User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2011

Brad Herzog draft
Hi Kudpung- I am so excited because I think I have finally fixed this entry up and it will hopefully pass criteria. I know you are traveling, but I would appreciate if you would take a look. (I hope I've even sent you this message in the proper way.) Thanks! Amyherzog (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please follow this link: Kudpung: Herzog archive to the advice I gave you in February, because most of the issues have still not been addressed. If you remove all the references to Amazon, and other publishers'/booksellers' reviews and basic listings, and the subject's own website, we are not left with  WP:Reliable Sources that support the claims (particularly awards), and proof of publications (ISBN). The article still reads promotional or as a resumé, and the references have still not been formatted per WP:CITE. The only thing I can see Mr Herzog as having achieved that might meet our criteria for inclusion, is his minor success due to having been a contestant on a TV show; being a staff writer on magazines, or having published a few books does not necessarily put him in the same league as, for example, Bill Bryson or G. K. Chesterton. Please read again our policies at WP:AUTHOR  to establish notability, and WP:RS to establish what  sources assert such notability through multiple, in-depth media coverage of the author rather than his works and books, and do bear in mind again our policy concerning your Conflict of Interest. If you can address these issues, we may be able to avoid the article being deleted.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is harder than I thought. He is the author of 4 non-fiction books, and dozens of children's books, has won awards for his writing, and has written hundreds of magazine articles, done hundreds (not joking) of TV interviews and been interviewed by newspapers dozens of times. Even though I may have a conflict of interest, he certainly belongs here. Several months ago, you offered to take this over for me. Would you still be willing to do so? I can certainly provide the ISBN #s for all his books. And I can start you off with some links to reputable outside sources (San Francisco Chronicle, Minnesota Public Radio, People magazine, PBS TV in Chicago) and perhaps we can do it that way? Here are just a few of the links:

http://video.wttw.com/video/1560185722/ http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-03-06/living/28655480_1_small-town-latest-book-rv http://www.rvbusiness.com/tag/brad-herzog/ http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/arts/x792538138/Travel-author-Brad-Herzog-visit-Framingham-Thursday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuPo9fAFzVA http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20131241,00.html http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/08/31/herzog/

Thanks so much for your help!Amyherzog (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid the focus of my work  at  Wikipedia has shifted to administration  since we last  corresponded. In  any  case I  was unable to  to  find any  suitable references and I  feel  that  as you  are so close to  the subject you  are best  placed for locating the required sources. Please take  a moment to read WP:RS, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:CITE as I  previously  suggested, because if we can't  make a match, there can  be no  article. I'm  sure that  if Mr Herzog  is as well known as you  suggest, there will  be ample top quality  newspaper articles about him rather than about  his books and it  will  be worth  finding  them. I'm certain  also  that  you  will  be able to  link  to  the sites of the bodies that  have bestowed him with  awards for confirmation. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Augmentative and alternative communication. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Hi and thank you for the message =D

Hentaku La Blue Girl (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC) 

Editor assistance
Hey, thanks. I was just not sure. I knew the dome was notable for a variety of reasons, but the Wildcat Den seemed to stand on shakier ground. The picture came from commons:User:Martinpulido's CC0 dump of dozens of building photos in Chinle and Kayenta, Arizona, including pictures of all the schools in Chinle and the Wildcat Den. (And some more mundane items...let's go inside a supermarket!) Raymie (t • c) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing! I don't  work in  the files department, but  one thing  is for sure, Wikipdia is not  photobucket.com :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Where do they come from, long time passing...
So, I wondered where all the new extra random new page patrollers come from. Why do people start there? So I had a look at some recommendations.

If someone "adopts" a new user, and their first recommendations were the following, would you be worried?

