User talk:Kudpung/Archive Feb 2017

Tardis125

Hello, it is alright if you delete my article. It was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.187.13 (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info about Viridatas. Selene Scott (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for permission

Sir I have most of full experience of wikipedia edits please review my request. (Jai Rajput (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, Jai Rajput, but no. You are not able to read and understand any basic instructions in English. Please reconsider doing maintenace tasks when you have more than 4 days and 49 edits, such as 6 months and 500 mainspace edits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review Request

Sir I am good reader of English language, and I know all of Introduction about it. (Jai Rajput (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Please see my comment above and please do not ask again until your account has been officially confirmed , and when you have several months of suitable experience. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Jai Rajput is a blocked sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully

I hope you don't mind.[1]--John Cline (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I don't, John :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion tagging

To what are you referring? CalzGuy (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm even more confused. Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. CalzGuy (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That more than sufficiently confirms why you should not be carrying ut maintenace tasks in this web site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you refer to as maintenance tasks? - you pointed at WP:NOR, then WP:NPA. I don't patrol New Pages. I have no interest in them. You mention Deletion Tagging. I have a single AfD on the go. Is that what you are referring to? What did I do wrong? Don't you think it should be deleted?. Please contribute to the AfD and say why. Or is all this some roundabout way of trying to say you don't like me templating The Downs Malvern? CalzGuy (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a way of saying that you are not yet sufficiently informed of our policies and guidelines to be tagging anything for any method of deletion. I can't help you if you don't know what is meant by 'maintenance tasks' or don't know how to format talk page threads properly, or prefer not to read the instructions. Sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew where all the instructions were, I would happily read them. The links you have so far proffered have nothing to do with anything I have been engaged in. Sorry but you need to be quite explicit. Do you mean I should not be adding {{school merge}} templates to any articles? Is that it? CalzGuy (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the instructions, or we'll have a community discussion over what you are doing. I've given you the links. See also my talk page header. I'm out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Cast

Hello, you deleted my page The Comedy Cast

I'm sorry but I have to disagree becasue it's certainly not advertising.

It was a page giving information on a podcast, it's website, itunes link, podcast feed and previous guests. No different that the following, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmspotting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comedy_Bang!_Bang!

Please put it back up, it's just information regarding a podcast.

B0jackman — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0jackman (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B0jackman, In my opinion it's a promotional piece and notability is not gained through the people who have featured on it. Please make a case for the refund of your article at WP:DELREV. Please also sign your pposts and read the talk page header above. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please help me to publish my page idonate organisation is is pure ngo and notable and published in national media — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodisetty.naveen (talk • contribs) 15:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Cast

You say 'In my opinion it's a promotional piece and notability is not gained through the people who have featured on it.'

I would argue it is not promotional, if it is then every single podcast featured on this page is also 'promotional': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Audio_podcasts Maybe you could explain to me the difference between what I wrote and those pages. You'd probably argue that all of those pages are promotional and if that's the case then you singling me out is nothing short of discriminatory. If my page cannot exist then those others cannot too.

Very unfair of you Kudpung — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0jackman (talk • contribs) 15:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

THe Comedy Cast

You're the rude one mate, you can't seem to be able to discuss a matter instead you refer me to rules I've already read and haven't broken.

Like I've said, it's not a promotional piece it's an information piece, just like all the other podcasts featured here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Audio_podcasts

It's is completely and utterly unfair of you to single my little page out but the podcasts on the page I've linked are allowed to stay. I politely asked you to explain the difference between my podcast entry and the others and you didn't even bother. Now, that's rude.

Not very nice of you Kudpung, completely unreasonable logic you're basing your opinion on. Have a look through other podcast pages on Wikipedia and mine was simply mirroring them, how you can ban my page and not their pages is beyond logic, it's just plain old discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B0jackman (talk • contribs) 15:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to insult the work I and others do here to keep this encyclopedia free of promotional content, you will find your editing rights restricted and that will be the end of it. You do not have a constitutional right to write what you like here. I have told you now three times what you can do if you disagree with mine and CatcherStorm's opinion, please do it or accept the deletion; I will not be restoring the article. And please read the blue banner at the bottom right corner of this page.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on "No paid editing for Admins" at WT:COI

I've relisted an RfC that was run at WT:Admin in Sept. 2015. It is at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Concrete proposal 3 as there are a number of similar proposals going on at the same place. Better to keep them together. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: When I saw the signature on the message above, out of principle I very nearly didn't even bother to take a look at what it's all about. I'm sure you'll understand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Kudpung,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

As you are a member of the above task force we're just letting you know about an up coming election for two coordinators for the New Page Review System. Full details at New Page Review Coordinators

If you no longer wish to receive messages from this project, you may opt out here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators

New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.

Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February
Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi Kudpung, just thought I'd swing by and say thank you for your years of hard work on NPP - the backlogs are in a sorry state but I can honestly say without you they would be much much worse! Here's to your successor, and the mountain of work they get to inherit! -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 20:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I came here to say the exact same thing. Jim Carter 19:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irony

Some of those eds are currently the most inactive on the project :) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Highly_Active_Users/ JarrahTree 00:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Word choice

I think here you probably didn't mean to say people will be dismembered. Maybe disbarred or have certain rights revoked? - Brianhe (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch Brian. I was obviously thinking in German (I often do). Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aber naturlich. German is much more logical than English. - Brianhe (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richtig!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I was trying to help the backlog, and initially went for a A7, G11 on Kilimall_International but it was disputed. See User_talk:FrankMwenda. I went back and did a PROD. Thanks in advance for your input. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I think perhaps you'll find that it passed GNG. It certainly makes significant claims of motability and i don't find it blatantly promotional. The rest depends on how reliable the sources are. AfD would be a good test.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more question, Kudpung...when the creator of an article that is borderline notable has a COI as a paid editor with a PR firm, what is standard procedure for a PP? Do we check to see if there is a disclosure on that editor's TP and if not, do we suggest they add one, or....? What if it's an employee or owner of the company the article is about? They can create the article, but can only edit under supervision or by requesting another editor to do it? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme There is a very firm and strict policy about this. More often than not they end up getting themselves blocked because it is almost impossinle for them to write an article that is completely neutral. My take on this is that it's not up to us volunteers to help them earn their money. The real expert to ask is DGG. To quote from a post of his:

Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to bother you again, but would you share your thoughts on the activity at Spectrasonics? After a bit of research and a brief consult with Binks who is familiar with the company, I decided it to let it pass. A few days later, it appears another editor thought it should be prodded and tagged it. Then, on the same day, another editor created a redirect. WTH? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atsme. The Spectrasonics article certainly did not provide any clues to notability and the redirect may be a plausible solution. Contact the editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About page 2S Studio

