User talk:Kudpung

Please sign your message.

Archives

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Karen Hilderbrand HELP please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Mitzo_Hilderbrand My page was deleted and I am not sure why? It said I tried too many pages or something like that. this is actually my first one. I wrote it in a format just like many of my musician friends? Can you please help me restore it? I can be reached at (Redacted) Thank you so much Karen Hilderbrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khilderbrand (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Karen, it looks like you are a victim of Orangemoody fraud. I'll wait for Kudpung to reply more fully before adding anything else. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our open editing policy makes it easy for people to operate scams using Wikipedia as a platform. The methods employed by Manc1234 are:

1. Create articles about women and demand money for it
2. Insert highly offensive content into article about notable female minors then extort the parent for money to remove it.

Sometimes we catch these people , sometimes we don't. We caught this one and the article was deleted. It cannot be restored. It must be rewritten from scratch by an editor who is not connected with the subject. First created 23:18, June 14, 2017 as one of his user draft templates of BLP to contact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick request

Hello Kudpung, sorry to bother you. Whenever you have time, would you mind taking a look at this user? They seem to be contributing in good faith, but with extremely poor judgement (Removing a complaint from my talk page, applying for rollback and pending changes repeatedly after literally having just been declined and revoked respectively). Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, Will do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another one

I thought this was a great idea. Another one is needed, though the editor is a bit over 500 edits. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 October#Spot the dog. Bad RM closes, bad "vandalism" tagging, bad SD tagging, trying to become DRN moderator (while involved in an DR), repeatedly asking for user permissions, wikilawyering, incompetent handling of edit semi-protected requests, doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS at all, severely defiant attitude when problems are pointed out, etc. Constructive editor, very unconstructive wanna-be admin.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DR

Just a note to let you know that an AfD you participated in is up for review here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it canvassing when a closer notifies all keep !voters, or is that just a coincidence? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I notified every single person who voted except you, Chris. Since you filed the report, it is obviously not necessary to notify you. And it is completely reasonable to notify participants in an AfD when it is nominated for review, as long as you do not selectively notify. I did not omit anyone but you, and obviously you are aware of the report. I'd have a very hard time notifying the delete voters, now wouldn't I? Your behaviour is getting more WP:POINTy by the minute. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

New plans

Someone just applied for a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation to improve the New Page Creation feed and help new page patrollers. Since you are one of the most experienced contributor in that project I thought I would notify you in hope to have some inputs about the proposed project. It seemed like a costly project, I just feel it is necessary to get people involved before WMF spend donation money on this. Cheers! Jim Carter 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Jim. I and several others have commented there. If the WMF approve it, it will be another proof of how they waste the donors' money while at the same time claiming they don't have the money to do it themselves, and refusing to correctly prioritise the more urgent requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-NPR-1

Template:Uw-NPR-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

patrolling new pages under the AfC trial

Hello. I'm afraid of CSD quality pages slipping into article space. Is there a system/method to check for unready drafts moving into article space? How can I take part? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim, after 6 years of intensive campaigning and finally getting ACTRIAL off the ground, I now focus on other issues concerning Wikipedia. I officialy retired from all things NPP in February and since ACTRIAL was launched I no longer actively follow general CSD issues. The place to post your question is at WT:NPR where it will receive attention from a broader community and in particular from TonyBallioni who is now the de facto coordinator of NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dloh (and any Kudpung stalkers who are interested), anything that passes AfC or is moved into draftspace has to go through the new pages feed. There might be other ways that the AfC regulars track moves. Primefac does a lot of cleanup of AfC drafts that have been moved to mainspace. He might have more ideas. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tere are just some remaining issues: some paid editors have managed to get themselves autpatrolled status, and new pager reviewer rights in order to bypass scrutiny. They have also tried a few days ago to obtain access to the AfC tools (denied). There are also some people out there offering paid editing services who claim to be admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, really the only way to tell if an AFC was "legitimately" accepted is to check if the move was done by the AFCH tool. If it was moved (even if it has "acceptable draft" in the edit summary) without the (AFCH) tag on it, then it was moved without actually being reviewed by an AFC reviewer. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Question from the technically challenged/oblivious gallery: Is there a quick/easy way to filter edits by "moved from draftspace to mainspace NOT AFCH"? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, after 6 years of intensive campaigning and finally getting ACTRIAL off the ground, I now focus on other issues concerning Wikipedia. I officially retired from all things NPP in February and since ACTRIAL was launched I no longer actively follow these issues. The place to post your question is at WT:NPR where it will receive attention from a broader community and in particular from TonyBallioni who is now the de facto coordinator of NPR. Primefac may also be able to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"I refer the Right Honourable Gentlemen to the answer I gave some moments ago"  :)

