User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2018

Matt Patricia

Good morning. I would like to include some links and mention that Patricia was considered for the Lions HC job. Danthemandtm (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danthemandtm, please see Wikipedia:Edit requests and follow the instructions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Alok Kr. Sharma is looking at an Indef for promo-spam.How do you feel?Winged Blades^Godric 10:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I had considered it. Next time though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..The last block was somewhat old:)Winged Blades^Godric 10:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, some eyes may be warranted at Rasna Pavithran.Cont. removal of G11 tags.Further, any ideas about Marilyn Barnett?Winged Blades^Godric 10:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - I'm on holiday!

Err..Did not know about it! Have a good time:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rasna Pavithran is a classic example of a page that cannot be BLPPRODed, but certainly is not a candidate for CSD. It's one of those rare cases where 'Move to draft' is perfectly apt. For Marilyn Barnett, read this and you'll know what to do (I assume you are a New Page Reviewer), and if you're still not sure you can ask a question at WT:NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..this seems to imply that I am a NPR and I was one of the most active reviewers at a certain time-span, cumulating around 800 reviews, before taking a break:)I was interested in your opinion about the notab. of the subject, given that many sources were spam.Winged Blades^Godric 13:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought perhaps you might be a reviewer, but I couldn't be sure - especially as you were asking my opinion. Well, without going through all the refs, which I won't - that's why we now have nearly 600 reviewers since I created the user right - it has all the blatant hallmarks of UPE, and the creator, Daniel Reid, already has one article deleted for advertising. The action which is the choice of the reviewer, can be gleaned from reading WP:NPP. That said, it will probably end up at COIN. As an admin, my intervention would be unilateral and more severe, but I deliberately leave articles like this to the reviewers so that they learn something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTech page deletion

Hi, Following your message about the deletion of the page LGBTech, I wanted to mention that I had no idea about these limitations. Would it have a negative consequence writing a term about LGBTech in the future? Grembek (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grembek, despite being extremely suopportive of LGBT, I don't think there is a possibility of of us accepting an article about that group any time soon due to notability requirements, eve if the blatant advertising were removed. Also, you as founder would not be able to write it -see WP:COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ubagroup.ci

Regarding Ubagroup.ci you say "Sorry, but this is not CSD A7. This just makes double work for accredited reviewers. I suggest you read WP:NPR and the tutorial and apply for the reviewer right." I have had the right for some years now. It was my understanding that the article was about a non-notable website, my apologies if I was incorrect but I don't think I deserve such a curt admonishment considering my 10 years worth of tireless contributions and being number 29 here Wikipedia:Database reports/Top new article reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article had just one single word on it that was nor even related to the title. Let's just put it down to a mouse miss-click then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year and File Move

Hi Kudpung, Happy New Year. Can you please move/rename the newly uploaded image [[File:Russian Offensive to the Oder 12 January to 30 March 1934.gif]] to [[File:Russian Offensive to the Oder 12 January to 30 March 1945.gif]] Change the 34 to 45. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Scope creep:Rename request filed.Winged Blades^Godric 15:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)

Done. It may also be helpful to know that you can make a link to a file by prepending a colon as follows: File:Example.jpg, [[:File:Example.jpg]]. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 15:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this CSD tag - on the studio that recorded multiple award-winning albums such as Adele's 21, and is a Grade II listed building - is .... unfortunate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and TV programmes such as The Blue Planet! Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, this article sounds like something you could help expand to a good DYK, particularly if you've got the sources for the building's history as a 19th century chapel. (I'll have a hunt around in The London Encyclopedia and the Survey of London and see what I can dig up). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed looks to be a good topic but I've started a bunch of those myself recently and was planning to work on Hanging Sword Alley first, before its DYK window closes. I'll put the Angel Studio on my watchlist and chip in when inspiration strikes. Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bit unconventional to give a trout for doing something that is not silly. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 is unconventional! This is what happens when people don't look at an article's history before throwing around with wet fish. If I were a slightly more radical admin, from the state the article was in when I tagged it, I would have unilaterally delete it as many another admin would. The whole thing was also oozing and dripping with the slimiest of adspeak I was of two minds to block the creator - but then, I'm not radical, am I? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be violating policy in spades - WP:ATD (that's policy, remember) says "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page". So I rejected your request for unilateral deletion without discussion and improved the page instead. However, I still assumed good faith you didn't do it via incompetence or malice, but simply weren't as familiar with the Angel area of London and the insides of recording studios as I am, hence the seafood. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) From the revision tagged by Kudpung: "majestic...perfect fusion...most up to date technology...the very best modern control room...the latest recording technology...magnificent...an impressive range of international and award-winning music makers...world famous...where beautiful music truly comes alive". Can I go rinse my brain out now? Lots of people including one member of Arbcom, will delete articles for stuff like this. No trout earned IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also quite unconventional (being the only quixotic potato on this planet) but I'm not gonna trout janitors for doing their job. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trout is delicious, so the best thing to do is to accept the gift and eat it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for good advide for new article and my User name and singnature. G.B.T. (Boonparit Thuanthai) (cn:Dr.Man) (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Annett Fleischer