"I'll also help you to identify the area you want to get yourself the most involved in. Here are a few:

Vandal fighting Recent changes patrol New pages patrol Usernames for attention Article work Creating new articles and adding content Improving articles by cleaning them up, fixing typos, etc.           Creating articles which were submitted by IP addresses Deletion discussions Image maintenance

What are you most interested in? I suggest starting with some vandal fighting." (my emphasis) I could format that as per the original, but it takes up a lot more space - hopefully the ideas are clear. Just casting around for some views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * New Page Patrol is a complete trainwreck and that's why we've had to look into other methods of preventing the wrong  pages from being made. An [|essay  by Fetchcomms] posits some theories as to  why  NPP  is largely  carried out  by  very  young, almost  totally  inexperienced users. Personally, I  would like to  see New Page Patroller made into  a user right such as reviewer and/or rollbacker. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that essay doesn't really address the problem at all - it doesn't even mention new page patrol other than to assert that some members of a certain age group carry it out without problems. Instead of merely describing the problem, we should be looking at what factors are causing or contributing the problem, and how they can be addressed. New Page Patrol isn't linked from the Main page (Recent Changes is), so how are inexperienced editors getting there? It seems to be the case that it's actually experienced editors that are suggesting to inexperienced editors that New Page Patrol is what they should do.


 * That's exactly what happened in the case above. Then I stepped in and suggested that New Page Patrol wasn't a good place to start; so the adopter suggested that the inexperienced editor try working at AfC instead. That also caused problems - although not quite as many.


 * It would be good to encourage experienced editors not to throw inexperienced editors straight into New Page Patrol (or even AfC). That also leaves the question, if we don't want them to do that, what do we want them to do? If a new editor is an academic who wants to edit articles about dung beetles, that's what they should be encouraged to do - but the reality is that we get an awful lot of new editors who "just want to do stuff". "Create new articles" is the obvious thing to say, but it's not actually as easy as it sounds, for many of those who are completely new.


 * If the adopter can spend serious amounts of time with the adoptee, and thinks they're ready for it, then finding them a promising unsourced BLP to reference and expand, is one good option. For the rest, I am thinking that there are many of even the basic housekeeping tasks can be a minefield for new editors (CSD tagging, AfD nominations, RCP because of BLP issues), but there are some backlog-related tasks that are much less controverial and thus a much better place to start. Dealing with a category of "articles of type X needing an infobox" seems to be one such place, but I'm sure there must be others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Making NPP a userright won't make a difference. Anyone can manually stick a db on a page whether they have the right or not, the difference being that the page doesn't get patrolled. I personally think that everyone should have a general understanding of templates, and that we don't have enough people skilled with parser functions, but I digress. -- Σ  talk  contribs  00:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Websites with images
Hi Kudpung. Many thanks for your prompt advice to me at WP:EAR in response to my question about Websites with images, and for the Talkback banner on my Talk page. I have perused the policy pages you listed. Another User alerted me to External media and I have now made use of that template in a new article I am developing. See my diff. I believe this application of the template is compatible with the advice at WP:HOTLINK. Cheers! Dolphin ( t ) 04:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the documentation at External media demonstrates the need to  observe our rules for linking to outside images. These policies are based on  both  copyright and technical considerations. In  practice, the  template is rarely used. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome template
Hi, Kudpung. If you get a moment amid your travels, would you take a look at this? I think an earlier request got lost in the archives. Thanks, Rivertorch (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed trial
Kudpung, I have created a MediaWiki interface page which will be displayed to non-autoconfirmed users who try to create an article during the trial. However, I don't have access to create new articles in the MediaWiki namespace so I can't put the page in the right place. It's currently at User:Snottywong/MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext. Can you check it over, make sure it looks right, and then move it to MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext? Keep in mind that there's a lot of template logic going on inside of it which will change the way it looks depending on the namespace of the article. While it's in my userspace, it will always appear as if you're trying to create a User: page. I think I have a bugzilla account already, so I'll try and start a request there shortly. I'll post a link to it if I get it done. &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 21:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See 30208. &mdash;SW&mdash; gossip 22:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all this SW. It's mid morning  here and I've just  got  back  in  the house. I'll check  this all  out  after lunch. Dunno  what  time you're  on  in  Oregon. Catch up  with  you  later. Cheers,   --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Need some support on the bugzilla thread. Someone is trying to say we don't have consensus to implement the trial.  &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 14:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I guessed we would run  into  problem. I've been wondering  for weeks why I  could find nobody  o  do  it. Of course there is consensus for the trial - the original  consensus foe the new policy  was overwhelming and so is the consensus for the durtion of the trial, what  more do we want? Who  is the most  senior person that  voted on either RfC? Unfortunately  ne of the people I  trust  most  was not  entirely  in  favour of it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The link  to  Bugzilla is not working - can you  give me another one or a full  URL?  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Full URL &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 15:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Still can't link to it. Through Ffox it just times out, and from Safari I get this message: Safari can’t connect to the proxy server. Safari can’t open the page “https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208” because Safari can’t connect to the secure web proxy server (HTTPS). To change your proxy settings, open Safari Preferences, click Advanced, and then click Change Settings. For help with this problem, contact your system administrator. I've tried connecting through http, same story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any kind of weird firewall that might be blocking that site for some reason, or blocking https traffic? It looks like bugzilla only works over https.  While you're figuring it out, here's what was said:   &mdash;SW&mdash; verbalize 16:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The dissenting user (probably User:Maxsem) said this:
 * "Call me dumb, but don't see any strong consensus here. If we simply sum the number of people supporting and opposing this change in principle, it will be something closer to 50/50. Also, lots of people opined on the need in an article creation wizard in software proper, as opposed to wiki pages. Can this possibility be seriously discussed before making such serious step?"
 * And my response was:
 * "I don't think this is the time or the place to second-guess the way the proposal was closed by an experienced admin. Note that over 500 editors participated, and the closing admin notes that "In this broadly attended discussion, more than two-thirds of those expressing a clear 'support' or 'oppose' opinion supported the proposal to limit article creation to autoconfirmed editors, either as a trial or on a permanent basis."  No one has disputed the way this proposal was closed (and bugzilla is certainly not the place to do so).  There is very strong consensus for this trial.
 * As for a software version of an article creation wizard, that's a great idea but completely unrelated to this trial; linking the two is unnecessary and inappropriate.
 * While this is a serious step, keep in mind it is only a trial. The trial will last for 6 months, and then this change will be reversed for 30 days while a discussion ensues on whether to make the changes permanent or to abandon the idea.
 * Many editors have planned and worked for months to organize, propose and implement this change. I (and they) would be highly disappointed if it got hijacked on bugzilla, at the very last step of implementation."