Hello,

I like to ask how its possible to create this kind of page for this company, but not to be advert like you write me on last user talk?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stojansmk (talk • contribs) 02:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First you will need to declare your connection to this company. Secnodly it is blatantly commercial in that it is using Wikipedia as a 'Yellow Pages' type entry, unsourced and without any explanation as to why it should be notable. Please note also that I generally do not respond to to unsigned posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP--a query

What is the correct course of action while dealing with pages like Srirajarajeswaridevi Temple Devupalli which I wish to be be ASD-ed but there is no optimally correct criterion to place it under! PROD exists but any other hasty alternative will be welcome!Winged Blades^Godric 11:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Since you have been deemed sufficiently august to wield the NPR tool responsibly and robustly ;) you should know the answer to your question: that if the criteria does not fit, it is because the subject is not able to be CSDd. As for alternatives... That'll be WP:AFD then. Having said that, you should also know that, as a reviewer, you should check the page history; if you had, you would see that Randykitty deleted it as A7 this morning... A temple, of course, being an organisation. Hope this helps. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--Yeah, had some problems linking temple with an organisation.On second thoughts they obviously can be.Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 12:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades, yeah, think of it as not just the building itself, but the management and attendance to it- makes it an org. Remember check logs! :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia regulations.

Hello, Kudpung.

I decided to resort to your advice: once you kindly helped to close discussion on the Wikipedia Awards page in regards of Mineralogy Barnstar; now I left my support (the seventh) for the Women in Red Barnstar of the eponymous Wiki Project. So, can you, please, explain to me, if I will be allowed by Wikipedia regulations to complete this process qua participant of the WikiProject Wikipedia Awards, or this is a privilege of Administrators only?

I tried to create the frame and write exactly as you did: “The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.” but found, that there are not enough tools to do so.

But can I do it simply by sending a message, notifying that the discussion has ended?

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Oxford, there are no rues for making barnstars. Anyone can make one. If you click that little red heart on the top of your tool bar (it's called 'Wikilove - the thing you use to send beer and kittens to people you like) it even contains a tool for barnstars 'Make your own'. However, it might be courteous to ask a project if they would like you to make a barnstar for them if they don't already have one that fits the bill. For a raft of barnstars I recently made for a feature of a Wikipedia core function see here. If there has been a discussion, then someone who has not voted in that discussion should read the consensus and close the discussion. Look at any closed discussion, for example at WP:ANI where the discussion has been closed leaving a mauve background and look at the source code, at the top and the bottom you'll see the templates in the curly brackets that are used to close and provide that effect.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Kudpung,

Now everything became absolutely clear. Thank you very much. So, from now I’ll be able to close discussions myself, however not in that current case, as I was that someone who has voted in Women in Red Barnstar discussion. But instead of that, just several minutes ago, I opened a discussion on collectively created Bravery Barnstar. Thus, I suppose, that I will be not eligible for closing this one as well, as I have opened it, but I hope, that one day I’ll perfectly complete some discussion, using the codes pointed out to me by you .

Have seen the New Page Reviewer's Awards — the perfectly executed and, no doubts, much needed honour. Great thanks again.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at SwiftyPeep's talk page.
Message added 07:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SwiftyPeep (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca is back again

Kudpung, Our friend RebeccaTheAwesomeXD is back with a new IP and this time casting attacks about myself on her IP talk page - see User talk:107.77.194.209 (and diff). Wes Mouse ^Talk 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Keep me up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This girl seriously doesn't know when to give up. She has turned into some serial block evader. Yet another IP User talk:108.16.135.184, but same edit style, same "slightly-aggressive" tone, and same articles she has edited for years - including BLP's for which she has topic ban. She is becoming hard work and clearly never going to learn. Wes Mouse ^Talk 13:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RfA vote

Hi, and thanks for your advice on voting. I was unaware of the fact that new users are recommended to not vote on RfA's, and if you think I should retract my vote, I have no problem doing so. However, as I do have some experience with wikis (I was an admin on a non-Wikimedia wiki a few years ago), I believe that my vote does count for something :P In any case, thank you again for your advice. --screaming_tiger9 ^(talk) 15:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are 'sure' of what you are doing and fully understand the special nature and work of admins on Wikipedia (which may use MediaWiki software but is not comparable to other wikis), there is no need to retract your vote. We do not 'recommend' new users not to vote, we just hope they they really know what they are doing ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mail call

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

John from Idegon (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PAX (event)

Exactly what did I do that was advertising? Chumpydo (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Publishing a forthcoming event.Please see Encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on a RFC closure

With regards to your massive experience in the circles of Wikipedia, I would ask your opinion on whether the closure statement at Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy#RfC for Article Name Change is appropriate.

Specifically, can a closer(esp. when he is the initiator himself) air his personal views/feelings in the closure statement--that precisely gives the impression to later readers that the proposal was all correct and it was the community/participants who are unfortunate and thus the sufferers to not accept his/her brilliant proposal.

Any comments/views are welcome.Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Godric. With only 140 mainspace edits, i'st hard to know what the proposer wants at all. Certainly a lack of knowledge of some of our core policies. PLenty of those who commented are highly experienced users and admins. It's definitely poor form to close an RfC one's self unless there is an overwhelming consensus. However, the closer should obviously not use the closing template as a platform to expressany personal opinions, Any way , the RfC didn't go the way he wanted so I suppose there's not much harm done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, after-all the RFC did not succeed and may-be we could just let him vent out his anger/frustration in the closing template.

Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Hi Kudpung!

I've read WP:NPPAFC as you suggested and I've added myself to the work group. You've probably written it somewhere but could you please tell me what the next stage is in relation to the admittedly rushed RfC I made? What's the latest thinking?

Best,

DrStrauss talk 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading

Hi Kudpung!

I've read WP:NPPAFC as you suggested and I've added myself to the work group. You've probably written it somewhere but could you please tell me what the next stage is in relation to the admittedly rushed RfC I made? What's the latest thinking?

Best,

DrStrauss talk 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrStrauss, This is long, do please read it because it's probablygoing to be my last major comment on this topic. I appreciate your enthusiasm, I really do, we all do, but in order to understand what the next steps are and what the latest thinking is, you'll really now have to go back and do some serious reading (several hours) to get up to speed. Whatever the next stages are, they are either going to result in one of the biggest policy changes ever, or a radical software change in the way new users can create their first article. To achieve either, we have to tread very carefully because one way or another it will involve the WMF. I and several very experienced users have been working for six years in an attempt to attain the best for the English Wikipedia.