We think the claims of adminhood are bogus, at least as far as I am aware. There have been some usurpation of identity but no genuine paid admin. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

With some confirmed paid users having the tryptich of Autopatrolled, New Page Reviewer, and OTRS, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were - 1,100 is a lot to choose from. There's a bent copper in every police station. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Except for Stoke Newington in the 1990s of course... then it was 50%  :) — fortunavelut luna 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Le Tour du Monde

Does the page Le Tour du Monde now conform to your requirements? Thanks --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: Yes. Thank you for adding the attribution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

General, and a specific question about NPP

I know you are knowledgeable and active in the process of reviewing drafts as well as knowledgeable about new page patrol. I'm sorry to report that I'm not active in either.

I think I know that new articles created in draft space are not indexed until they have been submitted and accepted by a reviewer which has a nontrivial backlog of a month or two perhaps?

I'm weaker on a new page patrol process but I assume that an article created directly in mainspace by a new editor is not indexed until it has been patrolled through the new page patrol process. Is this correct?

I know we use the word "review" for the process by which draft articles are looked at, and I think new page patrol uses the word "patrolled" but can I refer to that process also as a "review"?

While, I'm interested in generally having a better understanding of the processes, this is prompted by a question about a specific article Brabble, which I see is not yet been patrolled. I'm trying to respond to an OTRS query about the expected timing, and don't want to answer incorrectly. I don't think we have to be precise about the timing but while I think I know there's a backlog of over a month on draft reviews I didn't think the new page review backlog was that long so I'm wondering whether this article, created 18 September, has special issues, or if the new page patrol backlog is simply that long.

I'm going to leave a link to this discussion to the person asking the question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I know that new articles created in draft space are not indexed until they have been submitted and accepted by a reviewer which has a nontrivial backlog of a month or two perhaps? - this is correct, and once the draft is accepted it immediately goes 'live' (is indexed).

I'm weaker on a new page patrol process but I assume that an article created directly in mainspace by a new editor is not indexed until it has been patrolled through the new page patrol process. Is this correct? - this is incorrect. Any page made in mainspace will go 'live' after 90 days if no one has reviewed it, or immediately after a NPP reviewer marks it as patrolled. (if it goes live due to the 90 day timeframe, it will not be removed from the backlog, someone will still patrol it at some point).

The current NPP backlog is 15,000ish pages (10 times longer than at AfC), I am not sure how long this normally equates to, but you can check the new pages feed for a basic look at the oldest unpatrolled pages. Dysklyver 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that @Mduvekot: has stepped in to help, so there's nothing further needed.

Thanks to @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: for the detailed answer. I did know about the 90 days issue, and mentioned to the person who asked, but failed to include it in my summary here. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize the NPP backlog was that long—discouraging.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it is currently at 12,896 pages. Down ~2,000 in the 3 weeks since ACTRIAL started. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, TonyBallioni, and A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, with a public Betata due to be released sometime very soon, the creator is obviously in a hurry to get the article published. The fact that it has been in the queue since 19 September 2017 is not so much due to the volume of work at NPP, but more to do with the reviewers, having identified problems with it, are exercising caution while being unsure what to do with it and in the meantime it has dropped off the first page of the New Pages Feed.

Written by SPA Ralum23, it reads like an advertorial and has all the carefully crafted hallmarks of a salaried or commissioned work created in deliberate anticipation of the product launch. The numerous routine reports used as sources do not afford notability to a start-up that hasn't even started up. I've sent it directly to AfD because history has shown that if it were PRODed or CSDd, the templates would probably be simply removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, for some reason the AFD got tagged onto the old AFD page from 2010. I've fixed the error but if you see anything odd that's probably why. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Serge-Thomas Bonino

Thank you for note about requirements living biographical pages on Serge-Thomas Bonino. I added a couple references and will remove the tag. I plan to fill out the page more later.

