User talk:Kudpung/Archive Dec 2017

Thank you for your comments. They truly mean alot to me. ―Buster7 ☎ 21:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been collecting some statistics on users that I have invited to join NPP. The statistics can be found at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPP. I have invited in total about 320 editors (and counting). discounting the 80 I invited today, of the 250 that I had invited as of a few days ago 34 had applied and been accepted. That's a success rate of about 14% (probably a bit higher as there are likely others from this cohort that haven't applied yet). I have also been collecting statistics on the number of reviews done by each user (Note that users further down the list were only accepted in the last few days, so the numbers there are expected to be low/nil). Of the top 15 though, it definitely shows the same trend that we get among our active reviewers (a few people doing nearly all of the reviews, some doing a fair amount, some doing one or two a week, and some doing none at all. However, I am shocked by the efficiency of inviting. Even if the edit counts of these reviewers decreases over time, they will still have ongoing benefits to the project, and just in the numbers over the last week, well, cumulatively it rivals or tops my own record for most reviews done personally in a week.

I think that my time is best spent inviting and mentoring new reviewers, as the impact to the backlog over time will far exceed anything I could accomplish on my own. I am currently working my way down the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. It is a handy list because it also lists user-rights held by the editors. I am inviting anyone who is not an admin/NPR, who has been active recently, and who has a clean 6 month blocklog (as well as a brief look at their talk page for anything worrying like A7 speedy deletion notices, though I haven't found many given the experience level of these editors). Starting at the top I have worked my way down 300 editors in the list so far (inviting 80 in total of that number), and already got two three bites today, so it is going well.

If you have any advice I'm keen to listen and I thought you would be interested to see how it was going. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere, I think it's an excellent initiative. Do be sure to do plenty of pre-vetting though, to avoid any of your candidates making their applications in good faith and then being turned down by the admins at PERM. I believe Tony is working there a lot now, and like I used to, he investigates pretty thoroughly before according any rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do bear in mind if you're going through the autopatrolled eligibility list to recruit, that it makes it difficult to assess as none of the people have any project space contributions - most peole who are here to do a lot of article creation aren't interested in back office work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I actually stopped with the autopatrolled list because I found that a large percentage of users there were not what we were looking for. I am now using the list of top editors by edit count and working down from the top. My checks for vetting are: 1) enough edits (generally not looking for anyone with less than 3-5k--this isn't an issue with the current list I am using where everyone is 100k+). 2) Active recently (per granting conditions, obviously not inviting anyone who retired ages ago). 3)Clean 6 month block log (and also not inviting anyone who has a long history of blocks for personal attacks etc, even if they are clean for the last 6 months). 4) Briefly check talk page for CSD and AfD notifications where the article was deleted, or other red flag issues.

I understand that it is important to catch most of the red flag editors before inviting (which I didn't do as well at the beginning), but I also know that Toni and others at PERM will look closer than this at people, so I don't want to use a ton of time pre-vetting people. I haven't had one of the people I invited get turned down for a while, so I must be doing alright with the system I have developed. Anything else that you would recommend checking?