Most of the most regular users working on this topic have been around a very long time, such as The Blade of the Northern Lights, DGG and WereSpielChequers; not all the active contributors were in favour but made important observations that were taken on board, and there were some who while appearing to be making interesting and helpful comments are actually Foundation employees and at the end of the day will naturally support anything the WMF does. Eloquence, whom I have met personally on several occasions, was the Vice President of the Foundation and actually a very nice person and a good listener. I feel sure that if he were in that position today, he would understand the gravity of the situation - when I met him last year he put his hands in the air and said (like me he is a native speaker of German) 'Sorry Kudpung, I know what you're going to say, but as you know, there is now nothing I can do now'. He was one of the huge number of C-Level and other senior staff who left during Tretikov's very short tenure as CEO. There has been a near 100% turnover in staff since then and we're are slowly building bridges to the newcomers. Katherine Maher, the new CEO, was promoted from the ranks, which makes a change, and this time round there might, just might be a more sympathetic ear, or at least realistic look at 'philosophy/corporate romantics vs pragmatism and what is best for Wikipedia'. But Maher, with only 238 edits as user Maherkr according to her discussion with Kaldari (if I have correctly understood) is unwilling to accept that there is any priority for these issues.

If you want to help, you really must now read up on all those debates, their talk pages, (especially WP:ACTRIAL in detail, Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial) and the original Bugzilla report and the new NPP/RfC project. You still have not done so, but unfortunately you must, otherwise you will not grasp the full extent of the problem. Just glossing over those pages and not following the many blue links is not enough.

At the moment we stand before a choice between a) implementing ACTRIAL ourselves (which we can do right now without any further discussion and if I were a programmer I would have done it already and taken the risk of the consequences - but I am an unpaid volunteer, an old man, and have nothing to lose) and b) the WMF finally accepting that they must adopt the other solution we asked for but which they halted a few years back and could resume, if Wes Moran, new VP (with whom I have also had personal discussions) wanted to. See the message in red at the top of this talk page to understand. If such an action rally happened - and it might, it would of course create an even bigger backlog which we ourselves naturally would have to clear up - but we're used to that, we had to clear up thousands of COPYVIO articles without pay, for a serious blunder by the paid officials at the WMF over the IEP that cost tens of thousands of donors' money the Foundation could have put to better use by developing the software solutions we need right now for those very reasons.

Some employees, such as Kaldari and MusikAnimal fully understand what is at stake here, but are powerless in the hierarchy of decision-making. Bureaucrat xaosflux understands the situation very well and is very good at pointing out minor errors in my arguments, but I'm never quite sure on his personal stance. He is very good for advice on policy and has good qualities as a basic programmer for Wikipedia needs, but is apparently (or so I believe) against the theory that NPP/NPR/AfC issues need any particular coordination or voluntary driving force. That said, we probably would have not got this far without my work over the last 6 years. and some of his very recent help since he passed his bar exam a few months ago which I supported.

Even my attempts at getting some desperately needed statistics are being blocked (or so it would most certainly seem). As a result of all this, I am relinquishing my driving force on NPP/NPR and my insistence that quality is better for Wikipedia than quantity. The Foundation firmly adopts the stance that the contrary is more important, and as a result I will propably be retiring soon from Wikipedia to handover to whomsoever is or are sufficiently motivated and have sufficient time to keep things going. People like Jbhunley, Robert McClenon, Fuhghettaboutit, Chris troutman, and samtar are now your go-to persons until coordinators have been established. Today, Sunday 19 February 2017 is the last day for nominations for the election. Voting starts tomorrow. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanbas

Hi Kudpung. Ethanbas has now readded himself to WP:WPAFC/P twice after you removed him for being a paid editor. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JJMC89. Please see User talk:Ethanbas and let me know of any further developments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding myself to AfC participants

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#Adding_myself_to_the_project. Like I state there, I'm just making redirects. Hopefully other editors rule in my favor :P Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ethanbas#February_2017 What was this for? I went ahead and started this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants#Adding_myself_to_the_project, and then you give me a warning? Was that a mistake? I ask that you undo this edit, because it seems like a mistake. Best, Ethanbas ^(talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm surprised you're surprised, Ethanbas. Kudpung presumably warned because you first added yourself as a participant, then edit warred against several editors who removed you (and who gave reasons for removing you) and only after that did you post on the talkpage. You should have gone to talk immediately after being removed the first time, and made your argument. That seems obvious to me, and I don't think Kudpung made a mistake. But then 'I like blocking people' as we all know.[2] Bishonen | talk 12:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Oh, shut up already Bishonen; Kudpung already warned me, and there was no reason for a second warning. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your constructive criticisms to me and everybody else. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} \| _Edits 17:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting more (and better) patrollers

I'm sure this idea must have been floated before, but I'll ask anyway since I don't see it here: Has anyone floated the idea of combining the AfC reviewers into the new page reviewers usergroup? The same principles driving me to support new page reviewers (force someone competent to give the final "sign-off") apply fully to AfC as well. It reduces the bureaucracy a tad by getting rid of the AfC participants CheckPage. It hopefully increases the quality of reviews at AfC. And maybe if someone gets the new page reviewer user right for AfC, they stick around and patrol some new pages as well. Seems very win-win to me. If this has been suggested before, a pointer to any relevant discussions letterwould be appreciated. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTCie

I did it a long time ago BU Rob13. All the listed active reviewers at AfC were sent a newslettr encouraging them to apply for the New Page Reviewer right at PERM. A few responded and were accorded the right. A blanket according of the right to every AfC reviewer was not done because random checks on them revealed that too many of them were clearly unsuitable. The longer term objective at the project at WP:The future of NPP and AfC is to merge AfC to Page Creation anyway. That's what the Draft mainspace was created for , which many forget or ignore. Despite what they believe,I got the 'Drafts' mainspace created not for AfC but to replace the little used WP:Incubator, give new users a formal space to prepare their articles, and to submit them to NPP when they think they are ready. Unlike user sandboxes, in order to encourage completion, G13 was then created. The Backlog at G13 was created because it was applied to all existing AfC submissions, but the G13 backlog should over time dwindle to current drafts only. AfC is in a bigger mess than NPP but has a much smaller backlog. AfC is a locl purely 'hobby' project whereas NPP is a serious core MediaWiki function. The devs are supposed to be currently embedding the AfC accept/decline functions into the Page Curation tool for this purpose. This will make the AfC Helper Script redundant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I definitely agree with not automatically handing it out; this post was prompted by some instances of very sketchy "reviewing" over there. If we set up "new page reviewer" as the gatekeeper, it would be a much better system than just using the arbitrary day/edit limits for AfC reviewers. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 you may wish to chime in again at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Should the AfC process be scrapped altogether (while retaining the draft namespace)? started by an unknown user, again the wrong venue, and again prematurely and with no thought to the background. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm pretty set on my views there. I think we share most (all?) opinions on the current efficacy of AfC. In short, it's bad. But I'd like to exhaust options for fixing it before we scrap it entirely. I see two problems with actually scrapping it:

Right now, when I see a new content creator starting out and making mistakes or field an OTRS email relating to such a similar situation, I can nudge them in the direction of draftspace, where they can work on their creation unimpeded but with a barrier to ensure they don't pollute the mainspace before they've figured things out. That doesn't work so well in practice because the review process is kind of shit, but if the review process worked, then it could be extremely educational.
I think we need to think long and hard about the incentive structure for paid editors. In my optimal world, we have no paid editing at all, but the world is not optimal. In the real world, we need to set up ways for paid editors to contribute productively where possible to disincentivize them from using the many abusive practices they do currently. A lot of that has to do with creating negative incentives for those who don't follow the rules, but a small part of that has to be positive incentives for those who write good articles and submit them voluntarily for review by more neutral editors. Even if it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, we probably need to devote a minimal amount of editor time in reviewing and approving "good" paid articles to leave open a path that more-or-less works for both the paid editors and us.

I've been in some behind-the-scenes discussions related to paid editing recently which I hope will prove fruitful enough that I can take a more active role again. For now, I'm avoiding the "big" discussions because the downside of attracting attention if the discussions don't prove fruitful would be very high for me. Hopefully, we can talk more if those go well. I may forward you some ideas relating to that, actually, to get your thoughts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to incentivize disclosed paid editors (I have not thought much about this so this is not an endorsement) I would suggest a seperate reviewer queue that is only open to properly disclosed paid editors. It would be much shorter than the regular queue so they would get things reviewed faster and, hopefully, the reviewers who work that queue will either already be familiar with the promotional tricks often used or, by virtue of working the queue, will learn. Jbh ^Talk 02:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Yes, but at the same time, we definitely don't want to incentivize paid editing over non-paid editing. It's a tricky balance to strike. I think having an open review process where everyone gets the same "speed" but paid editor articles are scrutinized heavily by virtue of who edited them is a decent balance. Setting up a quick lane for paid editors would be over the line. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW @BU Rob13 and Jbhunley: and everyone else who has followed my 6-year campaign to get Wkipedia cleaned up, the very notion of paid editing in all its forms makes me cringe. Whatever its form or the excuses made by them, the paid editors always create unpaid work for us volunteers. It was a gross error IMHO by even allowing them the option to declare themselves. It was an attemt to weed some of them out but it has backfired miserably as the thread below will demonstrate. it was DGG himslef who stated:

Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, but paid editors are here to stay. If they've made this their livelihood and we take away the legitimate ways to do this, then they'll just go "underground". We have no effective means of combating that short of requiring personal identification, which is even worse for other reasons (harassment). The goal isn't a philosophical stand against paid editors, even if I wish we could make that stand. The goal is as good of an encyclopedia as we can get. By forcing paid editors through a review process, we can decline those who can't contribute positively and teach those who can. If the end result is a paid editor following all our rules and contributing positively with oversight and we get some half-decent articles out it, that's the thing closest resembling a "win" that we're ever going to get. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told by some paid editors who declare their contributions and do proper work, that nobody can actually make a reasonable livelihood writing WP articles. The good declared paid editors are either professional PR people who do it for their clients as a side line, or people doing it as an supplemental source of income. The people trying to make a living at it are undeclared chains of editors operating in low-wage countries who are advertising their services trying to get their contributions accepted in deliberate violation of the terms of use; some have now resorted to trying to bully their way to an article when it gets deleted, as can be seen (for example) on my talk page. We need to do a number of different things to combat this:

1/ is to raise substantially our standards for both notability and content in the sort of articles that attract paid editors: commercial and non commercial organization, their executives, and some types of independent professionals. This can be done by changing guidelnes, but as a practical matter, it can be done quite effectively at AFD by individual consensus.

2/ is to no longer accept promotional articles, no matter who writes them. The argument is often made at AfD that these can be improved. Of course, this rarely happens. We need a practice that

Anyone arguing keep simply on the basis that the promotionalism can be removed is not giving an adequate reason, unless they as a competent editor are actually prepared to remove the promotionalism themselves. Otherwise, the proper course is that if the subject is clearly notable, move it to draft space until someone does fix it, and if only borderline notable to just delete it until someone does write a proper article. "

That's in fact always been my own practice: if I !vote to keep in such circumstances, I fix the article. (I do this less frequently than before, because of other responsibilities here)

3/ That we find an adequate method for investigating apparent paid editors. This is not trivial--, we need to educate, not remove, the good faith editors write promotional article, because they see so many here that they think it's what we want. It's been argued that we should concentrate on the editing rings. Of course we should, but we normally have detected the rings by following up individual cases.

4/ We need to proactively educate the general public, and especially the public of businesspeople and professionals who might want articles, and the PR agents who work for them. We need to find a better way for those who are notable to get articles by competent volunteers. This may be the hardest part, because it will require a volunteers with wider interests than is now typical. DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has become bigger and more influential than could have been expected 'back in the day' and we need to find some way for content management to evolve to meet issues that the open, crowd sourced ethos of Wikipedia never anticipated. I truely believe that a huge portion of editors simply do not get the dangers inherent in paid editing or even really understand what it is we who are against it mean when we use the term.