 * Could you please move the mediawiki interface page from my user space into the MediaWiki namespace so that the devs can see it? &mdash;SW&mdash; squeal 16:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Call me dumb if you like, but  I'm not  sure what  the move is you  want  me to  do.  You  don't  need admin  rights to  do  moves, why  not  just  paste your template proposal into  the tech  discussion  page below my  fake examples, and link  it  to  the devs?
 * The Bugzilla people have no right  whatsoever to  question  a consensus that  was clealry  reached by  due process, a long  cooling  off period before it  was summarised by  a particularly  expert, neutral admin, and a further overwhelming  consensus for the trial  on the basisd that  I  proposed after long discussions with  you and the others to  reach  a mini  consensus on the best  way  to  go  about  obtaining  consensus for the trial. I  think  your response is perfectly  apt, and it  would be proper to  tell the author of that  message that  if s/he  is against  the project, then they  should have voted/commented with  the others in  the previous RfCs. Now is not  the time to  relitigate a policy  that  was recently adopted  by established process.  I  would go  so  far  as to  accuse delaying  tactics at  this stage as disruptive editing whoever they  are. I still  can't  get  on  to  Bugzilla. The  offer to  vocal/video Skype me is still open -  I've never been able to  get  the Wikipedia IRC channels to  work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. Regarding my request to move the page, I can't create new pages in the MediaWiki namespace or move pages into the MediaWiki namespace because I'm not an admin.  I just need an admin to move User:Snottywong/MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext to MediaWiki:Noautocreatetext.  Moving the page there won't cause anything to happen, but it'll just make it available for the devs to see and eventually use when they implement the trial.  Also, I'm currently at work and so won't be able to use skype or IRC.  There has been some more activity on the bugzilla page:  &mdash;SW&mdash; babble 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from a different person than the first one:
 * The right way to deal with this is to cut to the root of the problem: we throw brand-new potential editors directly into shark-infested waters, then yell at them for splashing at the sharks. :)
 * I agree with the basic concern -- putting newbies right into that environment so easily often ends up harming everyone -- but I don't think it would be ideal to simply cut off new article creation without actually providing a safe place for them to go instead.
 * This needs to be paired with a *really good user-friendly way* for new accounts to create provisional articles, have them reviewed, get mentored by real people, and get their articles moved into real article space (or at least end up finding something better to do in a less confrontational way than a scary template and speedy deletion).
 * I would recommend at least a serious beefing up of the requests for article creation pages before trying this; a newbie attempting to create a new article definitely needs to be shepherded through some checks, and should end up with the opportunity to at least create a page -- even if it's in a sandbox area.
 * (In the future, please consider actually reaching out to developers for feedback as well before the final stages!)
 * And I made two responses. My first response:
 * Can you define "beefing up"? The current en:WP:Articles_for_Creation and en:WP:Article_wizard have existed for quite some time and, in my opinion, do a good job of shepherding new users through the process of creating a new article.
 * In addition, the error page which will be displayed to the user when they try to create a new article will give them clear instructions on how to get their article created despite being non-autoconfirmed:
 * 1. It will direct them straight to Articles for Creation with instructions on how to use the Article Wizard to create a new article and have experienced editors review it. This process has worked for IPs creating new articles for years.
 * 2. It will also provide a link to start the article in their userspace, with clear directions on how to get the attention of an editor to review the article and move it into mainspace for them when they're done.
 * Or, they can just wait 4 days and make 10 edits, which is a very low bar to achieve.
 * Can you identify the specific deficiencies in the current Articles for Creation and Article Wizard systems which you believe need to be "beefed up"?
 * My second response:
 * Overall, I think we're thinking too hard about this. We're trying to figure out all of the problems that this change might cause and fix them beforehand, when in fact one of the major purposes of this trial is to actually identify what problems are caused (if any), what the nature of those problems are, and what the most effective way would be to fix them.  If we're just blindly guessing that problems will be created at en:WP:AFC and vaguely insisting that we need to "beef up" something before the trial starts, then we might be implementing non-ideal solutions to non-existent problems.  I think a far better idea is to actually implement the trial for a limited amount of time, collect some real data about its effects, and implement the most effective fixes to solve any problems caused.

