see it, Kudpung did not add non-code stuff to a .js page, he simply nominated a .js page for deletion using Twinkle and Twinkle edited the .js page to add stuff to it - that's hardly Kudpung's fault! People, try talking to each other and not past each other, eh? Squinge (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to learn javascript, but you are responsible for the edits you make with javascript tools like twinkle. Tools like twinkle save a lot of time but they aren't perfect. I cannot explain it any simpler than this: you made an edit to another users javascript page that would result in the script crashing on their browser, if you don't understand javascript then do not edit those pages.

As I said the only reason you were able to edit it at all is because you are an admin and admins have been given special access to other users javascript pages. If it is a problem with twinkle then you may wish to report a bug, stop using it, or audit the edits it makes for you}

• (talk page stalker) Kudpung, I understand what chillium was attempting to relay to you from the start as a JavaScript capable person, and I can entirely see why you were missing what was attempting to be relayed. I can't see the deleted edit, but based on this discussion I have a fairly good understanding of the core issue here. I'm away from home until next Tuesday or Wednesday but will test and work on a fix then as I get home. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Jesus Kudpung I am not accusing you of anything much less you abusing your admin tools. The only reason I mentioned admin tools was that if you were not an admin you would have been prevented from editing that page. I understand and accept that you did not do it on purpose and it was the result of a tool you used. All I am asking is the you either do not change other users javascript pages or that you put // before your change. This is a reasonable request, not some sort of attack on you. I am asking this of you for technical reasons not because I think you have done something wrong. Chillum 18:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Regardless it is not my intent to carry on about this matter, it is minor. Please just use more care in the future when it comes to javascript pages or avoid them altogether. I have notified the maintainers of twinkle here: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Javascript_pages_and_admins. Chillum 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi Chillum, I hope you don't mind a comment from me here. It's not what was said, but the way it was said that's caused the aggravation here, I think. Perhaps something like "You might not be aware of it, but when you nominated X for deletion Twinkle did something wrong" rather than just the "It's your responsibility..." approach might have worked better? Squinge (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Squinge, admin Chillum got his mop before we had a code of conduct. He is even more brash and bitey than I am ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It is really not clear why you felt the need to ping me while taking a swipe at me long after this issue(non-issue?) was settled. We did have a code of conduct back in 2008, as we do now. Let us both try to follow it please. Chillum 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It just seems like a bit of well-meaning (and bridge-building) humour to me, and it made me smile ;-) I can appreciate the work you're both doing here, and it's so easy to misunderstand each other in this medium, which is really not the best method of communication there is. Squinge (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

CSD Criteria

What would a page like Aswin mukundan qualify for deletion under? I'm not sure. --Kges1901 (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Kges1901 Both A7 and G11. Take a look at the article now while it's still there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Righto

better start earning my pay and start digging into some NPP. I still have the tool and full guidance. I think I've only ever done about 12, but there were no disasters generated as I recall. Keep a subtle eye out if you would be so kind. I assume you have the tools which give you a general overview of the day's or week's NPP output. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Jim Carter's talk page.
Message added 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Carter 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please can you check my NPP quality

Hi Kudpung. Dunno if you in bed, or busy, but if you have a minute, could you please give a brief glance at my NPP efforts so far? There are not many of them so It should not take long. I am very aware that there are some powerful tools available to the NPP'er, and I just want to know if my basic "feel" and methodology is acceptable. I am very aware of the responsibilities and potential to do inadvertant damage, so I just need some reassurance really. You can be as blunt as you wish. Regards Simon aka Irondome (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at some of your more recent patrols. As usual for most new patrollers you have a tendency to over-tag. This is both a negative and a positive criticism: it shows tha you are seeing what is wrong with the articles and it shows that you know what tags are available for use. Don't tag relatively harmless articles to soon, but of course any which are blatantly toxic must be tagged as quickly as possible for deletion to rapidly attract the attention of admins. If you are working from the back of the queue remember that some articles may be months or even years old - do check their histories very carefully. Here ae some things that you might like to look at again which illustrate some of my comments:

• Tooker & Marsh tage for CSD A7 if you can't find sources
• Nicholas Irving Overtagging - tagging the blatantly obvious. Good though because it caught the creator online
• Hitler Stalingrad Speech older article. Probably not worth tagging at all. Seems to be factually accurate.
• Under Electric Clouds Overtagging - tagging the blatantly obvious.