Ultimatly something is going to have to give; the anyone can edit/create an article, the anonymity above all or NPOV. Even the relatively simple things being proposed now like linking accounts to UPE editing farms/companies, listing articles which have had paid edit advertisements, forbidding the monitization of community trust by forbidding admins from taking money for edits/services or requiring that the people who review articles have some basic understanding of our content policies have been shot down. Until people begin to understand that the integrity of Wikipedia's content takes precedence over all the warm fuzzy ideologies we will, at best, be able to tread water for a bit. Maybe something can be done by raising notability standards but my intuition is the sum total of human knowledge ideology will sink that as well. Jbh ^Talk 17:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jbhunley at least understand the philosophical issues. Coming from the 60s when love and everything else was supposed to be free and people wore saffron coloured dungarees and sandals, smoked a lot of weed and ate health foods, I can understand why the 'free' encyclopedia lingers with that sentiment. However, a lot of people from that era actually went and got PhDs, and some of them traded their Freak Brothers outfits and VW vans for suits and BMWs. Some of them even bought Lear Jets. It's time for everyone to realise that whether or not we work for free, Wikipedia is serious stuff and that pragmatism and professionalism come before idealistic dreams of a better world where 'alternative' parenting means letting your kids run wild at home instead of sending them to a proper school, and letting them make a mess of Wikipedia. After the recent debacles I've had on this page and elsewhere with people like Ethanbas and DrStrauss who for albeit different reasons, would not listen in spite of having things being explained to them by half a dozen seasoned, mature editors, I'm ready to retire. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: Responding to your point on something having to give, we could instead introduce new technology. Assuming I can return to the administrative side of things shortly, the first thing I'd like to do is talk to some WMF techies about developing a machine learning tool to help us identify paid editing. Machine learning can detect the patterns across many articles and accounts that human editors would only be able to detect in hindsight after finding technical connections via CheckUser. If we can develop a probabilistic algorithm to assist in the detection of paid editors, seeded with all of the edits of the major paid editing sockrings that we've seen over the years (as seeded positive results) and all edits from administrators (as seeded negative results), it's not infeasible to imagine that we could do a good job detecting paid editors without needing to tear down the anonymity, which protects most of our experienced editors from malicious people who would harass them in real-life, or the anyone can edit philosophy, which has brought us this far. I see this as a situation where we can have our cake and eat it too, so long as the WMF can be persuaded to devote resources to this problem. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung and BU Rob13: as I've said Kudpung, you're clearly very dedicated to the NPP cause and I see no reason to get disheartened. Brexit went on the "have cake and eat it" maxim (as per BU Rob13's comment) and that worked out ;) - I'm not sure about the AI proposal though, a "second set of eyes" always sounds like a good plan. I'd probably be more partial to more lenient CSD criteria to allow the quick deletion of clear spam. Thank you for your advice, DrStrauss talk 15:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Machine learning wouldn't result in a bot that blocked editors. It would result in a list of editors (or groups of editors, as a good algorithm would consider connections between accounts) who, based on a probabilistic model, have the highest chance of being paid editors. This list could then be reviewed by admins to determine if there is decent behavioral evidence of paid editing and/or sock puppetry. Basically, the algorithm tells us where to look, which right now is what we can't easily do on our own. I've discussed this already with one now-former WMF software engineer, who sadly departed from the Foundation recently. He brought up the idea at an in-person event and thought it was a feasible method of detection. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: AI could do a lot of things to help but, as Kudpung has said, we need solutions now not in two or three years. You mentioned elsewhere that the software you envision would be able to link together paid editors, do you see that as somehow qualitatively different than the proposals which have been shot down on privacy and harassment issues where editors wanted to link together accounts which work for common UPE firms/schemes? Frankly I see more potential for harassment, outing etc through the use of AI than with skilled humans doing the work. They at least have judgement and can assess on a case by case basis whether a linked account should be publicly linked or not. Mind neither particularly bothers me though because, however it is done, this is functionally no different from SPI or LTA case pages. Jbh ^Talk 01:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: There has never been any requirement preventing us from linking together accounts based on on-wiki evidence. I disagree with bringing off-wiki evidence into things with no gatekeeper to that process. I suppose bringing in off-wiki evidence so long as it's filtered through some type of functionary group, which takes in information and releases only the minimum amount of off-wiki info necessary to prevent ongoing disruption. But that's all an aside, since machine learning could only link together accounts based on on-wiki editing patterns. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13 and Jbhunley: it's already being done, but perhaps you missed it. It's called ORES and Opabinia regalis is partially or even inextricably involved in it although she has no experience at all at NPP. I had an hour long Skype discussion with the WMF developer of it. What becomes absolutely and ironically clear again and again is that computer programmers and other tech freaks believe all the world's problems can be solved by C++ and a few bits and bobs. I must be a dying breed, I come from a generation where desktop computers and mobile phones were still science fiction. And the world still worked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Inextricable" sounds cool, but I can only wish for that kind of time. AFAICR my involvement consists of this wishlist proposal (which didn't make the cut, but which turned out to be under development by EpochFail anyway) and this thread on my talk page (which I haven't had time to follow up on since the last post). But for those interested in seeing the current state of play, you'll find a link there to this fun toy to play around with. (I do work on machine learning as part of my real job, but have no experience with natural-language processing, so this isn't quite my area. And I'd really prefer to solve the world's problems mostly with Python ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow the ipng to Jbhunley didn't work. Maybe my sloppy use of a computer keyboard instead of the old fashioned typewriters and telexes I grew up with... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: ah, I get the "first filter" idea. But I still don't think NPP will be going anywhere soon. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- ORES exists and is being refined, but I don't know that it's currently capable of doing the type of analysis needed here. We don't just need machine learning to analyze individual edits; we need it to analyze patterns across many edits and accounts, linking them together where possible. The person I plan to speak to at the WMF is a developer on ORES, but a high-quality paid editing detection algorithm would probably need to go farther than ORES currently does. DrStrauss, no, of course not. We just need help in detecting paid editing patterns, which are hard for reviewers to see on individual pages. Machine learning algorithms can look at the "big picture", detecting patterns in language, how the articles are created, the accounts themselves, cross-over on many articles by a pair of accounts that may look innocuous on their own, etc. A human reviewer can't hope to see all the patterns a machine would. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that, I'm not sure it's strictly acurate- at least, not 100%. I've come across a few pages today that are clearly paid eiting (the MO are often obvious)- the problem is not in spottting them, but in getting rid. They can be very well written, even notable, so there's no deletion method available. But there should be. I also ask what the algorithm would do- would it speedily delete or just nominate them in a specific category? Good. If so, we'll have that now, please! And if all it's going to do is alert us to the accounts doing it- then, *wow*. These are mostly use-once, disposable accounts. We can block them, by all means, but if the article they were paid for stays up, they win. Apologies for this good faith rant, people. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On that, I'm not sure it's strictly accurate- at least, not 100%. I've come across a few pages today that are clearly paid editing (the MO are often obvious) and that's every day- the problem is not in spottting them, but in getting rid. They can be very well written, even notable, so there's no deletion method available. But there should be. I also ask what the algorithm would do- would it speedily delete / or nominate them in a specific CSD category? Good. If so, we'll have that now, please! And if all the AI is going to do is alert us to the accounts doing it- then, *wow*. These are mostly use-once, disposable accounts. We can block them, by all means, but if the article they were paid for stays up, they win. Apologies for this good faith rant, people. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: If the algorithm can connect accounts together, block one for violating the paid-editing disclosure requirements, then delete every new article per WP:G5. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Royally screwed up the last ping. Take two. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: You don't know your own strength... I got the ping twice :D