I've finally been able to  get  myself  registered with  Bugzilla and I'm in the  process of drafting  a   comment  about their concerns. I still don't understand what  you  want  me to  do  with  this page move. I can edit  the en.Wikipedia interface, and I  guess that  includes any  templates that  are used sort  of like  edit notices together with  all  their embedded php  and sub-template calls, but  I  don't  wnt  to  do  anythig  that  will go  live just  yet. I think  the template you  propose should be copied and pasted  in    tags to  the tech  page  and it  should be up  to  the Bugzilla people to look  at  it  there. Superfluous however, considering  that  it's not  their mandate anyway, because I  can do it  without  any  further discussion  as part  of a policy  that  has already  been agreed. If we get  much  more resistance to  this software implementation, we'll have to consider writing  to  Gardner. However, I'm sure that  among  the staunch  supporters of this new policy  and its trial, there are other admins whose voices carry  more weight than  mine. Finally, as the Bugzilla disuccion is not  a policy  debate, perhaps one could canvas for support from some of the  participants of the main and the trial discussions. without infringing  on  WP:CANVASS - after  all, they've already  !voted for what  they  wanted and it's been greed by consensus. Who are these Bugzilla people anyway? Some kind of  state security agents or MI5? Are they volunteers  like  us or are they  paid? It's nearly midnight  here, but  if you  want  to  talk, the laptop  will be on  my  bedside table. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Bugzilla is showing my  personal  email and not  my  user name - heck, why  is everything  so  damn complicated? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've found the bugzilla interface to be horrible. FYI - I just posted a message to the Head of Reader Relations at the Wikimedia Foundation.  See User talk:Philippe (WMF).  I heard from some very experienced editors that he would be a good WMF contact who might be able to push this change through.  I don't know who this Gardner guy is, but it may be worth starting a dialogue with him as well.  Attack things from both sides.  Also FYI - I'm going to be out of town away from computers for the next 2-3 days, until around this time on Sunday.  I might be able to check in once or twice during that time, but I might not.  I also have another 7-8 hours left today before I go to bed.  So, after that, this will probably be in your hands for a few days.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> yak 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't hesitate to tell Philippe you've been working with me on this project - I've done some stuff in the past for the WMF that he was seemed pleased with. Sue Gardner is the CEO of the WMF. Meanwhile I'll have a word with Blade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I dropped your name there. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> gab 23:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've commented over there as well; I'm 3 hours ahead of you, Snottywong (CT), and I'll be around this weekend. I'll see if I can't catch you on Skype after I get back from work (which'll be about 8:00 your time, Kudpung).  Also, if you'd like to read the decidedly forceful message I left Sue Gardner a few months ago, check Archive 2 of her talkpage; if you can't find it I'll link you to it. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember that conversation and the comment Philippe chimed in with. They may have cut their Wikipedia teeth on NPP, but they were not aware of the 1,000s of pages falling of special:new pages after 30 days, or re-patrollig the patrolled pages, or patrolling the patrollers. They won't necessarily have been following the discussions nor be aware of the trainwreck that NPP actually is,  nor of the work we have been doing for nearly a year to identify the problems. With the exception of a tiny handful of established editors and admins having an occasional stab at it, NPP is the playground of totally inexperienced new editors, many of whom are either extremely young, and/or are not even native English speakers, and are impossible to educate, short of topic banning them from NPP. The WMF, IMHO with all due respect, are looking down the telescope from the wrong end. They appear, from the tone of Sue's comments' to be far more concerned at a possible loss of the 0.2% of new article creators who might one day become regular editors (in the face of a natural decline anyway), than the 1,000 creators per day who inundate the Wikipedia with sheer unadulterated crap, vandalism, spam, copyvio, and attack pages. Thing is, since Oct 2010, SN and I have been doing both the math and the first hand empirical study with a blind control based on the work of users such as Blade. The WMF has been doing it bit but has been playing with either outdated stats, or the wrong kind of stats. Bottom line is, this trial has consensus and must go ahead and preventing it by attempting to negate the perfect, long, and well summarised consensus, or to block the software requirements, will be  gross breaches of Wikipedia's own policy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the basic problem Malleus spelled out at that RfC; established editors can't be left behind in the quest for new editors. Although in hindsight I came off a little stronger than I intended in my comment there, I'm sick of being treated like a Karen in Burma because I'm an NPPer (which won't endear me to many to start), I happen to see the extent of the problem, and I want to force the issue to resolve it (not that I'm anything on the order of Zoya Phan, but I like to use her story to draw parallels on Wikipedia because I wrote almost all of that article).  I eagerly await the commencement of this, and in a related vein I hope I didn't come off as snarky to the second person I responded to at the Bugzilla page. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 06:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's difficult enough  getting  anything  changed for the better at  Wikipedia through  our process of of gaining  consensus. Too many  crackpot  ideas are posted at  the VP while too many  editors prowl round the discussions and contribute to them in  the hope it  will  look  good on  their future RfA, instead of getting  on  with  content; while many  who  missed or weren't  interested in the main RfC barge in  at  the last  moment (as they  did at  BLPPROD), wanting  the whole thing  re-debated because they  couldn't be bothered to read through the RfC and all its preceding research and discussions. Even here on  the autoconfirmed issue, we have one regular policy !voter who  says a lot at  all RfCs but  rarely  commits clearly  to  one direction  or another - they  even claimed at  one stage that  NPP is an unnecessary  process. I'd like to  see what  alternative solutions they  could come up  with, but  they  never do. I've racked my  brain  for 10 months for another solution  to  the 1,000 or so useless pages that  get  created every day, and I think it's an insult  to  the intelligence of the established users to expect them to repair those pages and find sources and arguments to  keep them, and mollycoddle those SPA who create them. I am wholly  committed to  this new rule of ours and I'm convinced that  it  is a most  positive step and the only  solution  possible until  Wikipedia adopts the same controls over registration and posting that  are exercised by  any  common or garden web forum. I  would even go  one step  further and have an automated script  that  vets every  new registration for sockpuppetry. The camp  that  insists on  preserving  the right of absolutely  anyone  to  post  live to  mainspace (and patrol new pages without  any  experience or maturity  whatsoever), are going  to  be responsible for the ultimate demise of Wikipedia as a respected knowledge base. There is also  the fact  that because nothing  ever gets physically  deleted from  our  servers, there are roughly  1000 times more 'deleted' pages and millions of deletion  discussions harboured on WMF hard discs than live articles. That  costs a lot  of the money  that all the annoying begging banners are yelling for and which  some of us even donate together with our voluntary  editing  time. Rant  over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Things are not looking good. See the latest comments on bugzilla where someone is essentially instructing the devs to not implement our request.  It's time to pull out all the stops, and contact anyone at WMF who might be able to make a difference.  It might even be worth contacting Jimbo, who (I think I read somewhere) supports the concept behind this trial.  However, it's probably best to not contact him on his user talk page, unless you want to drag another 200 editors into the discussion in one fell swoop.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#0a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> squeal 14:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving in an hour or two, and won't be back until Sunday evening (Pacific time). I'll check in if I can find internet access out in the desert... <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> squeal 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't  know whose authority  he is operating  under, but in  my opinion there is a strong  possibility that Brendon  might  be in  serious breach  of Wikipedia ethic, and may be undermining  one of the fundamental  pillars of policy by  banning  the devs from addressing  the community's request. It's the kind of action  that  could cause the mature, dedicated editors and admins who  strive to  maintain quality  of the project to  retire from  Wikipedia.  NPP has proven to  be irreparable -  the simple solution  of making  new creators wait  for a day  or two before their  new pages can go live is extremely  deserving  of the trial  that  has been agreed by  double consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the last Bugzilla comment there answers that question, so hopefully that will calm things down a bit. I'm around for the rest of the day (it's 4:20 PM my time), so give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can't get you on Skype. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, take a look...
I know you are just mentoring Assassin's Creed with respect to NPP, but take a look at User talk:Bill william compton. He seems to go from being problematic in one area of WP to another. Lady of  Shalott  22:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up - I'll leave him a message. I've already warned him some while ago that his good intentions are in fact  disruptive. I hate the thought of having to block someone who is editing in good faith, but at the end of the day a short  block might be our only  option. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've left a message here. Taking  him  to  ANI  won't  help, so  if he still does not  understand, a short sharp block by  any  admin (I don't  really  want  to have to  be the one to  do it though) may  be necessary  to  help  him understand that  even good faith  editing can be highly  disruptive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">—Assassin'S Creed (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding RfA reform
Hi, Kudpung. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011. Thank you, Swarm  u 04:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Your message to me???
I received a message on my talk page that you had a message for me on your talk page. But I couldn't find it. Puzzled in Toronto. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry, but that was a long time ago and I really can't remember what it was. You may  wish  to  search  my  talk  page archives, but  it  probably  wasn't  important. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford) FL
Hi Kudpung, any chance you could revisit the FLC page for this article. I think I have resolved all your comments, but the FLC is currently rather stagnant as there are still officially unresolved comments. Thanks, GlanisTalk 18:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you revisit this again? The image in question has been removed. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New page patrolling and something I noticed whilst doing it
It's almost as if every user with a redlinked talk and userpage who creates an article is just another SPA. Take Toshofbarra and Interactive.data for instance.