For the top 300 editors by edit count (of which I invited ~80) 4 have applied for the user-right, with 1 more to do so soon. Only a success rate of ~6% so far, but my hope is that these users will be more likely to become long-term and prolific contributors given their existing edit history. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your research needs to include evaluating a candidates history with a view to estimating if they are likely to have a genuine need for the tools and will use them. There is no point n stuffing the numbers with even more inactive reviewers. Getting the right involves a lot more than just meeting the basic numerical criteria as you'd see if you take a peek at PERM and see how we handle the applications. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually been following PERM very closely. It is true that most of the editors who have gone on to review a lot of articles already had a decent percentage in the project space, I could potentially target users in that space. Some however, were surprises, such as PKT. I'm not sure how I am supposed to guess whether a user will use the tools, as many of those that successfully applied that I expected would jump into reviewing haven't done much or anything at all yet, and some of those that I didn't, have. Of the people I have invited, the number that use the tools, and the amount that they use them, seems to follow roughly the same exponential curve as the distribution of new page reviewers before I started inviting people. I am never going to be able to simply target people that are likely to use the tools. The best I can do is spread the word amongst those that are qualified and hope that those that apply intend to use the tools. If we get a few more inactive reviewers along witha few more active ones, I do not see the harm. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This comment today on my talk page is pretty relevant. some people think that they shouldn't help out some because they can't commit to helping as much as the top reviewers, and don't want to be called hat collectors. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...a 24 hr. old article I created as a spin-off article that was nominated for AfD by an admin without any consideration of the timeframe or available material to expand it? The topic is clearly notable enough for a standalone, and the fact that it was nominated within 24 hours of creation really gets under my skin, especially considering how much trouble we have as NPRs getting promotional articles deleted or merged. I'm trying to AGF, but crap like this is very discouraging - especially considering a similar article that, after a short 4 days of being open, was prematurely closed by an involved NAC - stayed closed for 5 days - and then I finally got it reopened, but it was closed again within 24 hrs because they counted the 5 days it was closed in their calendar timeframe. WTH? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - I was trying to avoid accusations of canvassing? Hell, I get accused of canvassing simply asking for collaborative editing help on an article the editor I supposedly canvassed has been editing! ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for general advice (and not for Kudpung to take some action), then he needs to know what you are talking about. I didn't spend further time to figure out what the other one you are kvetching about is. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, but I think I'll recuse myself on this. Perhaps you can draw some parallels on a couple of people who come to mind such as Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal and Rolf Harris. Best thing you can do IMO, is to just accept the community's consensus - whatever that turns out to be. Any issues regarding NPP/NPR are best brought up at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:--I understand your feelings but given the nature of editorial attention, these topics seem to attract, it may be better if you could create the article at one go with the optimum quantity and quality of sources, at the cost of some technical discomfort, so as to prevent AfDs from snow-following a trend .Regards:)Winged Blades ^Godric 13:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thx to all - not much else I can do but accept consensus if the close is done properly and I have no reason to think it won’t be, unlike the fiasco at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roy_Moore_sexual_abuse_allegations with its inappropriate NAC after only 4 days, followed by 5 days of remaining closed before I managed to get it reopened which only lasted a day before it was closed again. Kudz, I can now relate to why you steer clear of political articles. I’m thinking they may be why IAR and BRD were created. 😂

The NAC registered an account many years ago but did not start editing until 7 months ago. I think we may have a case for considering discussing whether or not non admin closures at AfD should be restricted to experienced editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

That NAC was particularly egregious (the most egregious I've seen in years), and the inexperienced editor still has not accepted or admitted that they did anything wrong. Very bizarre. I certainly agree that no non-admin should close a 4-day old AfD (much less a controversial one) with nearly 50% (15/31) Delete !votes as "Snow Keep". I think that editor should be topic banned from closing anything at this point. All that close did was create havoc and more dissent and ill-will from all sides. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the community's own fault really. It's allowed the mantra 'anyone can edit' to be used and abused. It was never intended to mean that just anyone can tinker with engine in the back office, throw a spanner in the works through total incompetency, and then simply slink away as if no harm has been done. Even New Page Patrolling is no longer officially open to newbies and the clueless, why should they be allowed to close debates? Someone needs to start the RfC to put an end to it, but I've got too much on my plate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already there, so really just needs enforcing/promulgating that only "Experienced non-admin editors in good standing" may perform non-admin closures: see detail on WP: NACEXP. And indeed the issues raised here are specifically addressed by WP:BADNAC. Non-admins may not close discussions where The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator and when The non-admin has little or no experience editing Wikipedia generally, or has little or no previous participation in deletion discussions. There you go. SerialNumber54129 10:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already know about those. The problem is that they are not a policy, nor even a guideline. It needs to be anchored in policy, with outlined sanctions, so that admins can do what they have to, without being condemned as bullies and power mongers - which at the moment is the reason we don't do enough about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