Nighm (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a PAID editor on some school articles

Hi from the states! Could you please take a look at WvsdSue, her talk and contributions and my talk? It's my feeling she should be blocked until she shows she understands the TOU in re PAID. Obviously I cannot do that, but you can. Defer to your judgement in this matter of course. John from Idegon (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I've full protected the pages for a while. When she asks you why she can't edit them, you can tell her why, and that her refusal to comply has prevented anyone else from editing them too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Bruce Arena article

I see you protected it for 15 days. That's perfectly fair, although I think it'd just be fine to have it on protect for a week. In case it isn't clear, what happened is the US soccer team was just eliminated from the 2018 World Cup qualifiers, with Bruce Arena being the recently re-appointed coach. Hence people taking their frustration out on his article. Hopefully they'll all simmer down within a few days.

Thanks for your work!

Rafaelloaa (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Hello,

Thanks for the notification, but nope, these are not tests but work in progress: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#An_offline_app_for_History and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#An_offline_App_for_Physics. For the record, we're also preparing apps for pretty much every subtopic. Cheers, Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I think we've met at Esino Lario, if I recall correctly :-)

Quite possible :) I was a bit confused with these pages. As Wikiproject sub pages they shouldn't be showg in the New Pages Feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stephane It seems as if I was right despite the confusions: 06:32, October 13, 2017 Diannaa (talk | contribs | block) deleted page WikiProject History/Offline (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace). Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally realized what went wrong: I created the page in the wrong namespace (Wikiproject XY instead of Wikipedia:Wikiproject XY) 0_o Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No harm done, Stephane - I've done it myself a couple of times but fortunately I can delete my own mistakes ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Global Wrestling network

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you to take a second look at Global Wrestling Network and reconsider the speedy nomination.LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CSD was declined by Ritchie333 after it had been improved.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

LM2000, at the time of its tagging, Global Wrestling Network was a classic example for CSD on both criteria. If you want to avoid CSD, a good idea would be to create your articles in your user space or offline until they are ready for mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was declined because it had sources and it had four sources when you tagged it. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean there's no indication of importance. Subjects qualified for speedy deletion should be unambiguous and that wasn't the case here.LM2000 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

LM2000, at the time of its tagging, Global Wrestling Network was a classic example for CSD on both criteria. Simply having sources is not an exemption to CSD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Gillespie Wiki Page

Hello,

We would like to reinstate the Wiki page for Mark Gillespie - CEO of Three Six Zero, Entertainment Manager to Calvin Harris, Travis Scott, Frank Ocean amongst others. Please let me know how to move forward with this. It appears his page has been taken down due to a ban of sorts.

Thank you.

Please see the instructions above for posting messages on this talk page. Unfortunately, the article cannot be restored because it was created by someone who was abusing our voluntary encyclopedia by writing articles for money or as part of their salaried job and creating hundreds of accounts to this end. As you are strongly connected with the subject, you should also not be involved with this Wikipedia issue, and we do not attend to requests of this kind from anonymous users. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mud Monument deletion

Hi. I hope you are having a fantastic time. It is with a sad heart that I write this message. I would like to know why the article containing information of this important piece in Isipingo has been deleted. That monument was built by people who love their town, to comemmorate and celebrate their town and its people. Thank You Generouscontributor (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Generouscontributor, unfortunately the article did not explain why this monument is important enough to be in Wikipedia. There were also no sources that tell us it even exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright infringement, need removal assistance

Hello,

I needed to find an admin for six images that were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons where the contributor claimed work that wasn't theirs. The article is for the Toyota Century, a luxury limousine built for Japan. The first image that caught my attention was [File:Toyota-Century-2018-1280-01.jpg] which was created by Toyota Motor Company. This image can be found all over the 'net, and the car isn't to be officially be released until October 27 at the Tokyo Motor Show. This editor then uploaded five other images which I've seen elsewhere, [File:CENTURY ROYAL-4-714403.jpg], [File:5097659 Century Royal.jpg], [File:Maxresdefaultcenturyroyal.jpg], [File:Toyota century royal imperial 2 hearse 1.jpg]. How do we delete this copyvio files? Thanks Regushee (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