Just a bit weird, isn't it? -- Σ  talk <sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex"> contribs  07:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not weird. Just an undeniable fact. That's why consensus passed a new rule to allow only autoconfirmed users to be allowed to post new articles live to mainspace. However, in spite of the research, stats, and overwhelming consensus reached by an RfC with a 500+ participation, it seems that some devs are refusing to authorise the site software change. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Check your email
There's an OTRS issue we need your help with. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of autoconfirm trial
I've been emailing with Jimbo about the trial. He's in support of the trial and it sounds like it will eventually be implemented, however he had some good points about the implementation. We have some more work to do for planning the trial. Besides, the better we can plan the trial, the better chance we have of making it a permanent change. I'm going to create another working page for a few of us interested editors to discuss some more aspects of the trial, mostly concerning the user interface and giving non-autoconfirmed users good alternatives to get their articles created. I'll probably have some time to do this in the next day or two, and I'll let you know here when I do. I think it would be good to have 4-6 editors contributing to this, I'll invite the devs on bugzilla too. <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spill the beans 15:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is welcome news; even if there is more work to  be done. If you need me along I'll be happy to  contribute. I  hope the consensus will  be upheld.   My faith in  Wikipedia has however been severely shaken by the blatant refusal on the Bugzilla thread to  accept a new policy that was adopted by  due process. This is inadmissible and is just as big an issue as the trial we're trying to get implemented. What  the detractors completely failed to realise is that were are talking about  an absolutely necessary  trial, without which neither they  nor we will know the outcome. Silly really - maybe the WMF ought  to  rethink the qualities of management of the people they've got around them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in part. Jimmy brought up some valid points, basically that we have an obligation to plan the trial well before devs implement it.  But, the devs who initially responded on bugzilla could have handled the situation a lot better.  They could have been a lot more sensitive to the fact that a lot of work had already been done to pass the proposal and plan the trial to the extent that we had, in which case they would have responded a little better than "Naah, that's a stupid idea, we're not going to implement it."  In any case, it looks like it will eventually be implemented, it might just take a little longer than we thought and require a little more work.  I'll let you know when I organize a work page for the additional planning.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> spout 18:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking about e-mailing Jimbo myself, so it's good to hear that. Do you think an e-mail from me to him as well would be beneficial, or do you think you've got this under control? The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 00:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Blade: I think it's under control. I'd be happy to email you the exchange I had with him if you're interested.  I have one more email out to him, I'm not sure if he will respond to that one though.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> express 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung & Blade: See WP:ACTRIAL (work page for additional trial planning).  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#0a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#a00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> express 00:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Good; I'll pop over to WP:ACTRIAL a little later on. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all you've done SW. Late here. I'll check out the new page in the  morning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I note the lack of devs commenting, despite the carping at the Bugzilla thread and the subsequent invitations from Snotty and I. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same lack. I hope to able to put more work into it later in the week, I've just been absolutely swamped with other things.  It's going a lot slower than I had hoped.  I think the suggestion to split out the idea for the express path to autoconfirmed status is a good one; it will just hold up the trial otherwise.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#00a 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> squeal 20:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'm back in business. I'll catch up with everything and go from there; Irene didn't do much damage to us personally (just a few downed trees), but took out our power until about 5:30 today. Glad to be back. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF
WP:AGF.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