Be sure to make use of the 'message to the creator' feature (this may have less effect on older articles where the creator was an SPA who will probably never return, but do it nevertheless. You are on the right track - keep up the good work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Noted and much appreciated. S. Irondome (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am noting some peculiar phenomena as I work from the back of the queue. A proposal for deletion on a long-dormant unworked on article will suddenly provoke a flurry of activity. The original creator suddenly beginning to add cites, or otherwise begin work on the article. This process can be measured in minutes. Odd, but rather encouraging. I am closely following Jim's NPP proposals and the debate being generated from that by the way. I shall be commenting. I feel it is the article creation, rather than the patrollers that may be the issue. Just initial thoughts. Will be revisiting the patrolled examples you highlighted above. I am becoming much lighter on the tagging. Regards as always. S Irondome (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Simon, you are right about the flurries of activity - it happens at AfC too when drafts get tagged G13 for not having been edited for 6 months. Nevetheless, check that the improvements are relevant and if the creator has simply fremoved maintenance tags (which often happens) simply restore them.

The problem with NPP is most certainly the patrollers. I've been researching and patrolling the patrollers for 5 years. That said, although I favour a set of criteria of competency for users to be allowed to patrol new pages, it is too soon to be launching that proposal. I wish people wouldn't jump the gun but that's also what enthusiastic newcomers often do. They may not be entirely wrong but they will probably not be aware of what is already being done. A substandard RfC can set its own goals back years. Before anything can be done with NPP it is essential that we get consensus to disband AfC and that could take at least another year. AfC has a terrible 'ownership' syndrome to be conquered first. Yes, being lighter on the tagging, especially when the faults in the articles and stubs are evident is a good idea. Keep reading WP:NPP over and over again, you'll always find you missed something. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course, Chris. I have completed overlooked the rather bizarre entity that is AfC, which I am now belatedly researching. I see nowhere where it actually fits into the grand scheme, if you will. Certainly a minimum skills set in patrollers can only be a positive, but I fully endorse your policy of gradualism. A premature RfC can be literally devastating for an otherwise good attempt to improve the project, and can set back months of intensive (and unpaid!) research and diplomacy to naught. I am beginning to notice instances of premature RfC's in my brief tenure that have gone horribly wrong. A poorly planned RfC seems to have a strange "souring" effect on the community, where the merits of the proposal are sublimated by an irritation that the case has not been competely or thouroughly presented. Much like a jury. This prejudice can last years in contributors to these tainted RfCs'. A similar thing to the old grudges issue in the RfA process. I am beginning to join the dots, and to begin to appreciate how bloody hard it is and how subtle and patient one has to be to actually get things done. Your encouragement on my modest patrolling efforts is greatly appreciated Chris. I hope we all can meet up in London some time and have a doubtless very interesting conversation. Be good to meet Harry too! Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I was going to start a new thread but this related to the above conversation. I agree that AfC has got too over-complicated and empirical evidence has now shown me that, far from being kinder and more compassionate as I had assumed, an AfC decline seems to be just as WP:BITEy for newbies as a PROD or CSD tag, though I'd be interested to see some statistics of how many "one decline" AfC drafts get abandoned and deleted per G13. I still review the odd AfC submission, but nowadays take each one as a cue to improve it and pass it.

Anyway, I was discussing with my other half why Wikipedia can still appear hostile to newcomers, and the consensus came back, once again, to badly called CSDs. I'm thinking specifically of The Mariposa Trust and Le QuecumBar, which were both quickly tagged for A7 (multiple times in the case of the Mariposa Trust), but where a simple search for the article's title on Google News returned more than one page of hits, easily allowing me to expand these articles with proper referencing. Would it be possible to change Twinkle (where the majority of CSDs get called from) to bring up a message along the lines of "STOP! Have you followed WP:BEFORE" as some sort of edit notice if a Google News or Books search on the article's title returns, say, more than 10 hits. The problem with the scenarios above is that looking from hindsight it seems poor from the newcomer's point of view to be slapped about, and when they read up on policies, conclude they shouldn't have been. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the instructions at the top of WP:NPP could be changed to emphasise the importance of WP:BEFORE? I've lost count of the number of times I've caught pages which have been tagged, usually as A7, where a quick google search would either establish notability or at least make it iffy enough for the page to go for more scrutiny at WP:AFD instead. I also think there's a case for making pages ineligible for A7 until about 30-45 minutes have passed, to give creators enough time to add their content, though people opposing could probably point to pages like this though. Unless the page is obviously problematic, vandalism, attack pages etc, there's nothing to be lost by watchlisting the page and returning to it later to see if it has improved or not. Unfortunately, a lot of patrollers seem to be in a rush to get there first (I was guilty of those mistakes myself in my early days of NPP) when a little more digging would be more productive for all concerned. Valenciano (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I like that idea, and if there's traction it would be nice to make it into a guideline, I have a link to active A7s that I use all the time, hoping I can spot one that is salvageable. Of the two examples I gave, in both cases I was unsure if they would survive an AfD until I'd expanded up to about 7-8 sources, which was about half an hour's worth of work, and I know what I'm doing. I don't see anything wrong with taking some A7s to AfD, as they do not cause immediate harm to Wikipedia by existing, unlike attack pages and copyvios, a week's grace won't hurt us. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333. Valenciano, I spend several hours every week patrolling the patrollers and I've been doing this for around 4 years. There is so much poor tagging nowadays that I only bother now to contact the patrollers whom I really have to ask to stop patrolling and deven that is far, far too many. I would hesitate to say that the majority of patrollers arfe still working from the old feed. The New pages Feed and the Curation tool have been running now for around two years, so I'm going to make a move soon to get the old feed cdeprecated - to do any good anywhere on Wikipedia, one needs to get maintenance workers singing from the same page and applying the same judgement and criteria.