Hi, my phone was not responding properly and I accidentally reverted your edit to Annett Fleischer ‎but reverted it as soon as I realised my mistake. Sorry about the trouble. Ivecos (t) 07:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Ivecos. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank for your precious help

good morning from Coreca, I write to you to say goodbye and know how you are today, besides to thank you for your timely and thoughtful intervention. I apologize if I could seem silly in creating a page so quickly using various methods including the translator. Unfortunately, hurrying is often a bad counselor. I therefore ask you to forgive me, and if you want to become my helper for new voices or that I would like to translate into English. I would like to entrust you with two articles to expand and improve, take the time you need, but I would like to expand Sabrina Ferilli and Katrin Heß, just and no more than 10 minutes of your precious time, then if I can do something for you in Italian and its dialects I will be happy to do it, even more, very honored! sure of your answer I thank you in advance of what you did, do and do for me. a greeting from Coreca.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete flag of Eshet Tourist Services Ltd

Hi, I was unable to respond to your speedy deletion nomination tag before the Eshet Tourist Services Ltd article I posted was shot down (given that this seems to have happened within minutes of the flagginf). I noted you flagged it as "promotional". I want to make it clear out front that I am not, and never have been, employed or in any business relationship with Eshet Tours and that my only contact with them has been as a reasonably (one time) satisfied customer who took the time to look into their mode of operations. Furthermore, I thought I adopted carefully neutral phrasing throughout the article, and also provided sources and pointed out the controversy surrounding the manner in which Eshet Tours secured a near monopoly on Israel's public sector vacations.

I therefore do not understand why you flagged down this article as promotional. I would appreciate your feedback and any advice on how this article, in which I invested a considerable chunk of my private time, can be made acceptable.

I understand that the issue of notability might also apply to this type of article. However, Eshet Tours is not a "garage company" - it is one the largest tourist companies in Israel with hundreds of employees and hundreds of thousands of customers per year which has been independently covered by the media in the references I provided. Furthermore, the field it is active in - tourism to Israel, is one that is of major interest and activity of millions of Wiki users, Jewish and otherwise. Knowledge of the market forces affecting this field (such as the aforementioned monopoly over Israeli public sector tourism) seems to me to be of interest to these users.

Looking forward to your feedback,

Yboxman (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yboxman. It was actually deleted by Ritchie333. Both of us being admins, it was the right thing to do at the time, but having listened to your explanation, I would need Ritchie's consent to restore it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelia Shribman

Thanks for reviewing my article. In response to your comment on the review, I did not find any sources to determine where and when she was born while writing this article. The only closest source that I can find is this one which says "She has spent the past 60 years in the Wirral, London, Northamptonshire and Dartmouth". --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, MrLinkinPark333, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere. Thanks anyway for looking. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COIN