(talk page stalker)@Regushee: Kudpung is not an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. I tagged all but one of the files for speedy deletion on Commons. (You click, report copyright violation on the side, and then supply a URL or reasoning plus a URL). For one, I started a deletion request at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maxresdefaultcenturyroyal.jpg, because I could not find a previous source. You are free to comment there, and if you can find a source, we can also tag it for speedy deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni, and @Regushee: I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as a 83% copyright violation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, just the images should be deleted, not the entire article, tha hatnote is a little confusing. (Regushee (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

The images will be dealt with by Commons admins (and most of them have already). Kudpung, I removed your G12: that blog had copied from us, not us from them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Seen and done (uw removed from creator tp). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Content question

I stumbled upon this today, Wahconah Park and found that two months ago a large block of text was pasted in that is labeled "Wahconah Park, the Short Story As researched & written by: David J. Potts". This obviously does not belong in its present form. The edit history says that this is the research submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission which led to the place being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm not sure if it needs to be deleted as a copyvio (I'm not sure it was ever published anywhere), needs to be deleted because it must be pure plagiarism, or it is sufficient to leave and tag it. Thanks. MB 00:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

MB, it depends whether it is a verfiable source. If not it has to go. Probably added in good faith but in any case it's too long for inclusion in an article of that kind. Best start a thread on the article's talk page along the lines you have mentioned here, and notify recent contributors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. No real recent contributors to notify, but I posted something on the NRHP project page. MB 01:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the NRHP folks found the text on Facebook and not in anything associated with the building's nomination. So it has all been deleted from the article. Thanks again. MB 02:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for chiming in at the RfA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Was this your edit? If yes it may needs oversight. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How so, when there’s a declaration of the connection on the old account’s User page?—Odysseus1479 02:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I was talking about editing while logged out, showing possibly Kudpung's IP address. Just wanted to make sure. Alex Shih^Talk 03:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be extremely rare if I were to edit without logging in. However, If my computer shut down and automatically restarted without me noticing (it does happen) fr security reasons it will log me out of Wikipedia until I log in again. I'm actually not worried about my IP address showing - it always geolocates to Bangkok which is nearly 700 Km from where I live. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

On this day, eight years ago...

Happy First Edit Day, Kudpung, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 06:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I had the impression you came with the original CAT 5 cable. Happy 1st edit day! John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần An

I disagree with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần An. The nom and I both said the subject had no claim to notability. There was one keep !vote essentially saying the subject passed GNG. The other seems to argue either NPOL or INHERITED. I don't see how this could close as "keep"; maybe "no consensus." (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with my closure. If you feel a different closure would have been more appropriate I will not make a drama out of a DELREV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lý Thuần An

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lý Thuần An. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Editathon at Duquesne University, Pittsburg, on 1 November

I remember that some time back you suggested I should let new page reveiwers know about editathons but I could not find any mention of where to place such information on Wikipedia:New pages patrol. In any case, you can find details here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott. I've placed your news banner on the page at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. You might wish to add that page to your messaging list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you rapid reply. I'll find it myself next time.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Library Systems & Services

I am contesting the speedy deletion of Library Systems & Services, please restore. --RAN (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I will look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the article has been restored by the admin who tagged it for deletion. It still has issues to address that may be the subject of a future AfD discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|The Women in Red World Contest]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Kudpung, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