NPP is not an article hospital or the ARSollers should not be taking the time to improve or repair artic les. If they do the backlog will be even longer than the current 30,000. Indeed, they should do a 'before' before tagging, but if they find refs they should tell the creator that there are refs out there so would they pleazse add them or have their article slated for deletion. What ever Wikipedia guidelines say, there are very definitely moments when we have to be cruel to be kind, gthe most important thing is to avoid being blunt and bitey when we do it. I could go on and on and on about NPP, but I'm slowly getting totally fed up with say ing the same thing to 20 users a week. This is the kind of thing that one day will cause me to retire for good from Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW getting A7 delayed for 40 minutes won't wash. It's been suggested before. People who propose such ideas may need somewhat more experience with patrolling and won't have noticed that that the majority of A7 are articles that must be deleted almost as quickly as spam or attach pages - or are you really going to make a mockery of the process by allowing  : 'I am Johm Doe and me and Jim are the students in Grade 7 at Mrs Bingo's class' stand for an hour before hammering it - and its creator - into the floor? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with that sentiment, I'm afraid. What do you mean by "hammering its creator into the floor"? The spam folder on my Gmail account has a grace period of 30 days, I don't think there's a single message I want to read, and that's just one account out of 425 million, that's about a hundred times as many articles on Wikipedia. Google does not generally bring Wikipedia articles to the top of search results until about a week, based on my tracking of pink cat, which despite being created nearly a month ago and having 12 hours linked off the main page via a DYK, does not appear in the first page of hits on a Google Search. These type of articles (which from my experience are more likely to be things like "Advanced Solutions inc is an Indian derivitives analysis company founded in January 2015" or "Bringers of Darkness is a doom metal band from Boise, Idaho") cause no legal harm to the WMF by existing, unlike attack pages or copyvios, and is unlikely to be linked from anywhere in the hour or two it may exist. So my evidence suggests that hastily deleting these types of articles has no obvious benefit, and should not be necessary. Why the rush? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall it's a fine line. We need new contributors and new articles and some of the creators of the latter do get scared away by over hasty tagging, but on the other hand sloppy articles about some "up and coming" band that the creator plays bongos for do create work which takes regulars' time away from adding content and it's often for the sake of an SPA that has no other interest in Wikipedia. There are two issues, firstly, there does need to be more guidance for those new here and submitting the first articles and AFC doesn't seem to have fulfilled that. That could come in the form of technical tweaks to give more advice and guidance when new users are submitting their first articles. Secondly, NPPatrollers need to understand that speedy deletion doesn't necessarily mean nominating pages as quickly as possible, it means that the article deletion process, which would normally take 7-10 days through PROD and AFD, can be done in a matter of hours. The latter could be done by changing the instructions at the top of NPP. You're right regarding the A7 issue and I did acknowledge that above, but I also believe that a lot of A7s could do with a bit more time. The "Danny X is the coolest kid in my class" ones can be nuked fairly quickly, but the ones like "company X is a famous travel agent in India" can be given a little more time just in case there are offline sources covering the company's services or products. Valenciano (talk) 08:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333. Valenciano. Valenciano, have you lived and worked in India? I have. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333. Valenciano. With all due respect, what it boils down to is that neither of you have properly read what I wrote above. That will of course teach me not to TL;DR... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I did read what you wrote, but I simply do not agree with your views. There is no reason to disparage anyone with terms such as "trash" or "trolls". I think our conversation is done, and I fear we will continue to lose editors, which is a shame. Happy editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I fail to understand the value pf providing links to deleted G3s when we're disscussing A7. I have aqccess to deleted material, and take it from me, I've been here long enoigh to know the difference between a blatant vandalism and an A7 for an article that stands absolutely no chance whatsoever and should be flagged for deketion as soon as a patroller sees it. It doesn't matter if the creator might have stayed around to create a proper article about something else (let's not kid ourselves, the VAST majority of them don't), what NPP is for is to do a triage of articles, not to read the creator's mind or assess hi/her position and maturity in RL. We are an encyclopedioa, not a psychological counselling service (unless one is here for the pure social networking, but I am not - I'm here to build an encyclopedia and keep it free of trash and trolls, and actually I'm very much an inclusionist). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I read everything you wrote and agree with some, but not all of it, I don't get your point about India. However, there does remain the issue of editor retention and the need to have new blood coming through. You don't throw the baby out with the trash and sometimes that is what NP patrollers are doing, as yes there will be cases, especially in the A7 area, where naive newbies will have posted a worthy topic but will have failed to reference it adequately. Incidentally, if the redlink you are speaking about is Karim Badie, that was an A7 when I posted it as an example and was indeed deleted as such. The fact that a subsequent version was deleted as G3 doesn't change that or the fact that I specifically highlighted that as an example of an article which didn't deserve to stick around. Valenciano (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think things have got a little at cross-purposes. The Mariposa Trust was a good result. Have a look at the creator's talk page. Couple of cliched bitey twinkle tags, a few really bitey block warnings, I go in, add 6 reliable sources, everyone says "oops, sorry" and things calm down. That's the stuff I'm talking about. I maybe need to get some metrics of "CSD saves", but it can't be that many (I would guess about 70% - 90% of A7s are generally impossible for me to salvage) and most I do salvage go to BLP prod or AfD. Certainly there were about 20 articles tagged for A7 this morning that I thought "clear cut A7; bin now". But, going back to my original point that seems to have been lost a bit, a script would almost certainly (I haven't checked) report 0 or few news hits for all of those, giving the tagger a "clean" bill of health to CSD it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The first tagging was A7. It was blatant trolling and could have been tagged as hoax/vandalism, or even with just a tiny stretch of imagination as an attack page. Some of us admins would accord 2% AGF and delete it as a test page to save the creator's face -in which case however an L1 warning about creating inappropriate pages might be conceivable.