Per your advice on my candidate poll, I have watchlisted WP:COIN and intend to help out a bit over there in order to gain a more thorough understanding of promotional/paid editing. Any advice/feedback would be much appreciated. I have noticed however that the inability to view deleted articles is even more of a hindrance over there than it is at NPP, as I can't get a full picture of pretty much any of the discussions, as most of them involve a mix of existing and deleted pages. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can console yourself with the thought that none of us admins had access to deleted pages before we were granted the bit. There are plenty of other tasks that need doing though and through which you will gain the necessary experience. The main thing is to get that experience without out it looking as if you need it because you want to be an admin rather than being called to duty as an admin because you simply have accumulated the experience - which is how most of the successful (and busy) admins ended up at RfA. The main hurdle is the one particular aspect of adminship that one either naturally has or doesn't: a keen sense of judgement. And there are no metrics for that. . You don't need the bit for all that, but it can be demonstrated by not particular being noticed until your nominator makes the voters aware of it at your RfA. The main thing at SPI and COIN is detecting cases, gathering the background and making the reports. Most of the editors in those places are not admins. The admins are the ones who make the final call based on the evidence. As your work at NPP is very much in your favour, there's an election coming up soon for official coords, see how you fare in that, and if you are elected, just keep doing it, but certainly diversify and while keeping your own number of patrolls up (it's still only 2,229 as far as I can see) and although you have a respectable number of edits, try to maintain your content work at a bit higher than 32%. (34% of your edits are (semi-)automated). That said, Miracle of Sound which you wrote and got to GA almost single-handedly is really impressive (93.8%) but sadly the voters at RfA have a tendency not to notice those things. In my day one had to do something like Malvern to get a GA (634 edits but still only 60% of the content), and in those days a review was as tough as for a FA. I'm sure you are aware, RfA can be a brutal place for 7 days. Not many good faith candidates fail these days, but occasionally they do, and those are the RfA to take a close look at and understand why.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those comments. On a side note, something I have been considering for a while: I wonder if 'viewing deleted pages' has potential as a userright separate from adminship? The requirements would have to be quite high, due to the fact that anyone that can view deleted content necessarily has the ability to restore deleted content and issue WP:REFUNDs (although there could be policy restrictions placed on these actions). However, this being a separate userright could be very useful to certain members of the community, and it doesn't necessarily have to be bundled with the block and delete buttons (which are the userrights that definitely require discussion). As far as its potential as a proposal, what are your thoughts? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Insertcleverphrasehere,viewing deleted pages has been discussed many times (and again recently) and will never gain traction. It has alwas been met with a clear 'no', and it is one of thoses rare instatnces where the WMF would probably intervene to stop it happening even if there were a consensus for it. And as I can see no compelling argumemnt for it, I would support their action. I believe we have reached the stage now, after a succession of unbundling, where nothing more can be usefully unbundled from the admin tools (there aren't many left!). In fact, contrary to the reduction in the pass mark introduced in early Jan 2016 (or was it 2017?) I firmly believe that access to adminship should be made more stringent rather than easier. That said, my oft cited and used criteria at user:Kudpung/RfA criteria are far from being the hardest; while ironically, I have often been accused of being too liberal with my 'support' votes at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info... I had tried to search for it, but there are a lot of things a VPP that come up in the search, and I still haven't been able to find the 'recent' discussion, but I found a couple others from 7-9 years ago. Makes sense I suppose, especially if the WMF is very against it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF would waive a significant portion of it's immunity from lawsuits if it opened up access to Special:Undelete. In their eyes, it is probably the most significant part of the admin package, and they will not tolerate it being unbundled. The reason RfA or an equivalent process must exist to receive admin rights on any WMF wiki is because of access to view deleted content and the peculiarities of US law in protecting groups that own the servers which online communities rely on. There is no point to a discussion, because the WMF would never implement because it would have the potential to bankrupt them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox UK school

Template:Infobox UK school has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox school. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BLP concerns on school article talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PE/UPE: a call for action

Please now see User:Kudpung/PE - things to do and join the discussion on the talk page

My tp has often been a turntable for discussion - not necessariloy started by me - on these matters, so I'll try here with a last fling.
The more I read COIN nowadays, (especially after our 2015 clean up of Orangemoody which is still far from complete), and after my past work on improving NPP/NPR, the more I feel nausea at what those bottom feeders are doing to this encyclopedia that has been built on millions of hours of dedicated volunteer work. It's getting to the extent that I'm beginning to lose the will to invest my own time on it. I'm fed up with the dozens of authors who come to this page with their yammer asking for refunds and having to tell them it ain't going to happen. One can only do so much to police and hold this project together. Some of them may have started out by being good faith editors, but there came a moment when they threw ethics out of the window; they are no better than bent cops. Some of them saw the potential and registered their accounts deliberately to make a quick quid. Many of them simply pretend not to understand COI.