I still wish we had a speedy cat for UPE. But that's a different subject, and I gather it gets raise perennially with now success. Ah well. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for what to do with paid editors who write nothing but good articles on notable people ... why do anything? I philosophically dislike what they're doing, but they are improving the encyclopedia if they're contributing nothing but good articles on notable subjects. I'm much more concerned with article hijacking, paid editors who shake down their non-notable clients with threats to submit the article they wrote to AfD, and those who sock than a paid editor who would be a perfectly normal positive content creator if not for the fact they're paid. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My chiming in after lurking: The issue is that while I do feel that there is a lot of support for the DGG philosophy quoted above about paid contributors contributions being deleted, at any individual AfD it could go anyway, and smart COI editors will declare themselves and throw references that could be the result of their marketing departments doing their jobs and placing stories around so you get a no consensus or keep result. Sometimes that is good because a notable company is saved and cleaned up. Other times it just allows advertising to be kept in Wikipedia without cleanup. Rob, I agree that there are some paid contributors who write decent articles on notable subject, but my concern is with the paid contributors who write advertisements on borderline notable subjects. I don't consider that improving the encyclopedia, and the cleanup is very difficult and rarely happens. ACTRIAL really is the best way to prevent this because most of the accounts wouldn't want to figure out how to get autocomfirmed (even if it is a really simple process to game if they wanted.) It would cut down on the spam, and make the remaining contributions more manageable. The other option would be expanding G11 to include obvious COI/paid-editor creations, but I have zero-confidence that would go anywhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting CSD criteria extended or new ones made is nearly as hard as getting a camel through the eye of a needle. I roll around and laugh like a 3-year-old when I think how easy it was by comparison to get that massive consensus for ACTRIAL. It must be something that is badly needed, and today even more so. All my efforts to get NPP cleaned up have failed. 340 of them couldn't make a dent in the backlog in three months, and the Wiki hatstand is creaking under the weight. There are some old Ostfriesian and Irish jokes about this kind of thing, but nowadays they're probably not politically correct. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my point at the end: expanding G11 isn't going to happen, so ACTRAIL really is the only way forward here if we want to make a dent in promotional editing. I think Rob's machine intelligence suggestion is a way to help, but not sure how much of the heavy lifting it would do. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, would you support an activity requirement for new page reviewers, Kudpung? Make those interested in collecting hats work to keep them. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed, BU Rob13, many times. But it would need a goddam RfC, and I'm sick and tired of running RfCs, even though I usually get a consensus with them. Probably a task for the new coords. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying for about 5 months to get a set of stats made up in order to address this very possibility. I originally wanted the stats before I went ahead with the RfC for the user right and at tat time based on the use of Twinkle stats. It's been as if there is almost a conspiracy not to do the stats for me. I have since heard that Cryptic nay be working on it, but we need it before the election closes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) ::Probably not much - at least not for any time soon. We need solutions now, and that's why I'm saddened by people's attempts to deflect attention away from NPP and encourage the WMF to spend money on solutions to problems we don't have yet.The Wikipedia hunger of technology for technology's sake rather than consider the real benefits it might or might not bring are a bit like British railways when they electrified and dieselified their network in the 60s. The trains have never since run as well as they did in the days of steam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13:, I've stated already. I'm putting this message on the talk pages of Reviewers who have not used the tools since being granted them or who have removed themselves from the newsletter list; 'Hi. On its creation on 1 November 2016 you were automatically grandfathered into this new user right. If you are not interested in New Page Reviewing, or if you will not have time to help out in the foreseeable future, please consider asking me or another admin to delist you from this user group in order to keep our stats and records straight. Thanks. ' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmm. I wonder if consensus would even be needed to yank the right from those grandfathered in who haven't used the tool at all since its creation. That seems borderline uncontroversial since they never requested it or used it. Something to think about. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: You're probably right there but there's one user, who is unusually active for a Bureaucrat, who will undoubtedly counter anything we, or more specifically, I, would do although the whole damn thing was my initiative. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Random comment: One thing that bothers me regarding the realm of paid editing is how easy it is to game the system via abuse of NPP and Autopatrol (either or both). In my mind it is far too easy to get either of those. Autopatrol is handed out like candy, and far too many clever (and quite new) editors game that so that when they do paid articles they go unpatrolled. NPP is easily gamed since it too is far too easily done by newbies, and editors can either review their own articles via a sock, or review the articles of editors in the same paid-editing "ring". I don't have any actual proof right at hand that those things are widely done, but I've seen quite enough gaming of those systems, especially around articles that seemed to me clearly COI and paid, that I fully believe that is what is being done. I don't think anyone should get autopatrol or do NPP until they have been here at least two years and have proved themselves very reliable editors with excellent new-article creations. Softlavender (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Softlavender. You are on the right lines but there are a couple of things you might not be quite up to date on. New pages can now only be marked as patrolled by accredited New Page Reviewers, which means that all other patrolling which the community in its wisdom insisted should still be done by children and raw newbies will be finally reviewed by a New Page Reviewer. We have some stats just come in however, that do not paint a very encouraging picture after three months of the new user right. A large number of them have never patrolled, a large number have been blocked already, etc., etc. Clearly a large number of them appear to be either hat collectors or users with an agenda. More about that later when the raw stats have been sorted. Autopatroller: well you'll have to complain at the people who voted to have the access to it reduced to a joke. I wasn't one of them, and I'm personally very strict with my work at PERM. I've actually revoked the right from some of them. You'll probably find there is a growing consensus that we should now enact WP:ACTRIAL without any further ado. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol is indeed a joke as is, and I think a bare minimum of a baseline such as I suggested (at least two years on wiki, with a good roster [minimum number TBD] of full-fledged excellent and 100% definitively impossible-to-be-COI article creations) is needed. In terms of the new NPP/NPR right, well, you said it all -- I personally think it probably needs to have the same strict standards as (my suggestions for) Autopatrol. I'm not sure I agree with ACTTRIAL (I looked at it but it was a bit too TL;DR for me), but with paid and COI editing being and becoming an ever-increasing reality, it might be good or necessary. The odd thing (for the past several years) about newbies on Wikipedia is that a lot of them like to feel they have power and so they have gravitated to NPP and done a predictably poor job of it (being, as it is, newbies LOL). Anyway, I just wanted to flag up the abuses I've seen over the past five years of NPP and Autopatrol as concerns paid/COI editing. Softlavender (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akatombo can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Kudpung, you wrote "Ethanbas maybe you as creator could do that yourself rather than ordering us to do it for you. The volunteers are not here to complete your lazy creations and unsourced stubs. Especially as you are paid for a lot of what you do here." I'm not sure why you have a vendetta against me; regardless, I didn't order anyone to do anything, and please, don't describe my creations as "lazy". I don't create just any article, and for that article, I even nominated my own page for deletion. As for paid editing, you can go to my user page and see that the last time I got paid to create an article was November 2016, for the "Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016" article. And, as I state on my user page, almost all the work I do on Wikipedia is of my own accord, not funded by anyone. Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanbas You need to very careful about your attitude and the comments about telling people to 'shut up'. Let me advise you, my friend, that while Wikipedia is generally inclusionist and supportive of of editors, we as volunteers are not expected to be insulted and Wikilawyered at and certainly not by people who make money at the expense of our volunteer time; you are within a whisker of being blocked and if not by me, by anyone of our other admins. Read my talk page header and you'll understand. There is a limit to the good faith we are expected to assume.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Not sure how I've ever Wikilawyered at anyone; and I don't make money at the expense of volunteer time. Feel free to take a look at my paid articles; they are all complete and have never required additional work by anyone. Keep in mind, you never told me why you placed a double warning on my talk page after I started a discussion on whether I be allowed to put myself in the AfC participants page, like you suggested. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably understand (or would if you were aware of Orangemoody (which only scratches the surface), and from reading the thread above this one why we exercise exceptional caution. We admins especially, as other editors do not recognise the signs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Typical of someone who is Wikilawyering, you neglect to mention that you re-added your name to the list of reviewers prior to starting that discussion, in direct violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Additionally, no matter how you try to spin it, nominating your own article for deletion is at least on some level disruptive. As far as your stellar work on your paid articles, you may wish to consider this: Even tho a prostitute may have a domestic partner does not change the fact that their domestic partner is at a much higher risk of STD than if their domestic partner was a florist. John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanbas, nothing that Kudpung said in that AfD comment is false. "[Y]ou are paid for a lot of what you do here" is true. The characterization "lazy creations and unsourced stubs" is exemplified by the article in question: [3]; [4]; [5]; [6] (that edit is a complete mess); [7] (that edit even added a completely incorrect wikilink). All five of those edits are completely unacceptable. And ordering other people to do the translations you had already figured out (it's clear on the article's talkpage that you had already translated the content of the article because you quoted the information about Schumann directly from it) is absurd. In terms of the other matters, John and Kudpung have covered that above. WP:DROPTHESTICK here, stop templating, admonishing, and arguing with admins, and read WP:HOLES before you get blocked for disruptiveness. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: Coordinator election