The second tagging (on recreation) of the same content by J man708 as G3 was perfectly accurate. In both instances the tagging took place within 5 mins or so of creation - and most rightly so - even a raw newbie patroller would know (well, mostly) that you are not going to make a regular Wikipedian out of that author. Sorry to continue to be a damp squid for anyone advocating a delay for tagging of articles that are pure nonense.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As I'm not an admin I can't view the page in question, so will take your word for it, but as I cited that as a specific example of a page which *should* be quickly nuked I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. No one is advocating a delay for nonsense articles. I nominate quite a few myself as soon as I see them and those should quickly go, but there are pages on other topics such as companies which are less obviously problematic, could theoretically have coverage not immediately obvious from google searches like offline sources or through paywalls and articles like that don't need to bite the dust so quickly. How to gain a little more time for those is one of several issues I see at NPP along with the WP:BEFORE issue of people not even bothering to check for sources. We do need a wider discussion on it. Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

All new articles are referenced and cached by Google within seconds of being posted on Wikipedia - that's part of the deal for Google's $1 mio donation, so that Internet searches always return Wikipedia articles at the top of the list. Your Gmail content is not referenced at all so I fail totally to see what it has to do with our problems at NPP. Fortunately, when I got the Draft namespace (yes, another of my proposals) created, we stipulated hat drafts will be 'no index, no follow'. That's what should have been included for new pages at NPP until they had been 'patrolled' but somehow the devs failed to do it and now it's an uphil battle to get it done in retro. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we're not talking about the same articles. Anyway, WP articles used to be the top Google search hit, but recently I've found that's not the case so much, they take a while to catch up. pink cat isn't on the first page. The Mariposa Trust is hit #6. I created Tape op (the term, not the magazine) yesterday and while the magazine might drown that out, I've just been through five pages of Google and not found it. So something has changed somewhere, but as Google never release pagerank algorithms, who knows. Maybe it now takes page views into the equation; obviously older articles will have had lots of views anyway because of their prominence, so will self-weight towards the top. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333. Valenciano, The Mariposa Trust was tagged A7 by Harry the Dirty Dog in less than a minute of its creation. The patroller, around since 2007 with an EC of 13,569, should have known better than to tag so quickly and should have applied other maintenance tags and made use of the message feature. Contrary to policy, the creator Charliallpress almost instantly removed the CSD themself and within less than a minute the tag was restored, again by Harry the Dirty Dog - this should have been an alert to the patroller who seems to patrol with a vengeance. However, the first and second pages of Google did not return any RS, and that's all a patroller is expected to as a Before, apart from checking for COPYVIO. I would therefore probably have tagged that page for A7 but certainly not within less than 20 minutes. I click to add such pages to my watchlist and go back to then after 20 minutes or so. I will soon find out later if it is still a blue link and if it is I will look to see why.