Before we reach the point of no return and it becomes a total venue for lucrative exploitation, it's time now to consolidate and conclude all the weary talking in the so many places and really set about banning PE for good, mercilessly blocking all those authors, deleting (and salting) their creations (we're not that hard up now for new articles, especially bios and companies), and issuing a cease and desist order to those agencies or individuals who advertise their services. It's only by taking radical action that they and other quick-buck makers will learn that paid editing doesn't pay.

I've thrown some hurried notes together here, if anyone is doing anything similar, let us know. Pinging Alex Shih, Athaenara, Bri, DGG, Doc James, Joe Roe, Jytdog, JzG, Smallbones, TonyBallioni, and of the other 567 watchers here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added some suggestions. The three strikes and delete is really three strikes and discuss with a finality (either to delete or keep), or at-least that was the suggestion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response from Athaenara

Eleven years ago, Brad Patrick issued "a call to arms to the community to act in a much more draconian fashion" in a 29 September 2006 "Corporate vanity policy enforcement" post at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/024016.html . There's a brief extract quoted on my user page, and it was quoted at more length in the 2 October 2006 issue of The Wikipedia Signpost, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-02/More CSD.

Back then, in spite of his plain speaking on the subject, when Wikipedia was in his words "the #14 website in the world", I did not understand how bad it would get. I was involved in my own tiny corner of Wikipedia, finding interesting and notable people I'd known nothing about, until I read something by someone who did, and started writing articles about some of them. I was (and am) naively dedicated to the encyclopedic vision.

As the consensus has been building for the past week to block Tony Ahn et al. and salt the earth from which they sprang, I've been wondering which of us will finally lower the badly needed boom. – Athaenara ✉ 10:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have gladly done it, but I've already voted there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JzG performed the two main blocks at 13:26 and 13:27 UTC, 13 January. – Athaenara ✉ 01:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need a speedy category for articles created in violation of the Foundation's terms of use. There are editors who will work long and hard to prevent deletion of paid articles, almost as if they are doing so to make a point, and some of this definitely dates back to the Kohs shitstorm. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need a policy solution of some sort, but I also think that there are ways within current policy that we can act better. For example: admins should block spammers with the same sense of urgency we block teenagers who replace a page with “poop” or “PENIS!!” The teenagers messing around are easily reverted and blocked without a second thought, when in the grand scheme of things, they really aren’t doing much harm to the encyclopedia: most of them will be reverted within seconds by ClueBot. Spammers on the other hand are destroying our credibility and are much more difficult to catch (though we are making progress.) Their presence here is much more harmful than the 14 year old changing the school principal’s name to “poopy head”. Admins must start enforcing our policy on advertising with the same vigor we enforce the policy on vandalism. This requires no policy change, just more people looking at who the creator is before G11ing an article. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikiepdia_scam_by_WIkiServices for a recent example of the problem. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably realised by now, Smallbones, that it was the Doyle affair that finally precipitated my initiative to begin this discussion, and I thank you for responding to it on Wales' tp. However, I've seen worse, a lot worse, such as a case I discovered regarding vile behaviour and extortion by a Wikipedia 'editor' concerning a very notable female minor. These scammers are scum, but as a community we tend to discuss it a lot and make suggestions, but effectively do little, or at least nothing that has a lasting, penetrating effect. There are things that can be done, but everyone sits around waiting for someone else to do it. James is one of the most energetic people on this front, but his hands are tied by having to watch his back on the Board, maintain his steadfast work at Med, and as I mentioned on my sub page that I created this afternoon here, the lack of a dedicated, highly motivated workgroup.

There is also a limit to what can be achieved online, but there are other measures that could, with right approach, have a much greater and more significant impact.

Unfortunately, being scammed is like beinbg an innocent victim of many con tricks: people are too embarrassed and ashamed to report it. It never ceases to amaze me how people with Doyle's extraordinary intellect (and a specialist in marketing to boot) can fall for such con tricks. The sad thing is that Doyle, like the little girl (who incidentally didn't fall for a scam, but she and her parents were subject to a disgusting form of blackmail), are genuinely notable. What we see at COIN is only the tip of an iceberg.