64 policies instead of 63?! Or we could just call it WP:DE (which is what it becomes) and utilise the normal channels. In any case, it wouldn't address the main issue in this case, which has been misidentified as the non-admin closures (which are easily reverted, and if repeated, DE blocks will stop it happening too often. DS might also be available in a lot of cases- they're underused outside of articlespace). These closures were crap, no doubt. But the real issue, the elephant in the room- also identified by Atsme- was the fact that a highly contentious, controversial BLP page- with possible legal implications, etc- did not receive the mandated 168 hours of exposure. More, it was closed early, with only five days of discussion. Now that is the issue, andthat has got nothing to do with non-admins, but has got everything to do with administrators, upon whom you wish to bestow even greater powers. Happy days  :) SerialNumber54129 11:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:It may be noted that a non-admin also featured as one of the re-closers:)Winged Blades ^Godric 13:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And. Might I posit, completely pointlessly. SerialNumber54129 13:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying, by the way, I've been occupied elsewhere, on a cruft-removal business, by appt. to neutrality  :) Take care! SerialNumber54129 14:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kudpung. Just thought I'd stop by and say hello. Hope all is going well. ceranthor 23:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Pretty much, Ceranthor - especially since you co nominated me for adminship nearly 7 years ago :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy how time flies! I was pretty inactive, but I'm slowly getting back to article writing and the occasional admin work. Glad all's well. ceranthor 23:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung - I'm being hounded by Ca2james who just posted the following misinformation at the AfD that was initiated for an article I created. I'm not even going to bother pinging her because she hawks my edits and will show up here anyway. I'm simply posting notices of the AfD to various projects I thought would have an interest, and got sidetracked at AfC and NPP. After a bit of time there, I started adding more content to the article, went over to post notices at the AfD and saw her comment and attempt to poison the well and create disruption. I'm beginning to believe her only reason for being on WP is to troll me. I have asked her in the past to stop, but the behavior continues. She consistently misinterprets PAGs and makes accusations against me in a passive aggressive manner as evidenced in the first diff I provided. Other editors have noticed her interactions with me as well. She has been doing this since 2015 and based on her edit count, I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of her edits weren't made harassing me. Perhaps a word from you will help because short of requesting an Iban, I don't know what more I can do. Her actions have hindered my work at NPP, and particularly at AfDs that I've initiated or happen to be participating in. Oh, and here is her response to my warning. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, due to issues in RL I'm not much available for Wikipedia for the next day or two. With an issue like this, it's probably best to take to ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)Atsme, without looking into other issues, your notification at WIR was almost clear-cut-canvassing.And, James's post wasn't misinformation either.But, I must agree that there's a huge intersection of his near-entire set of edits with your working areas.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric my notifications complied with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification which clearly states: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief. Uhm, women did come forward with their allegations, so what is not neutral about saying "women coming forward" which identifies the potential interest to Project Women? Ca2james claimed: "which appears to me to be indirectly soliciting Keep !votes (ie not coming out and saying "!vote keep" but saying "this article involves women coming forward about sexual harassment and misconduct, and this is a project about increasing content about women so... You know what to do")", and that statement is why I brought it here because she attempted to make my 3 word "brief" mention of the crux of the AfD inappropriate. But of course, in her typical passive aggressive behavior, she followed up with "I apologize if I've misinterpreted things; and I understand that my interpretation might be not at all what the poster intended but I thought it best to bring up." *sigh* I've grown weary of it because when editing or participating in such controversial topics, WP:CIR. To claim that a statement of fact - "women coming forward" - is inappropriate canvassing after considering the fact that Variety and other RS have reported that "women had come forward" qualifies the topic as to why it would be of interest to Project Women. If I had said, "women want justice" or that "women are tired of the abuse" then you'd have a case. There was nothing untoward or non-neutral in my notice to the two women's projects, and the misconception that it meant anything other than what it meant is very concerning, not only to me but to women in general because of what such a claim implies. To further demonstrate the ridiculousness of such a claim, should we consider limiting the proportion of male iVotes to a balanced proportion of female iVotes considering WP is edited primarily by males; therefore, all women-related AfDs and RfCs are biased? What about stopping notifications all together since the majority of WP Projects are occupied by male editors? Oh, and I also notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality - oh my, the title implies "sex" so it must be inappropriate canvassing - and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, but saw no need to qualify how the topic related to their projects. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:207.222.59.50 alerted me on my talk page to this discussion. I resent and am extremely uncomfortable with being talked about behind my back. I'm not following Atsme. I have run across her on some current events articles; I have an interest there because of the current climate and I look at and keep an eye on most of the articles I come across in my news reading. I'm not looking to engage with or follow Atsme: I find it very distressing to interact with her as, when we do interact, we almost always disagree and I find her response to disagreements to be unpleasant. Finally, a bit of housekeeping: I prefer to be called "they" rather than "he" or "she" because I do not specify my gender on Wikipedia. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The interaction analyzer contradicts your statement. Thank you. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you do for the project!! Malerooster (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kindwords, Malerooster 😊 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	You are my original!! บุญพฤทธิ์ ทวนทัย (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your looking at this article as well. I asked the page creator on their talk page if they were associated with that company, they did eventually say no but their first reply to me was (to paraphrase) "which policies are you talking about". I'm trying to assume good faith but it still seems suspicious to me. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it and thought exactly the same, 331dot. I was led to the article from the spam W-link they dropped in the Eton College article. Until I radically pruned it, New and Lingwood was as blatant a piece of adspeak as I have ever seen and the author is clearly a PR agent or on the company's payroll. I have warned them for COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know in case like this that it isn't just me who thinks something. Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, I've removed all the puffery flagged by Ehrenkater, and some spamlinks. This now leaves it with no claims to significance or importance and notability is not established. Can now be tagged for any one of our deletion methods if anyone is so inclined. We have to make an example of these blatant spammers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I may look into doing so later today. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now know (well, 99%) who the creator is - a paid blogger about high class sartorial topics, but of course I'm not allowed to say. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for AfD. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a line to DGG a while back talking about an idea that's been rattling in my head. It's obviously too extreme to be fully implemented, but thought it was an interesting starting point. Seeing your recent input over at the idea lab, and your involvement in COIN, I figured your feedback would be welcome as it seems there's a bunch of interesting solutions floating around regarding AfC being clogged with COI. Thanks in advance. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drewmutt, replied there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a few.[1][2][3] Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 00:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Vial, yes, there was quite a lot of it. I'll do these now. IPs blocked and page protected. If I've still missed anything, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 00:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Vial, I've had a quick look but I can't find any more. It's nearly 8am here and I have to go to work soon. If there are any other revisions that are blatant attacks that need to be supressed, or IPs to be blocked, let me know with actual diffs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Boomer Vial, The tool you are looking for is here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you. I'll keep my eyes open for any revdels needed. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 02:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Holidays
	Wishing you a happy holiday season! Times flies and 2018 is around the corner. Thank you for your contributions. ~ K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand why you are making comments about my copyediting at KEC's talk page. Please, advise me if you have something helpful to say. What I did on that article was all (as far as I am aware) working towards the MoS. I would very much appreciate any specific examples of where you consider my actions to be wrong. –Sb2001 01:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sb2001 I did not mention your copyediting or your specific edits. If my good friend coffman has any issues with them, I'm sure he will discuss them with you. What you may ignore however, is that I am a retired lecturer in linguistics and a published author of textbooks - especially English and creative writing, but I don't bandy it around. Now please remember that you are not really welcome on this talk page and that earlier this year you narrowly missed a block for harassement, but I do wish you all the best for the holidays and the coming year, and a happy Wikipedia collaboration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, please accept these holiday wishes :) I've caused this year to end on a chord of disappointment for many, but I hope that despite my mistakes and the differences in opinion and perspectives, and regardless of what the outcome is or in what capacity I can still contribute in the coming year, we can continue working together directly or indirectly on this encyclopedic project, whose ideals are surely carried by both of our hearts. I'm hoping I have not fallen in your esteem to the level where "no hard feelings" can no longer ring true, because I highly respect you and your dedication to Wikipedia, and I sincerely wish you and your loved ones all the best for 2018. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC), humbled but optimistic about the upcoming year of renewal and growth![reply]