The fiasco of a discussion on the creator’s talk page starts of being rather bitey and only after a lot of kerfuffle does it start to get any nicer. Admittedly it pays to remember that Charliallpress is not here to become a regular Wikipedia contributor but nevertheless their article was neither a hoax/vandalism or otherwise toxic and they deserved to be treated in GF. Lessons to be learned all round (except MelanieN who I recently [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN|turned into an admin|| and will be one of the best we have).

This article and its creator are classic examples of the Foundation’s mammoth failure after all these years to address the lack of a proper landing page for new users - I believe this to be a WMF mandate even more than the creation of the new page feed and it curation thing. Indeed,development of the Article Creation Flow began but when things cooled down it was swept under the carpet. Follow up talks every 6 - 12 months have received vague promises but still nothing has been done. While the WMF will refuse, even with overwhelming community consensus, to introduce any mechanism to restrict creation of articles to auto confirmed users, there is nothing in that policy that says we cannot force all new users to build their first article through the Article Wizard - and that’s what IMO should be done. What needs to be done is:

• Significantly improve the quality of NPP and either introduce a technically imposed qualification for doing it or significantly step up the control of those who patrol.
• Create a proper landing page for new users, trolls, spammers, SPa, and who ever else, so that they have a clearer idea of what an encyclopedia is.
• Force at least all non confirmed users to choose to create either through the Article Wizard or to create a Draft first for submission to AfC (bearing in mind that there is a growing movement to migrate AfC to NPP and not without reason.
• Maintain the new quality of voting at RfA and continue our campaign to get users of the right calibre to run for adminship.
• Get regular editors more involved in the RfA voting process.
• Make it much quicker and easier to desysop the admins (probably pre-2007 promotions) who have a pattern of abusing their mandate.

None of the above is impossible and I can't see anyone seriously disagreeing. Just needs aforethought and some careful planning. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thai user

Hi Kudpung, not sure how much Thai you speak, but we have a bit of an issue with a Thai user. RKC Vakwai is uploading a lot of Thai football club logos, which in and of itself is not the issue, if they were properly licenced. The user is claiming they are the creator, and copyright holder, which is obviously not the case, having a look at their talk page, you can see the mass amount of messages, warnings, etc. that he/she has received. There was even a not so in depth discussion at AN/I a year ago which, really only resulted in a short message by another user. I dropped the last one, with a stop sign (presuming English as not a first language, visuals are good), saying don't upload anything without the correct licence. I am sure the actual message got lost in translation, but the concept is understood, based on this edit on my talk page. If you do know any Thai (or someone who does), could you explain the concept of fair use logos to this user? Really we can save a lot of time, work, and hassle if they just upload the images as fair use, but I personally cannot explain that in a way they will understand (my rather stern warning was really just to get them to stop uploading temporarily, lest they actually get blocked). Ta, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Also you seem to have a fan - Reptiles Birds Exotic AnimalsYes Bad UsersNo... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi kelapstick. sorry to disappoint you but while I speak relatively fluent Thai, and can read it just a tiny bit, it's worlds away from discussing anything in that language with anyone on Wikipedia.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries, thanks anyway Kudpung. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Me?

Is Are you referring me among those unhelpful editors? Jim Carter 15:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Jim, It's not 'Is you' it's 'Are you', and I'm referring to users who have been around since long before you joined Wikipedia, and who have a particularly nasty disposition - remember some of us have been around here for 10 years or more. Stop being so paranoid. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh! I started this thread with "Is" as I wanted to say something else but later changed it but forgot to change that word. Don't count my grammatical mistakes, I make plenty; though I'm able to write two GAs and a FL. I'm asking you because I'm a bit confused as your comment there didn't made it clear to whom you're referring. Best, Jim Carter 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, Jim, you need to follow that thread some more, because Buster7 has been doling some math. Wikipedia rules forbid me from naming manes or even making comments through which such individuals can be instantly identified. It's a very 'knife-edge' thing where some are concerned who are bent on destroying the editing pleasure of other volunteers. Some of them are now on a very short leash and will probably be banned before the year's out, and others will follow soon - some admins have been been oiling the mechanisms of their block buttons. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI Echo is not working for some reason, I haven't got your last two pings. I've identified two of the editor you are referring. I agree, they are making the environment at WER toxic but as I said on my talk page few days ago, if you really care for the project then I think you should take the responsibility of the project, it maybe time consuming but it will be a benefit for the project, for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia will not profit if one of the most prolific member of WER leaves it just because of few toxic substances. I hope most of the other WER members will agree with me. Cheers, Jim Carter 16:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Hi Kudpung; I saw your message and I wish to withdraw from RFA. How do I do so? --The one that forgot (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's about 2:20am in Kudpung's house, so I will help out: You can strike your nom statement, then add a comment that you want to withdraw below it. Any familiar editor can close it from there. I will add that I'm glad it got to run for a while, you learn from it. No one was negative, even those of us that opposed. You just have to give it time. The lowest number of edits that I've seen pass recently was around 6,000, a candidate I nominated, and who struggled to pass. I think lower is possible, but if I have to put a number on it, 5,000 is kind of a minimum safe level. Of course, the choice is yours, this is just my advice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Typo