Hey, Kudz - who oversees AfC? When an IP is long established, and has a user page-talk page, they aren't required to do anything more to get an article about a novel published, are they? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Atsme::--As to overseeing AFC, it's mainly Primefac.As to this specific incidence, all IPs, independent of their competency levels, are technically bound by the MediaWiki software to be not able to submit articles to mainspace directly.The sole way for them is to have their their creations succesfully vetted through AfC.This has been in effect for years, way way before ACTRIAL was launched:) If you feel that the AfC submission was incorrectly declined, just have a chat with the reviewer and move it out to the mainspace, yourself.Or you can ask the IP editor to create an account and enjoy it's numerous benefits!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Godric - I choose the latter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:, nobody oversees AfC. I introduced the minimum qualifications for reviewers a couple of years ago and Primefac and I watch over the requests for use of the HS. Apart from that, AfC is fairly disorganised and has no infrastructure or coordination or even anyone who comes out as a go-to person . What it does have, however, is a vibrant talk page which demonstrates some kind of cohesion among its operators - something that never existed for NPP, for example, until I got the New Page Reviewer group created. I pushed and pulled NPP along its dirt track for years until then. Now I have thankfully stepped back rom all that, TonyBallioni has graciously stepped in as it new de facto coordinator and NPP is now on the highway. I expect he'll be taking a look at AfC too, now that ACTRIAL is up and running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudz. I am definitely one of the editors who appreciates (and depends on) Tony at NPP, and I hope to hell his adminshp doesn't take him away from us. If there are no plans in the near future to merge AfC and NPP, then it probably wouldn't hurt to get a little project team together for AfC and organize the place. The backlog there is growing, so I start with the oldest first unless there's a direct request for me to review something else. My free time comes in spurts, so while I think I can easily knock-out 5 AfCs and maybe 3 NPPs/day, I'm barely getting 2 or 3/week because (1) I'm taking the time to fix issues, and/or (2) I'm being pulled away to work on something else; a song I'm sure you've sung for years. *lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:, personally, I wouldn't bother doing anything at all with the infrastructure of AfC untill ACTRIAL has run its course and we have some stats to go on. Depending on that outcome, there may be arguments for or against a merger. If the backlog at AfC gets too severe, they will soon organise something amongst themselves to speed things up. Ironically, they may have to make an appeal for help to the New Page Reviewers (who aren't all exactly pulling their weight either). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm....

Would it be nice to upgrade this block to an indef given the fact that his very first edit after the block was this edit and he seems to qualify NOTHERE by a mile.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
On a side-note, do you consider Jon Brod to pass our notab. criterion(s)?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Godric on Leave, Anshitji indeffed. Jon Brod is nothing but a vanity CV, maes no claims of importance or significance, and has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Deleted: G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starshine60: Nikolaievans. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected article on Spokane Valley High School?

Hi,

I noticed that you Fully Protected Spokane Valley High School. Was this intentional? As far as I can tell only one user has been violating WP policy, and those edits were made in good faith. This user could be blocked from editing the article in question with Extended confirmed protection, but I think it would probably be better to answer the editor's request for help. I'd help, but I don't know how. Apparently the issue is that this high school has updated their logo and would like to see it updated on WP. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance for your help! Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Webbbbbbber, I don't see a request for help, but I have reduced the block level. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Webbbbbbber, if I can add to my coleague's reply, please do not honor her requests unless or until she complies with TOU. If it were reasonably sourced editorial content she wanted changed, I could possibly see it. However, I do not see enough urgency in her request on behalf of the school district to update a graphic to give this PAID editor any slack on the updating of a logo graphic, something that has more promotional value than informative value. John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Webbbbbbber, John, I've uploaded and put a new logo on the article. That is the best they can hope for without: 1. Avoiding ToU, 2. The rigmarole of going through OTRS to validate copyright issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi, it is some time now since you suspended my NPP and AfC editing, as shown: 04:27, 27 September 2017 Kudpung (talk | contribs) changed group membership for A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver from extended confirmed user, new page reviewer and rollbacker to extended confirmed user and rollbacker (Temporary suspension pending investigation of subjects of BLPs).

This is almost a month later, so, have you finished the investigation? Dysklyver 20:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.124.125 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Please sign your posts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on NPP-AFC merge

Hi, I got your ping in the discussion about merging NPP and AFC on Legacypac's talk page. I realise that this has been a proposal for a while and having done the reading (WP:NPPAFC etc) I've come up with a rough idea as to how it could be done although obviously securing ACTRIAL as just AC is the priority at the moment. Here it is, although stats will probably be needed to back up my assertions which I've formulated just through reviewing.

Premises:

• A large number of AFC submissions are put through the process because of deleted and SALT-ed mainspace articles.
• Sometimes this is due to COI.

Suggestions:

1. Merge the access to the AFCH script into the new page reviewer right and transfer across any people with access who aren't NPRs. Potentially add another button to the Page Curation module.
2. Tweak the new landing page for creating articles to disallow SALT-ed articles and automatically convert it into a draft.
3. Give AC users the option to start a draft anyway (IMO draftspace curation is better than mainspace esp. when considering WP:BITE).
4. Create a separate category of unreviewed drafts which is accessible through Special:NewPagesFeed. Reviewing would essentially be curation plus a move when accepted.
5. Back-and-forth improvement is a major quality of AFC so the new module should have a decline option that puts it as reviewed but doesn't index it in the mainspace.