• I owe you perhaps an extra layer of thanks, since it is seeing your messages go out on many talkpages on my Watchlist that inspired me to send my yearly batch out (I'm not sure but I think I may have forgotten to in 2016? :p) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kudpung: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ―Buster7 ☎ 18:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

• Thanks for you Greetings and for all you do. ―Buster7 ☎ 18:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec17a}}~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.

ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...A rebel without a Claus.

	Time To Spread A Little Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Hi Kudpung, wishing you all the best for Christmas and the New Year. I hope 2018 is a good one for you. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpgung, how are you? Regarding your block of 107.77.173.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) it doesn't look to me like it's an open proxy. Are you happy for me to change to an anonblock, or, given the time that's past, to unblock it? Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Callanecc. No worries. Do whatever you think best. Best wishes for the holidays and 2018. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this is a test page? Then can you please undelete it or I will. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also sorry if that came across as terse. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Have a nice holiday, Xezbeth. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas Kudpung!!


Hi Kudpung, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You recently semi-protected University of Michigan for several months because of "persistent vandalism." I'm not seeing any recent vandalism in the article's history. Was this perhaps a mistake? ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, ElKevbo. It was on a list of US universities that have been slowly but persistently vandalised over a longer period of time by the same group of IPs. It's late here now and I'll have a look in the morning. If you would like some quicker information from someone in your time zone, don't hesitate to contact John from Idegon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Any insight into this, John from Idegon? ElKevbo (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles I watch have experienced considerable vandalism from IP addresses associated with the University of Michigan, but I don't pay much attention to university articles. Sorry...John from Idegon (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, it doesn't seem like anyone has offered an explanation as to why this article is semi-protected and the edit history doesn't seem to support this action so can you please unprotect it? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Kevin, but having taken yet another look at the article history, I feel that preventing unregistered user for editing it is for a short while is justified. However, you are welcome to solicit the opinion of other admin colleagues, such as for example DGG or TonyBallioni and I won't stand in the way of their decision to revert or shorten the protection. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm utterly puzzled and disappointed that you believe it's appropriate to semi-protect this article. I've filed a request at WP:RFPP to have the protection lifted. ElKevbo (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wish you merry Christmas and a happy new year.

BTW, here is the WMF blog post which remembers your ex-colleague, JohnCD. For your record. Thank you --Muzammil (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Syed, for those kind words about John - and for pointing me to the blog. Happy holidays. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kudpung! I hope all is going well for you and yours as we wind down the remainder of the year. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Kudpung, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... is that they fail to take into account the recipient's location. For instance, in terms of "It's probably a lot warmer where I am than where you are 😎"; in my case that's not particularly apt, seeing as I'm at nearly the exact same latitude and in nearly exactly the same climate as you. That said, here on the Big Island of Hawaii, as is often the case, we are, unlike you, also having a White Christmas thanks to Mauna Kea being 14,000 feet high! [4] Merry Christmas, K! 😎 Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your note at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Corpania#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Blockfolio' please note the request left at 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blockfolio_page_"speedy_deleted"_but_how_can_I_modify_what_I_first_wrote?_Can't_find_history._Please_advise.'; can the request made there be honored and, if not, could we please solicit your input regarding how better to go about getting the deleted page back for revision (and, ultimately, review)? idfubar (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idfubar, please see the comment I posted on the thread you started at the Help Desk. It is unlikely that the article will be restored. You rather gave the game away with 'We'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, thanks for your reply (it has received a comment in turn); probability aside, what about the request suggests a "game" (aside from the wrongfooting of Corpania & the lack of consequence for an editor who doesn't hold himself to the highest standard in assuming the motives of others?) Wouldn't that be a short-lived, low stakes game (and, indeed, one which you are keeping to yourself given the "us v/s them" you yourself have suggested)?