Hi Kudpung,

I don't want to look like a stickler, but I must say that "WITHDEAWAL" in all caps made me laugh. I normally wouldn't say anything about a typo, but considering the prominence of your comment, you might want to consider fixing it. Thanks, --Biblioworm 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. So, did you close it then? BTW, it's 6 a.m. here and I've just got up for another 8-hour stint n at Wikipedia. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I !voted on the RfA, so I don't feel that it would be right for me to close it. --Biblioworm 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Kudpung:
Thanks for all of the advice and help during the RFA. Your words of wisdom were very helpful and I appreciate the nomination offer in the future. Yeah, I'll branch out from here, probably doing more content creation and possibly NPP work. Again, thanks! --The one that forgot (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

AFC script rfc

The discussion is thataway

I don't think it's nice to close those things early. I was planning to make a comment but thought I had a while to get around to writing it. It wouldn't have changed the outcome but maybe it could have gotten people a little more aware. AFC is broken and protecting that script isn't going to help noticably. I've put a few articles through it but it's gotten so bureaucratically intolerable that I've decided to give up on it, and submit any new articles through the relevant wikiprojects or just ask registered editors to make them for me. That said, reverting the closure probably isn't worthwhile. The real necessary fix is just never going to happen. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC) 50.0.205.75, your comment wouldn't have changed anything. There were even more users with very few edits who entered their names on the list today and that's what the RfA was about, and not about any alternative methods of controlling RfC or its future. However, stay tuned, because before the year is out there will be a major RfC to disband AfC and use something else quite different instead - we're working on it right now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I don't think RFC's are supposed to be like elections, whose main purpose is to choose an outcome. They're also supposed to record the different viewpoints that exist on the topic, which is why the early closure is annoying even if the outcome has made itself clear. I'd be interested to hear what you plan to replace AFC with, but I don't think it can change the currently perverse incentives around new articles, so I'm pessimistic. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC) The early closure was perfectly in line with the proposal for an emergency measure. I have launched a lot of RfCs - they always get consensus. You will find out in due time what we are planning to replace AfC with, and you'll probably like it. In the meantime I strongly urge you to sign up for an account - you voice would be more likely to be heard, we won't ask embarassing questions as to what your previous account was, and we won't need to know that you live on a block between Broadway and Pacific. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks. The "emergency" was bogus as far as I could tell. If the afc replacement is being discussed on-wiki someplace I'd be interested in a link (a quick summary would be preferable but a pointer is ok). One of my rfc comments was intended to be that rather than N edits, people processing afc's should be asked to submit an article of their own and get it through the process so they'll know what it's like from the other direction. 50.0.205.75 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I'm sorry but I will not entertain that kind of criticism, and certainly not from an anonymous user with such a deep knowledge after only one month of editing. No, the final solution for AfC is not being discussed anywhere that you can see it. For that you would email enabled, and you can't. I think we have finished here now. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Not sure which criticism you mean: if about the "emergency", a couple of editors in the RFC made similar comments to mine, and there was certainly no visible consensus that an emergency exists. I see one of them (K7L) has complained about this at WP:ANI and suggested the closure should be reverted. OTOH if you felt the page needed urgent protection, starting an RFC just for that was probably overkill, as a talkpage discussion (or running it through RFPP) would have been enough. (I don't mind the list page being protected, though I think the talk page should stay unprotected unless it's under significant vandalism/disruption). I'm rather more uncomfortable with the apparently secret, off-wiki development of your contemplated AFC replacement. That comes across as cabal-ish and it's more consistent with Wikipedia principles to discuss such things on-wiki. Anyway, I'm about to endorse K7L's suggestion to re-open the RFC. It's ok with me if WPAFC/P stays protected while the rest of the RFC runs, per my comment that RFC wasn't required to do the protection in the first place. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I have told you before, I do not like your attitude. You may get more attention from me if you were to express youself in a more collegial and collaborative manner. Is it somthing typical of people who refuse to sign up for an account and be part of the community? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Not sure what attitude you mean: if you've got a substantive criticism I'm happy to listen. I prefer editing without an account under the principle of "comment on the edits not the editor". I posted a comment at the ANI and a third editor did as well, so hopefully someone will re-open the RFC. You closed it while WP:INVOLVED under a claim of "emergency" that several people (at minimum: DGG, Leaky Cauldron, and myself) have disagreed with and nobody has made any sensible arguments for. You also tried to limit the scope of comments in the RFC itself (against the spirit of RFC's, which is to let interested parties present their views) and several editors pushed back against that too (your preferences don't override theirs). I understand the godawful burden and dilemmas facing AFC reviewers; I have thoughts and experiences to share from the contributor side in the interest of helping the process, while you engage in off-wiki coordination about AFC and hassle people here about accounts (which is especially weird because the whole point of AFC is to help people contribute without using accounts) and close discussions that you are involved in while they are still in progress. So I think you are the one being uncollegial and uncollaborative. I respect the good intentions and diligent efforts of the AFC wikiproject but it seems to me that despite its intentions, it has made things worse (more bureaucratic) rather than better. Therefore, I hope you can understand that hearing that the same people are working on a secret plan to replace the already-broken AFC sets off a certain amount of cynicism in me. If there's an open discussion about what you want to do about AFC, I'll look at it with interest and possibly comment. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I, as well, do not see any particularly disconcerting "attitude" from the IP. All I see is an attempt, at least on his/her part, to discuss the matter at hand. Kudpung is obviously WP:INVOLVED and there was no emergency to close the RfC while discussion was ongoing. Admittedly, in hindsight, I don't think there was a need for an RfC at all. If all that was necessary was for the AFC Helper script "Participants" page to be protected, then that could have been done under the pretence of WP:BOLD. Kudpung, you yourself have noted the fact inexperienced editors are signing up, even if they don't read or meet the proper requirements. Fully protecting the page was a bold, but easily justified move, and would definitely help the encyclopedia. Therefore, an RfC wasn't needed just to accomplish this task. However, the RfC's scope was broadened to a discussion about fixing AfC on the whole. Many agree that AfC is broken, and an RfC is a decent and transparent place to discuss such matters. For these reasons, I agree that the closing of the RfC was premature and best. Furthermore, the terms were "30 days or until a clear consensus is reached." 30% opposition is not a clear consensus and the 30 days definitely weren't up. In addition to my above comment, I'd like to note that Kudpung's behaviour above borders on the side of incivilty and bitiness. "your comment wouldn't have changed anything" - perhaps, but in discussions, everyone's comments are at least to be taken into consideration. That's what discussions are for. "be part of the community" - by virtue of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, just about everyone who can work collaboratively and contribute positively (as this IP has been doing, as far as I can see) is welcomed to this community. "collegial and collaborative manner" - not sure what you see as collegial and collaborative, but the IP's points are reasonable, and should be considered. He/she has not engaged in any personal attacks, and his/her very attempts to come to this talkpage and discuss this matter shows their willingness to collaborate. Finally, and somewhat paradoxically, I, too, would like to encourage you, 50.0.205.75, to get an account. You would avoid such comments as those above, it increases accountability and your contribution history won't be deleted if you move from one IP to another if there ever was a need for that. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Notification of closure review: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. Cunard (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on WP:AN#Closure review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script