Can you give a yea/nay on voting for multiple candidates? Multiple editors have expressed interest in coordinating who I would support with equal levels of enthusiasm. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to ask the same. The first two voters seem to have interpreted it differently. One voter = one vote, OR two vacancies = two votes? Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Kudpung,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and AfC and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will be 'go to' people and will try to keep discussions in the right places. This very much involves this project too, especially with growing renewed interest around the site about what WP:ACTRIAL was all about.

Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Discuss this message here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.

Hello Kudpung,

Recently I checked all pages, related to the Project Wikipedia Awards, and found that there are no rules have been ever set up for this Project, in spite of the fact, that it was established quite a long time ago.

No doubt, that unnecessary bureaucracy is not helping in any business, but “shipping without compass at all” can be not a very good idea as well: the Editors, who are offering a new Barnstars, can just guess what they must do in plenty of situations, which actually should be defined in precise manner, for example: When the discussion should be closed — in 1-2-3 weeks if there is no opposition? Is one support enough for the Barnstar to be recognized, as approved one? Can a discussion be closed in 2-3 days, if not less than certain number (and what number?) of the voters gave their supports, and if - no opposition? 3 support and 2 oppositions - can a new Barnstar be approved on this basis? What is happening, if a discussion is remaining unclosed?

Another question: who can and who can’t close a discussion? Once you already kindly pointed out, that if some Editor already voted in some particular discussion, then this Editor is loosing automatically the right to close it. Now I know that, but may be not all other Editors, who are visiting Protect page. And what about a situation, when certain Editor opened discussion: can the same Editor close it? In my understanding, the answer is no, but I found a precedent, when the Burnstar has been approved by just one voter, and discussion has been immediately closed by the Editor, who opened it and the Barnstar has been added to the table of General Barnstars. So can others, including me, follow this example or not? As in contrast, some discussions are waiting for about a month even if they have 6-7 supports, and remaining unclosed.

All these chaotic circumstances can make a Project looking crudely, what can repel serious Editors, potentially able to offer valuable ideas and designs; that can be a reason why the Project, flourished for same time, slowly became the semi-active?

I joined WikiProject Wikipedia Awards recently, as a participant, with a goal “to bring it to life”, at least to a small degree, as I see the Barnstars, as a way for Wikipedians to communicate positively by appreciating other Editors affords and, at the same time, to do it according to etiquette, awarding various Barnstars as the recognizable symbols of honour for the successful work in Wikipedia. That circle of support among Wikipedians is incredibly important for creation of the comfortable emotional atmosphere at Wikipedia, and that is obvious, that Barnstars - kind of Editors’ code language, which have been a success already, potentially have a possibility of great development in future, especially if this Project will be organized better and will be equipped with the clear, logical rules.

Thereby, to fulfil this task successfully, it is necessary to find the right Wikipedian. I’ll be happy to create a decent Barnstar for this Project, as I noticed that, according to the proverb: “shoemaker's son always goes barefoot”, the Barnstars Project have no own one, and I can try to correct it. However I can’t create a right regulations for this Project, but you can due to your authority, knowledge and experience.