Idfubar I think you know perfectly well what I was alluding to. However, I am not familiar with your past editing history, so if by 'we' you inferred 'us' as the general Wikipedia Community, I apologise for my indiscretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idfubar having now read the other comments elsewhere, I believe I was correct in my assumption of your 'we'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Kudpung, you are entitled to your own opinion... just not your own facts: again, do note that helping Corpania amounts what is called being a Good Samaritan; as this is also his first time authoring an article the instinct to collaborate with him is (given some minimal measure of intelligence) reasonable enough - regardless of his having been too enthusiastic about the process & the ease with which a mistake can be corrected. Not possible to accept a retracted apology though, so...idfubar (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Idfubar, I don't believe there is any genuine 'mistake' in considering that an encyclopedia is available as a platform for advetising. The onus is on any editor to read and understand the rules. In any case, the Corpania account has now been blocked for representing a commercial entity whether connected with the artice's subject or not. And as you have been around on Wikipedia for 6 years, I would naturally assume that you would have known these things. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--To be very precise, in his eight-year-tenure, he has accumulated 12 non-minor edits at article-space.So....:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:PA comment from Kudpung idfubar (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Kudpung, there is no opportunity to learn, and ultimately contribute (e.g. to a knowledge source collaboratively authored by volunteers) if the lesson being taught is hatred. Further, note WP:5P4 and - insofar as Corpania could have ever done anything to merit his account being blocked - also WP:5P5; unless you fancy yourself someone named Samson you seem to have gotten confused about those pillars in exercising your authority.idfubar (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI,Idfubar I did not block that account. I'm not interested in your snide innuendos - WP:PA is also a blockable offense with a low threshold of tolerance. Please do not post here again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. idfubar (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: User blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Chris, and I hope you and yours are having a peaceful and stress-free time, and you are in touch with your far-flung clan! Thanks for being around and being a great colleague. Kind regards from Simon Irondome (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 23:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope 2018 is a good year for you. From Canada to whereever you are in the world --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kudpung: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 01:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hello Kudpung: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kudpung, I hope you and your family have the very best New Year. scope_creep (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about your thoughts regarding SO over here, given that that was a CU block by Alex per violation of WP:PAID and he is miles away from accepting his connections?Winged Blades^Godric 16:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Blocked by CU is not equivalent to CU block I think; I don't believe I suggested there was abuse of multiple accounts, that's why I didn't block with {{checkuserblock-account}}; what I noted was that CU data supports the fact that the user was editing with conflict of interest (blockable considering the spam pages and refusal to disclose), while deliberately tries to mislead and disrupt. Alex Shih (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not equivalent but there were specific mentions of your's using the CU tool for the findings and more precisely, I don't think Kudpung would ever suggest a SO for a non-disclosing paid editor:)Also, on a purely procedural note (without any comments on this case) , CU blocks aren't solely used to deter sockpuppetry and AFAIK, nevertheless they mayn't be revoked at discretion of non-sysop folks.Winged Blades^Godric 17:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I think the policy merely implies that CUs must be consulted prior to any unblocks of this kind. I suppose I understand your point that the suggestion of SO is premature at this stage. For me, I am also just waiting for uninvolved admins to patrol CAT:RFU. Alex Shih (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, on grounds of common sense, this will obviously not require a CU but a mandatory disclosure, while unblocking:)Winged Blades^Godric 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Winged Blades of Godric: a CheckUserBlock is one where a CU has found sufficient evidence to match multiple accounts to one user and where to reveal whom would be in conflict of matching IP addresses to named accounts. No further explanation in the blocklog is required and no other admin can unilaterally unblock. Alex made a standard block here. It's interesting to note that no admin as yet has ventured to address the unblock appeal. There are rules for that too. I can't because I'm involved (although not technically), and if I did what ought to be done, i.e. decline the appeal and also revoke TPA at this stage, it would be seen by some as bullying. We just let the user dig deeper for a while now until they find someone has removed the ladder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine:) Just making sure that you noted the orig. reason for the block.Cheers:)Winged Blades^Godric 17:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Not only, but I also added there that the block could easily be for a couple of additional criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your deletion notification today, and it has been deleted already. The reason why it was important enough to keep was that there are no other projects that I know of that specialise in computer/smartphone, ... hardware repair. Repair Cafés are less strict in what people bring in, but that also means that the repair men are less good in repairing whatever you bring in (since they're allround they need to know everything). Also, those restart parties seem important too since they increase the impact the project has. KVDP (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted by RHaworth who endorsed my deletion recommendation, which make two admins who have assessed it. Unfortunately KVDP, this subject is totally without notability or importance for an encyclopedia article, and clearly fails our criteria at WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Having noted that many of your creations end up deleted, could I ask you please to familiarise yourself with our guidelines for inclusion before creating any more articles. See WP:N and WP:RS - all articles must be sourced to multiple, independent, in-depth sources. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Prisoners" New: "Fashion designers" New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland" Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hi,