Hello! You have been selected to receive an invitation to participate in the closure review for the recent RfC regarding the AfC Helper script. You've been chosen because you participated in the original RfC. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. This message is automated. Replies will not be noticed. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 14:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Full prot @ List of countries by Internet connection speeds

Hi. Do you think semi-protection would be sufficient here? If not, would you mind reviewing the requests placed on the talk page? Rjd0060 (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

HI Rjd0060. Having reviewed the entire edit history before protecting it, I feel that a high level of protection is required. I will leave the decision to you but you may want to watch the article for a while and see what happens if you change the protection. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you justify the reason? I don't see anything but anonymous users editing in the recent history. Thus, semi would be sufficient, I believe. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Rjd0060 see my message above: 'I will leave the decision to you' . --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Saw it. Am I not allowed to ask for justification? Anyhow, disregard based on below. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the discussion here, but I've already lowered the protection level. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MSGJ! Rjd0060 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Bot

If I wanted to create a bot for my account if you know what I mean, how would I do this? Regards TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 00:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. If you make a bot it will need to be submitted to the WP:BAG for approval before it =can be used. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I mean 2 things (could you please answer in the way I have asked them thanks)

• If I wanted to create a bot like many other bots on Wikipedia, that would be semi-automated, what would I need to do

• Any tips or pointers on what to do?