Just reading the the 11-year old plea by a former WMF (interim CEO) would be a starter. But I know that there are even some admin colleagues out there who would turn on me on an instant if I started wielding my deletion axe and blockhammner on these people and their spam. And on this, I'm going to ping Mdennis (WMF), and MER-C who I forgot to ping earlier. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting a discussion, Kudpung. Another interesting historical nugget I learned recently was that when MyWikiBiz attempted to run (the first?) paid editing scheme in 2006, Jimbo immediately indeffed them. If only we'd continued that way. Instead, we somehow ended up with weak and equivocal COI policy that has let the problem fester. – Joe (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the problems, Joe, is that as Wikipedia has grown, so has the number of those who don't see any harm in paid editing. There are also the claims of the job agencies that they have admins and New Page Reviewers in their pay, and when one follows all the discussions as I do, there are certain names that clearly stand out as paid editing sympathisers (but no, folks, I'm not going to rise to any trollish requests to name them - do your own homework). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is frustrating that so many people don't acknowledge the extent of the problem. I even saw someone describe paid editing as a "moral panic" recently. I can't help but think that most of those comments would evaporate if more people spent time doing new page work or COIN. But since that's not going to happen, we should probably aim to gather some concrete figures that will help convince the sceptics. I'll add that to your subpage. – Joe (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that depresses me most, Joe, is that there are even Arbcom members who have been making sympathetic noises towards paid editing. There are of course others, like DGG, who like me believe the best solution is the most radical one: ban the whole thing once and for all. As Smallbones and I keep pointing out, declared PE is so tiny it's not worth defending any 'moral' tolerance of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I find it frustrating that as long as paid editors disclose themselves, they are free to go around introducing themselves and their business, solicit help from volunteers to help with their commissioned works. And there's nothing stopping them from trying to get non-notable subjects included. This is nothing different from gaming the system and has to stop. Alex Shih (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like those paid editors that try repeatedly to write articles on non-notable people/companies need to go. 3-strikes rule for paid editors creating articles that later get deleted for not being notable. Then ban 'em. Would probably work to slow down some of the spammers. I don't have a huge issue with the (relatively few) constructive paid editors that we have, ones that haven't had any articles deleted and haven't been warned for NPOV on these paid articles, so long as they stay that way. The issue is that those editors tend to go downhill with time, so even if they start out being relatively ethical and following the spirit of policy very well, they eventually push it too far and then create a mess and timesink for all of us sorting it out. Harsh penalties for writing non-notable articles imposed on paid editors might help perhaps? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih: I call call this "TOU bludgeoning", when users pretend they are exempt from local en.wiki policies because they have disclosed that they are editing for pay. The simple facts are that WP:NOTSPAM applies to disclosed paid editors the same as all other users. Admins simply need to apply local policy to those who violate it. Meeting the minimum conditions to edit Wikipedia does not exempt one from this, as the recent ArbCom case affirmed. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the people who say "Aw, I'm so sorry, I didn't realise I had to disclose anything, so I'm doing it now." That retroactive tolerance also needs to stop. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand,I would be pleased with retrospective tolerance for those who fully declare their earlier work. The great need we have is stop the process of undeclared paid editing for the future. The past we can deal with by NPOV and Afd. For those who do not declare earlier work, the solution is to modify speedy criterion G5 to be retrospective--that any work found to be banned undeclared paid editors will be assumed to have been donee in violation of the COI rules, and be removed also. One thing the paid editor cannot operate without is a portfolio of articles they can point to for prospective clients.

That's the first step. The next step is to end the process of paid editing altogether. The reason for this will emerge as we gradually force all paid editing to be declared. Even the best of the paid editors do not do good work when it's for money and raising the article standards will deal with this. Of course, I may be wrong, and a few declared paid editors may prove capable of finding enough truly notable customers and doing enough high quality honest work. If this unlikely situation should be true, I will be suprised, but also pleased that we allowed people to have the chance to vindicate themselves. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a change?

Original section heading was "What about having WMF chip in?" but that was quickly killed :-). Changing to a more neutral wording.--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment expressed above. I think the core of the matter is an environment where "everyone can edit", which naturally includes COI editors and sock farms, with a probably significant overlap between the two groups. Given that, has it ever been discussed with WMF that they should contribute time / resources to the back-end areas, such as NPP, AfD, SPI, CAT:PROMO, etc? These activities take a considerable amount of volunteer time; for example, AfDs on businesspeople and other COI-prone areas are routinely relisted for lack of participation. Some close as no consensus for lack of quorum. SPI is frequently backlogged. Etc.