I would appreciate hearing your opinion on this subject.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, no rules have been ever set up for this Awards Project because many projects don't have rules and are not obliged to. One of the largest Wiki projects, WP:WPSCH, of which I have been the coordinator for years, doesn't have any rules for awards. WP:WORCS, a project I created to fill a gap in missing UK counties (my home county in fact), doesn't have any awards. Awards are nice, in a way, but they are recreational, and perhaps also motivating, so there is no official official Wikipedia policy governing their use even if the WMF made a handy little gadget to make them and/or send them out. If I were you, I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about awards - there's so much more to do helping in serious issues concerning article content and quality. With your enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I'm sure you would find something like that to do, and you might enjoy the challenge and ironically earn some barnstars yourself! If you need any ideas, don't hesitate to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kudpung,

Thank you very much for reply. You are right: I’m really enthusiastic about the best of Wikipedia, but as in real life, it’s never possible to have something what will be exciting in every aspect all the time, so it’s necessary to accept some negativities, if in general, it’s worth it. And I think, that in regards to Wikipedia - it is: the value of being one of the Editors, comes with a possibility to participate in different spheres of your own interests, which are not included in your professional life, and in parallel to observe how an amazingly simple, and at the same time, extremely complex mechanism of Wikipedia works, guiding by professionals of exceptionally high level and great personalities, who actually, in spite of the disturbances, making Wikipedia brilliant, as you do. And that is correct: currently I’m trying, when I can, familiarize myself with different fields and technicalities of Wikispace, to choose the most interesting one/ones for me, most likely - archaeology and mineralogy. You kindly told me, that if I’ll need some ideas, you can give the clue in regards of directions, but you already did: I had a look at the page of WP:WORCS, and I immediately became very interested in this Project, because that is not only consistent with my plans to drive to the Archaeological sites in Worcestershire, and make some photos around, when I could have a little break for couple of days, but also - to start the article about Archaeological findings of Worcestershire. So I was really surprised in a good way, when I saw this Project. So, I decided to surprise you as well with a brand new Worcestershire Project Barnstar, as I think, that every good Project deserves to have its own symbol. I made it according to the design shown on the Flag of Worcestershire - I tried my best, but it all depends on your point of view in regards of the value of this Barnstar and its suitability for the WP:WORCS, as you are the author of the Project.

Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this , Chris, I'm sure we'll be using it - which reminds me also that there a few things I need to update on that project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kudpung: I’m very glad, that you considered this design, as a useful one for the WP:WORCS. In this instance I’ll start today a Worcestershire Project Barnstar discussion on WikiProject Wikipedia Awards page, and I think it would be justified to inform participants of WikiProject Worcestershire the same way, as it was done on the talk page of WikiProject Women in Red in regards of WiR Barnstar. It could be excellent, if you also will say on WikiProject Wikipedia Awards page how you evaluate the applicability of the WORCS Barnstar. Regards, Chris Oxford.Chris Oxford (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't expect any miracles, Chris - WPWORCS is a very quiet project, like most of the English counties. There are only about 20 members and I'm not quite sure at the moment who is still active. Certainly no one responded to my call for help to get Malvern it's largest article and which I mostly wrote, up to FA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know; that's why it is necessary to make this good Project more active.

We will see. All the very best.Chris Oxford (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query results

Hi Kudpung, could I just confirm this page kindly created by Topbanana meets the requirements of your NPP query? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 13:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks, Samtar, . It looks as if we're slowly getting there. Some vital information is missising: the 'promotion date' - I could do it manually but I just don't have 36 hours back-to-back to spare for such a task - which i about how long it would take me. Could you compare it with this one from Cryptic, please, and see if you think by merging some of the info we can come up with a complete table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that one's including autopatrols, which is why the numbers are so high. —Cryptic 15:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic - AFAIK, autoatrols do not constitute a logged Page Curation tool use. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't, but that's not what that page is querying. It's pulling all results from the patrol log - not the curation log - and it's not constrained by date, either. Example, which matches the 1204 in that user's row. —Cryptic 06:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic I think I understand, but while I frequently have a need for stats here and in RL, I haven't a clue how the data mining is done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that the column labelled "Curation count" on User:Kudpung/NPR activity isn't a curation count, in any meaningful sense. What it is is the total number of entries in a given user's patrol log. The patrol log includes, not only manual patrols - which are (part) of what you're after - but autopatrolled edits, and pending-changes approvals. It corresponds to what gets displayed if you go to Special:Log/patrol/Kaldari and pick the option misleadingly labelled "Manual patrol". (Including the autopatrols going back to November 2007.) —Cryptic 06:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My vandalism of your user page

Please see this discussion where your user page has been cited as a model. Now I take the simplistick view that any user page written in the third person is, or verges on being, a fake article. I would be very grateful if you would re-write your user page in the first person to support my argument. However if you feel I am being over-fussy, revert my edit and I shall not interfere again. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the simple stylistic argument that your page was inconsistent being part first person and part third person. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw already. How bloody ridiculous. Bit premature for 1 April, isn't it? dIf it's a joke someboy tell me so that I can at least smile. Otherwise it's part of the stoopidity that is building up my desire to retire from this mad house. I wonder what my friend Boing! said Zebedee (one of the few people I still trust around here) would say about it all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that was meant to be serious, consider me almost speechless! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Mourad

Hi Kudpung, Thanks for your feedback. I own rights to these images but put my own watermark in order to prevent others from copying the pieces of art.

Hassan Mourad

Good afternoon. It looks like I unintentionally interfered with a page move to draft of this article. I was removing a copyrighted image, and it was saved after the move - looks like I managed to leave a chunk of the article in article space, when it should be gone entirely. Would you care to delete it? Scr★pIron^IV 17:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but while we appreciate it, under the terms of use of Wikipedia you agree to allow your works to be free of copyright restrictions for others to use: By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. In order to comply, you will also need to carefully read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please sign your posts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

Gallery: A Met montage

Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonioatrylia's Request for Permissions

I think that this request for permissions needs a third opinion. Would you be open to seeking one from an experienced, uninvolved admin (possibly one versed in permissions)? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 19:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion: I definitely think that permission should be granted. Your requirement that they should provide edit summaries has now been met. Have you any other specific objections such as applying inappropriate speedy tags? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth

rasimmons Frankly at this stage I don't believe it will make much difference. The entire exercise in creating this new user group has apparently simply gained us 340 hat collectors. Between them they haven't made a dent in the backlog in 4 months. There are already suggestions being made elsewhere that the right should be removed again from tose who are not using it. Someone also needs to have a word in rasimons' ear about admin shopping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Just because you don't think it will make a difference or you don't think the person will do enough isn't a reason to cheat the person from a permission they have every right to. And I understand that your criteria are applied consistently, but your criteria are widely different from those described at WP:NPR. Sorry about the admin shopping—if you want I could ask some other admins as well, but I'm sure that they'll have similar things to say. I simply chose RHaworth because I saw him doing the same for other editors. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt I apply as an admin versed in permissions (evidently) but taking an overly strict approach to the NPR right is going to end up either driving people away from helping (which has already happened) or make people question and oppose your decisions (see above). Obviously there needs to be a measured approach to handing this out, as bad patrols do cause problems - I'd much rather see someone ambitious learn to use the right than turn around and tell us to stick it. With the way this is going I'm glad I withdrew my vastly leading nomination as a coordinator -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 20:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]