Again, I realise that this is early days and securing a permanent AC solution is the priority but I just thought I'd air some ideas. Also pinging in those interested in AFC, NPP, COIN and the tech side etc.

@Doc James, TonyBallioni, MusikAnimal, Nick, Primefac, DGG, and There'sNoTime:

DrStrauss talk 09:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• In fact, would WT:NPPAFC be a better venue for this? DrStrauss talk 09:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

well WT:NPPAFC could be a good place, I doubt Kudpung's talk page is the right venue, although it probably gets more traffic - it might be a good idea to link to the discussion at the village pump. Dysklyver 11:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Kudpung's talk is an appropriate venue for now, a good amount of project space brainstorming happens on user talk pages before anything formal is proposed. I have a rather simplistic view of how what should be done with this moving forward: follow the Huggle model and make the NPR permission the technical requirement for using AFCHS. It'd be easier to maintain than the current checklist, and it would also ease the pressure on Primefac as the gatekeeper by making everything go through PERM. When Kudpung discusses a merge, this is the first step I think of, and I do think it would be a net positive to Wikipedia.
  Some I've talked to are afraid this will make AfC simply an extension of NPP, which is the absolute last thing I want at this time. I keep away from AfC like the plague, and if NPP and AfC were merged completely into one project I would probably disengage from it as it stands now. I enjoyed AfC 10 years ago when it was used primarily by IPs to create decent articles. Nowadays its often explaining to people who have no chance of having their article in main space what they can do to get their article in main space, and I simply don't have the patience for that (but have much respect for those who do).
  What I see as a potential way forward and benefit is for the WP:NPPAFC project to take off again now that ACTRIAL is up as a collaborative space to think through the future of how we deal with new content. We're going to have to have another ACTRIAL RfC in April 2018, so thinking through things along the way would be beneficial to that. Closer collaboration between those who focus on AfC and those who focus on NPP is crucial for moving forward in any reform of our process of dealing with new pages, and I'm grateful to Kudpung and DrStrauss for starting these conversations. These types of conversations will help us figure out how to better integrate AfC and NPP and might eventually lead to a combined system that works well for everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Ok well my view is that AfC and NPP are quite different, with different focuses and different workflows. here is a comment I made on DrStrauss's talk page.

I believe the primary reason AfC and NPP are separate is that the processes are infact quite different, especially now ACTRIAL has been introduced. Notwithstanding the technical differences in the draft approval/rejection script v page curation toolbar, there are also significant differences in the workflow, as you can't 'decline' an existing page, and many pages are floating around in the NPP backlog which would never pass AfC, but are also notable/feasibly relevant and therefore would be kept at AfD. Additionally (according to the current documentation) drafts accepted via AfC will still be reviewed at NPP, which creates a 2-review workflow for these new pages. After ACTRIAL has taken effect, a drop in new pages direct to mainspace should be evident, this is made more so by deprecating the option to create a mainspace article from the article wizard. The effect of this should be to further restrict AfC to pages created by new editors, and NPP to pages created by editors who have at least edited elsewhere (and AfC accepted pages), which creates a situation where the type of pages, and subsequently the workflow, is different. An additional factor worthy of note, is that the bar for becoming an AfC reviewer is much lower than the qualities needed to pass WP:PERM/NPP, where the track record of content creation etc is looked at more thoughtfully. In short merging AfC and NPP would be creating a whole new system, you could not just tack them together.