My other observation is that WP's processes are well designed to handle good-faith contributions, but not so well for COI / sock-based edits. I'm not sure how to change that. I've heard many times at company AfDs that promotional tone can be fixed through editing. Perhaps modifying "AfD is not clean up" essay to state that yes, AfD is clean-up for subjects that are prone to self-promotion, such as corporations, organisations, BLPs, organised events, etc. Another suggestion is for SPIs to conclude with the examination of the articles created by the blocked accounts. But again, that requires time and effort, hence my original suggestion of having WMH dedicate some personnel to these back-end functions.

Any thoughts on this? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine there is some legal limitations on allowing checkuser fishing on blocked users? Otherwise, that is the only way I see to stop socks systemically in the long term. For example see User:Rowingasia, some users seem to be going for a record on how many sock accounts they can get banned.— Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Some of the stuff you write about stems from people who are inclusionists who in good faith want to see WP to grow and grow. They have a point.

My approach is aiming at high quality, and I am pretty relentless at improving, tagging or removing low quality content on whatever basis it is low quality. I am pretty much a "deletionist" in that regard. If it is not high quality, actually meeting the mission of providing "encyclopdic articles that summarize accepted knowledge" then it goes.

But this is a basic sort of clash that is hard for the community to resolve but the community is moving toward higher quality, in my view. It takes time but it is moving that way.

These are content matters. I do not want the WMF involved in content. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard many times that AfD is not clean up from editors who make no effort to clean up said articles. My sentiment is: no thank you; I'd rather not spend my time on articles the subjects of which I don't consider notable. In the end, the sock farm "wins" -- they get their article into Wikipedia, with promo tone and a selective set of "facts" culled from PR-driven materials. That's why AfD can be hit or miss; there's even a Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron.

At the end of the day, by deleting promo article we are not burning libraries to the ground. If the topic is indeed notable (which is highly doubtful in many cases), a volunteer editor would come along and create a neutral article. The COI-based edits are a huge timesink -- via SPI, AfD, AfC, trying to maintain article neutrality, etc. It also undermines Wikipedia's reputation. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I don't like the "afd is not cleanup" argument. I come right back with "any speedy rationale is OK for AfD and this is PROMO that would have to be written from scratch so yes, this goes". Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AS Jytdog says, we don't want the WMF dabbling with content. The staff (with just a few exceptions) are generally lacking in editorial experience or even competency. Their role is (or should be) one of maintaining the servers, developing the software and databases, complying with legal requirements, and handling the money, none of which they do to any particular degree of professionalism. It is a disorganised group of people which has evolved into a socio-political movement reminiscent of the 60s and 70s fringe political movements (albeit without the sandals and saffron coloured dubngarees) rather than a professional knowledge base, - . The software developers enjoy the freedom to experiment and develop whatever they like with little concern for what's actually needed.

K.e.coffman, indeed, AfD is not a cleanup request service. Those nominating articles for any kind of deletion process, are not obliged whatsoever, beyond a cursory WP:BEFORE, to help the articles. To do so would be WP:BOGOF and play into the hands of the spammers and scammners, and at today's vast 5mio+ articles, we are not desperate for new content of just any kind. I wonder how many people realise that the print version of en.Wiki would fill all the shelves in an average size mainstreet bookstore. Anyone who has been doing New Page Patrol for years will know how the flow of new content has mutated into a stream of 1-line stubs about footballers, vanity bios, and corporate spam. So by being radical, there is no fear of us 'burning books'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say is that "cleanup" for promo article at AfD is to delete it, not kick the can down the road with a "no consensus" close. See the case of E3 Media; it took 4 nominations and a DVR for it to finally bite the bullet: deletion log. :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, K.e.coffman. We now really have to stop being zimperlich with these people. One problem is our open policy about who can vote at AfD. It's very difficult for even an experienced AfD closer to close against an overwhelming, but incorrect consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's indeed what I was kinda wanting to do by suggesting WP:DEL4 to just be advertising in general without regard to content - but I don't know how much changing that would change attitudes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEL4 is clearly covered by WP:G11 and should not need to be sent to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for guidance

With you involvement with Wikiprojects Schools, I was wondering if you could assist on something I came across today.