Thanks TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 02:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not being very helpful TeaLover1996, it's lke sayingh to me: "I want to go somewhere, can you tell me how to get there." besides which I don't know anything about bots as I have already said before. You must ask someone else, but you must be prepared to explain exacrly what it is you want to do, and chances are there is already a bot that does it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Question

Dear Kudpung: This report: [2] about one of our AfC participants seems to indicate that the user has no live edits, yet he/she appears to have contributions listed, and in fact has left a message (undeleted) on my talk page about a page which was accidentally submitted when I fixed an error which was hiding the submit template. Am I missing something, or are these statistics messed up somehow? When I check the edit counter on my own contributions it works fine. I don't want to jump to conclusions about the low edit count.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

HI Anne. I'm really the wrong person to ask about this sort of thing - in fact AfC is in such a mess I can't wait for the day whan it will be disbanded and replaced with something better or simply merged to NPP. AFAICS Onel5969 has 17,778 mainspace edits. The other counter (the original Supercount tool) is not working. If there are problems with the counters, you'll have to bully their devs because issues with them have been going on now for far too long. Everything worked fine before the migration to labs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. (And thanks for the ping, Kudpung). It's interesting, that when Anne Delong ran that report she got the results that she did, but when you click the link on my talk page, you get THIS REPORT. Interesting. Not sure where Kudpung's numbers come from. Sorry to inject myself in the conversation, but I was curious as to if I was doing something incorrectly? Onel5969 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Onel5969, I started looking into this because I wondered why I was notified about a page I didn't remember submitting. I wondered if the templates had been left manually. I checked your contributions to see if you were a regular reviewer, and was startled to be given impossible results by the edit counter. No, you didn't do anything wrong; the mistake was on my end; the original editor had a format error which hid the submit template, and when I fixed the error the template was revealed and the page was submitted, which I should have noticed, but didn't. It wasn't ready to be submitted, and you were right to decline it, which is why I didn't ping you. Anyway, Kudpung, sorry to have bothered you about this. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Anne, Onel5969: Stats are here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Name

Hi mate, you remember Zafiraman? Well that's me, I changed my username as per Change Username you can find my request and its approval in the archive (I'm guessing so but not 100% sure) TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 02:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection

If an article is permanently semi-protected, will it ever be unprotected? TeaLover1996 Lets talk about it 06:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If someone can make a strong enough argument for it to be unprotecerd. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

• News and notes: Questions raised over WMF partnership with research firm

• Op-ed: Text from Wikipedia good enough for Oxford University Press to claim as own

• In the media: WikiGnomes and Bigfoot

• Featured content: The Moon, Mars, Venus, and Saturn, in no particular order. Also, Kaiser Kong.

• Gallery: Far from home

• Traffic report: Fifty Shades of... self-denial?

• Recent research: Gender bias, SOPA blackout, and a student assignment that backfired

• WikiProject report: Be prepared... Scouts in the spotlight

• Blog: Join the Wikimedia strategy consultation

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

RFA nomination

I am here to request that you nominate me for RFA. I think I have the necessary experience and I wanted to see if you thought I would have a good chance of passing. Everymorning talk 21:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Just want to remind Kudpung that you ran before, in case he forgot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Everymorning (FYI: AF), but I do not think you are ready for adminship yet. It's not neccessarily a case of how many edits you have, how many redirects you made, or how many short articles you created, or the experience you have. You need to prove that that experience demonstrates a good knowledge of policies, guidelines, and procedures that admins are expected to have, and also importantly, their sense of judgement in certain situations. A new thorough review of your editing history leaves me with the impression that you are still not sufficiently well versed in several aspects of the maintenance of the encyclopedia. Admittedly you have achieved a high edit count, but IMO this only demonstrates again (at least to me) that you are too eager to be an admin and that is is what you have been working towards - wanting to be an admin, not to mention your attempt at ACE2013, should never be the main reason for joining Wikipedia. Having also once exposed your age will cause some editors to oppose on the grounds that you may be too young, we have no minimum age rule for adminship but voters are entitled to their opinion and that is a valid criterion for those who do so. I suggest you keep up the good work you are doing but that perhaps you should be spending more time on your school work, because I certainly know how much time one has to devote to Wikipedia to rack up the number and kind of edits you are doing and it is extremely rare for anyone to do so many monthly edits whatever they are and whoever they are. I reiterate my comment here, and the other advice I provided off-Wiki, which is still very much my opinion today. Give it time - I didn't become an admin until I was 61 ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)]

I consider 61 to be precociously young to be taking on the enormous burdens of the bit. As a believer in the Kabalistic theories of Reincarnation I can only assume you mean you have achieved 61 returns to this material valley of darkness. I would suggest one requires at least 100 before beginning to grasp the mysteries of the human soul, especially that of the Troll or WP:Vandal. I am suprised that one so young passed their RfA in the first place. The ancient Irondome (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the useful tip, I make articles nearly everyday now so I should get to 50 soon. So again, thanks, and peace. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:45 February 27, 2015