In July you have deleted the entry RODRIGO TAVARES due to a copyright infringement connected to the website www.granito.group. Since then, the owners of that website have sent emails confirming that the information can be used (to [email protected]). An email can also be sent to you. FYI, Rodrigo Tavares is the only Portuguese Ambassador on innovation and one of the few World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders with still no wikipedia page. Please let me know what I could do to ensure that the copyright concerns are properly addressed.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes Maria Marques — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:431:f705:99f3:8015:578d:7b9f:afae (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

The article cannot be restored because it is a copyright infringement. Wikimeda Commons is a repository for images and is not connected with the text content of Wikipedia. The article was aslo written Tavares' agent or someone closely connected with him - as I assume you are yourself (please see WP:COI). The only workaround is to write a completely new article from scratch, but you and your cooleagues will not be able to do that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kupdung,

We are 3 former students of Professor Tavares and in any way we are close to him or have any personal or professional relationship with him. After he was nominated Young Global Leader (the same distinction was received by the founder of Wikipedia) we decided of our own will to go through his interviews in the press and compile a wikipedia article. I have just deleted or rewritten most of the article, based on your recommendation. If, sadly, we cannot submit a longer article, at least I hope you can accept this much shorter and new version. See below. Best wishes, Maria

Please see my comment above. Do not post entire articles drafts to talk pages. Create an account and use your sandbox. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, the article was drafted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rodrigo_Tavares. Our account is fgvwiki07. Could you please guide us on next steps? Have the issues you raised been addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgvwiki07 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fgvwiki07, I'm sorry again, but 'Our account'? Joint accounts are very strictly not allowed on Wikipedia. Please create your own individual accounts. If I detect anyone using the same computer to edit the encyclopedia, I will not hesitate to block all the accounts concerned and to prevent them from creating new ones. One of the main issues you and your 'group' have is refusing to read instructions, even like those on the top of my talk page. In the meantime, I will check out that draft. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, I have read a few tutorials but I still hit a few speed bumps in the wikipedia world. Truly sorry about that. The account was just created by me, Maria. With the new version of the article I hope to have followed your instructions. Best, Maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgvwiki07 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, quick message just to thank you for editing and accepting the article. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgvwiki07 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fgvwiki07, I have checked the draft. I have closed up the paragraphs removing the sub sections which are not necessary in a short article. I have put his books in a 'Publications' section in the right place. I have removed two in-text external links (not permitted and usually considered as spam). It looks as if you have already sumbitted the draft to WP:AfC for approval. It will probably pass now, but there is a long backlog. While I partly supervise the work of that department, it's not my main focus and I rarely do the actual reviews myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have copy-edited too and it looks good.Can you please un-protect the title?Winged Blades^Godric 06:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, its not protected. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's protected and by you. Please recheck:) Winged Blades^Godric 09:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did.Several times, and I wasn't getting the pink template.  Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No qualms:)  Done from my end too! Main-spaced.Winged Blades^Godric 09:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric, it's been tagged for deletion. Check its history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..Drmies, is the YGL from WEF notable?That was the sole factor which pushed me to accept! If it's not, I dare say that many other entries are looking at a prospective deletion too!Winged Blades^Godric 04:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"YGL from WEF"? Eh...? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Young global leader from world economic forum. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK--are you asking if membership of Young Global Leaders (and List of Young Global Leaders) means one is notable per our guidelines? I don't see why--it looks to me like just another list where rich and powerful players nominate their successors (look at the title of this reference), and I don't see that much coverage that makes me think otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Kudpung, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I've created Category:User criteria for adminship and categorized all the pages I could find, and cleaned up the parent categories to an extent (user essays categorized as such, and so on). The adminship-related categories are much less of a mess now. Also updated the "See also" sections on the RFA policy, guide, and miniguide. And pruned the truly ancient criteria entries from the over-long list at WP:RFAADVICE (I did add one user's recent RfA criteria, but have not gone through everything in the new category to see if any are 2010-onward and not already listed at RFAADVICE. Even I have limits on how much internal gnoming I'll do!). PS: Nice use of Copperplate Gothic in your page notice. I wallow in that font. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work on that essay, Mac. Much appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trampton.IMO, that is the last thing we needed amidst the phenomenally increasing AFC backlogs!Winged Blades^Godric 07:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Been aware of it for a long time already, Winged Blades of Godric. Check my X-tools editing timetable - you'll see that I have a sleep problem ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Just saw your post and the corresponding replies from DGG.Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 08:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was still a discussion ongoing when you closed this, on how to deal with this long-term, recurring problem. Reconsider the close? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey:, AFAICS, procedural close. The user has been blocked and warned. We don't generally prolong discussions at ANI on what might be in the future. If it recurs there will be a new ANI. If you wish, ask the blocking admin, BU Rob13, if he wants the case reopened. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13: I think it would be a very good idea, since "If it recurs there will be a new ANI" means we'll be back at ANI over this ad infinitum. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey:,it won't be ad infinitum, because if you read what was said, the next time round it will be a very long block, and possibly indeff without much palaver. I do not see any sense in drama for the sake of drama. Especially when the required admin action has been carried out already - and that is what the Administrators' Noticeboard is for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kudpung here. I'm aware of the history between John Carter and Hijiri88. This block was somewhat lenient. The next will not be, if there is a next. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because there was ongoing discussion about a possible pattern of behavior by JC. I just wanted to leave you this note in case you didn't have revert notifications turned on (a lot of experienced editors I know turn them off, including myself), and thus didn't see my edit summary in the link provided by the note. If you think that discussion is not going to go anywhere, please say so in the thread, and feel free to close it again without me contesting it further. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to Kudpung's close, which he explained both in the thread above and at User talk:John Carter. -- Softlavender (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now (I wasn't aware of the message on JC's talk, and I didn't read this page, only started a new section with a message). I'm okay with that, as an admin who is well aware of the history and keeping an eye on JC is just as effective and far more efficient than a community discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing a bit of NPP and I came across this. I wouldn't know how to make it better, but it appears to really exist. Seems pointless to keep at this time unless you know someone that can step up and improve it. Lacking any better plan from y'all, I'm just going to throw a prod on it. The creator hasn't edited since he created it in 2009. John from Idegon (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROD it John. It's no good to anyone. Seems the school exists but we're not here to make an article out such useless info. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ouckfbama. At SPI, UAA and AIV. obviously a troll and a vicious one. John from Idegon (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep the world clock straight in my head, so if you've already escaped 2017, congrats and Happy New Year. Thanks for all you did in 2017 to make Wikipedia a better place. John from Idegon (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is turning into quite the scene. Hoping an administrator blocks soon. As requested, I am not interacting with the user. Thank you for your hard work. Goodnight, CookieMonster755✉ 08:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The matter has been resolved and the user is blocked. CookieMonster755✉ 08:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]