A user has been providing major rewrites on Highland Park High School (University Park, Texas) and Highland Park Independent School District. There's a lot of new detail; but also contains weasel words, NPOV issues, and name dropping of non-notable staff and coaches. I don't want to do a full revert as there is good material, but the problems being introduced will require a lot of effort to cleanup. Unfortunately, school articles are not my primary interests, so I would prefer to have someone with a bigger interest in these types of articles to take a look. Can you assist, or is there a notice board for the wikiproject where I can request someone to work with the editor or content they are adding? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barek. I'll take a look. If you need it ant time, WT:WPSCH is the place for help. There's also WP:WPSCH/H but it doesn't get used much. Unless you need a more general feedback, best and quickest is always to contact me first, or John from Idegon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing is that they are both now a 91 and 94% COPYVIO respectively. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this day of charter schools, schools of choice, a resurgence in the parochial school movement fueled by the Cheeto in Chief's vague promises of reviving possible voucher programs, even public schools are engaging in SEO. This makes at least the 6th one I've seen this school year. John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely ... I could see issues, but copyvio hadn't even hit my radar. If that's the case, maybe a full revert of both articles to their last "clean" version is the best move after all? Thanks for taking a look. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken all the copyvio out of the school article already. It now needs thoroughly pruning for the fluff and puff which while not sctrictly promo, goes well beyond what is required fro a 'pedia. We not supposed to be a school magazine or prospectus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barek and John from Idegon:, please see User talk:Sinsl727. Perhaps sompne could continue by removing the padding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken all the copyvio out of the district article already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

@Barek and John from Idegon: Are we sure that the photos taken from The Park Cities: A Photohistory, Diane Galloway, Mar 1, 1989 are out of copyright? Or that she (or her publisher) has ceded the copyright? Has this been cleared with OTRS? Does it need to be?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't locate anything on the image pages that support the claim that the images are free for use. I believe that an OTRS confirmation would be necessary - but I'll try to do some more image searches to try to verify the copyright holder's name and their release for reuse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to an obit I found on Google, Galloway passed away not so long ago. Perhaps we should soft remove the photos until it's cleared up.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are on Commons, so I asked at com:an for someone to assist with the necessary tagging and notification of the user about their otrs process.

Until that can be resolved, I'm fine with removal or commenting out the image use in the articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barek, I've commented out the pics on the school article, removed some PoV, and truncated some of the prose, but it's far from enough and I was probably not bold enough. That's all I can do on it today because I'm tied up with the COIN stuff above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling all that, much appreciated! FYI: the images have now have a deletion discussion started for them at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Sinsl727. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alt-Libertarian

Your CSD for this was removed by DGG. I'd PROD it, but I'd expect the creator to remove it. I'd AfD it, but whenever I try to set up an AfD I screw it up somehow. If you have an easy means to AfD, you might consider doing so, since it's definitely a neologism, and has no reliable sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Kelly558, the blue box is just a reminder. Please see Wikipedia:Signatures. You'll find all you need to know there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Sorry for editing the plot it was a mistake. I accidentally clicked it. Please just change it, my computer sucks right now. Sorry for bothering you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.150.42.59 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ive never been anywhere near that article. Anyway, your problems are moot - you've already been blocked by Oshwah. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

page Bojana Sentaler

Since the designer is known in Canada, what other changes need to be made? Thanks for your help! Abonzz (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abonzz (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

page George Crouch

I have edited the George Crouch article and removed the copyrighted sections. Could you Kudpung กุดผึ้ง check if the article is ok now and if I could remove the copyright warnings. Thanks and sorry for the hassle! hki007 19:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson (2nd nomination). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protection please

Could we have a little admin protection for Aylesford School – Sports College. Can't do it myself. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ClemRutter,

Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krehm

The date of birth is correct. He is 104.

"William Krehm, born 1913."[1]Nixon Now (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feburary 2018 at Women in Red

		Welcome to Women in Red's February 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: "Black women" New: "Mathematicians and statisticians" New: "Geofocus: Island women" 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) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]