AGF yourself please, or at least read up on some of our policies about  discussing  things first. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gracie Films. I am so sorry for shooting myself in the foot which would leave me unable to walk. How bizarre. Also, Guide to requests for adminship does say to complete the questions, but it doesn't say that it is compulsory. As it isn't, please remain civil. You should always assume good faith, everyone makes mistakes, I simply forgot about this and forgot to discuss this. Everyone makes mistakes sorry. I had no malicious intentions, however with your reply you imply that I do, this is wrong and inaccurate. Also, I quote from the guide "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask." I was not unsure, I knew that I wasn't going to completely redraft the whole page.  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL don't apply here as Kudpung did not assume bad faith and was not incivil. You made an honest mistake, but there's no need for such a cagey response and jumping to pages such as WP:CIVIL. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not have malicious intentions, They called my comment "stupid" here
 * They told me to "keep off their talk page." . I did not have bad faith edits and the words they chose seem to imply to confirm this suspicion.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Replying to Kudpung's perfectly reasonable request not to edit their essay with "WP:AGF" was nonsensical as Kudpung had not accused you of acting maliciously. In a nutshell, it was a stupid comment. Kudpung is perfectly within their rights to ask you to stay of their talk page. Nev1 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Kudpung's reaction is perfectly acceptable. You would be best off to drop the issue now instead of roaming the site complaining about Kudpung.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  17:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I admit my honest mistake and I am sorry for having my opinion but consensus in this case has overruled my own opinion so I assume that the issue is now resolved and that the guide improves greatly, I will not talk about this matter anymore as it is solved and no further discussion is needed.  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