Dysklyver 14:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• When I first started reviewing new pages I essentially proposed EXTRIAL (ACTRIAL but with 30/500 instead of 4/10). Once I was told how much of a task it was (about 6 years) just to get to an autoconfirmed restriction, I was surprised. I see what TonyBallioni is getting at; AFC is unlike NPP in that your talk page will be plagued by COI editors whinging about declines. The key thing is that they are both to do with filtering or new content which is why I think some kind of merged workflow could come about. DrStrauss talk 14:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Also, a potential first step is to keep the workflow the same and do as Tony says, make AFCH recognise users by user right and not a check page. That'd be a good start. DrStrauss talk 15:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I think mid to long-term a merged workflow could work. Right now, however, I think our focus needs to be on taking small achievable steps towards further integrating NPP and AfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

the general idea of merging NPP and AFC is a very good idea, but it's too early to talk about details. As I see it, the key problems are 1/ the goals are different: AfC is just to keep out unlikely (usually COI) articles, not to mark them for needed improvement; the goal of NPP is not just screening for deletion, but to indicate what major improvements are needed. 2/ if we look only at the deletion aspect, the standards for passing are different. The standard for AfC is that it be likely to pass AfD; the standard for NPP to avoid speedy is much lower, just that it not fall under CSD. 3/ we're currently having so much difficulty maintaining standards in both processes, that trying to combine them will cause serious confusion DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If I understand it , the specific point of DrStrauss' current suggestion is a proposed extension of the future combination process to deal specifically with salted articles. Many, probably most, salted articles are protected for because the article is disruptive or totally inappropriate, not just because they have been deleted several times. Anything that would encourage their re-creation is a poor idea. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• I am going to talk about the details of what could be done. (even if it is too early)

if both AfC and NPP were abolished and replaced with a unified new pages system (UNPS) or (NPS), it could have several layers to make things easier.

A stream for draft pages, which are dealt with and then promoted to the second layer.

Draft pages are those made by IP and unconfirmed editors.

A second layer where the approved page is reviewed and promoted to the third layer.

New pages made by Autoconfirmed users start in the second layer.

A third layer where approved pages are patrolled for significant mistakes made in the lower layers.

New pages made by Extended confirmed users and admins start in the third layer.

A separate feed to patrol projectspace and userspace for webhosting and attack pages.

A separate feed to patrol new templates. (patrolled by template editors and third tier patrollers.

Note that this allows people to specialize in what they want to focus on, and makes most new pages go past 3 reviewers. At any stage the page can be deleted or demoted back one or more layers. Each layer could have a separate useright as a kind of tiered experience system.

The tiered layout allows for the fact pages created by experienced users are more likely to be suitable.

> Dysklyver 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A system requiring three editors to pass a page is going to be hopelessly backlogged. Already, forcing a AfC approved and promoted page through NPP is a little silly. Wikipedia is filled with errors, inappropriate pages, and problems to fix. Alienating new editors that may help exiting pages later by over curating their new pages is not helping.

A very needed change is for AfC reviewers to seek deletion on anything that needs deletion, rather than just declining it over and over and over. Legacypac (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think we're jumping the gun on the suggestions of fine details. Before anything can be done at all some stats will need to be prepared in the run up to ACTRIAL such as:

• Backlog - growth of backlog over a year (and this list may not be exhaustive)
• Average time in queue
• Average processing time
• Active reviewers over a year
• Number of reviews by user
• Number of users disbarred
• Number of indef blocked users, and number of users blocked during their AfC tenure
• % of AfC submissions declined
• % of declines by decline rationale

All this would help to provide an objective overview and avoid RfC voting on a simple 'like/don't like' basis - nobody likes to see their favourite workplace deprecated even if it's for the better good; a good analogy here is the current discussion on disbanding the Reference desk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

sheesh

whatever side or angle one takes - there is a dammned good masters thesis in the issues raised in the naval (sic) gazing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Should_the_Reference_Desks_be_closed.3F alone methinks JarrahTree 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification please?

WP:AFD states in the section "How to contribute" - 4th para, 2nd bullet point - (my underline and bold) If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so assume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention.
Now scroll down the page to "Withdrawing a nomination" wherein it specifically states: If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic, or because you realise the nomination was a mistake. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion. I interpret the two situations very differently. In the first, it is a matter of addressing/correcting the reason the article was nominated, and once that has been done, it doesn't matter what the iVotes are because the problem was resolved. In the second, it is a matter of the nominator changing their mind, not that the reasons were addressed. Input, please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

almost always the reason the nominator changes their mind is because new information has been presented, or at least their attention called to information they had not recognized. The two are essentilly thesame think. WP policy and guidelines get added to piece by piece, and WP is not a place where complete consistency can be expected. . DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)