Kudpung

Have you remembered to sign your message

Question (2)

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

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)

Deauxma

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#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)

168.184.14.5

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 168.184.14.5 (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)

Hi!

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

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 en.wiki 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 on...it 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#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

Hi, that’s ok, I only change the release date as Amazon.co.uk 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 192.109.190.88 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed Black Flag PS4

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 192.109.190.88 (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)

PS4 ACBF

Hi I was replying to Besieged and the message goes to you sorry.192.109.190.88 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Valshe

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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 [1] and [2] 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)

Typos

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)

deletions

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

Mail!

Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Rehman 13:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

PageTriage toolbar code

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)

Pasqua

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

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

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)

SwizZz

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)

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)

CodeCity

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, how was it different from, for example, the Netbeans page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netbeans or the Eclipse page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_(software) or the Freenet page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet

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)

Request

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 ^{talk★contribs} 12:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)