RFA reform
Is there a page for RFA reform for a list of things that have happened as a result of the reform? If this page doesn't exist, it should be created. Ryan Vesey Review me!  19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * As a reform  group, we haven't  brought  any official  propositions forward yet for debate by  the broader community. AFAICS, the only  things that  have  happened are that  the situation  has got  progressively  worse, with:
 * The number of mature, experienced candidates is still on the decline.
 * Incivility and personal attacks still ever present.
 * Unqualified users attempting to tranclude their RfAs, and ending  up  getting  bitten, and wasting  their and our time.
 * Someone created a project sub page  here where I guess our proposals for RfC were supposed to be listed when they  were more or less ready  to be launched, but I don't see much action on that  page yet. What we really want to do is to encourage people not to go off at half tack and create their own projects, but to provide and stimulate a collaborative environment  for promoting change - its what  usually works best.
 * --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know that Worm's nomination program is a direct result of the reform project. If we can get a few more tangible reforms, I think it will be important to list them.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Worm's programme is highly commendable and I'm  all  for it. However, it's not part of the scope of RFA2011 whose goal  it is to  bring  about  visible change to  the behaviour of the RfA'voters' in  order to  offer a less humiliating  7-day ordeal, and thus attract  more mature, experienced users of the right  kind to  the idea of being  admins. Worm's nomination  scheme is no  more part of the RFA2011 project  than the WP:RFAADVICE essay that  I  wrote. We have however both been campaigning  for RfA  reform  long  before I  started the WP:RFA2011 project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. I've actually said that WP:REQUESTNOM and the change to the group notice are both direct changes, but I suppose they are indirect. I did run REQUESTNOM by the task force and it came about as a result of the research I did for the project, but it was more of a branch on my own. However, I'm tempted to create a "progress" page, which shows milestones since the task force was set up. I'm also tempted to fiddle to make an archive, and to make things a little more readable. I'll get back to you both on that.
 * The only point I would like to make is on the goal of RfA reform. It's to "make RfA more attractive for experienced editors, whilst reduce the number of unsuccessful candidates". Voter's tendencies is part of that, but not the be all and end all. As such, I would say that WP:REQUESTNOM would have been in scope, had I put it there.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I didn't  express myself too well up  there. What  I  meant  was that  although some things have arisen, such  as your nomination essay and my advice essay, during  the RfA reform project, they  are not  the result  of clearly  defined reform items that  would need community  consensus. They  are nevertheless no  less valuable to  improving  the RfA environment  overall, but  the problem is in  getting  people to  read them. They  wont  even read the glaring  edit notices we've put  on  the transclusion  page! I  was forgetting  that  essays like yours and mine are nevertheless a reform in  a kind  of way. One of our other problems now is going  to  be that  any  reforms needing  site software tweaks will  be subject  to  the new trend that  devs are now allowed to  refuse any  new requests they  personally  don't  like, even if they  have been passed by  a large community  debate.
 * BTW, I'm right  now in  the process of extending   this table to  cover a full period of 12 months, to  be used for stats in  the proposal  for  minimum  bar. I  hope to  have it  finished this evening  UK time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a check of the table when you're done (certainly over the next few days), but do let me know if there are any NOTNOWS that have snuck through above the criteria. Otherwise, reform comes slowly but surely, the winds of change are there - and our essays could be considered trailblazers in that respect :) - Nice thought anyway. I'd like to see some graphs of NOTNOWS or indeed other failed candidates to see if its moving up or down. I'll think about doing them myself at some point.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods
Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:
 * Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
 * Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
 * Watching out for the class as a whole
 * Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with&mdash;especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area&mdash;you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Why did you delete my page?
I am trying to recreate a page (Kjarposko) I have made before (I was originally Ronnietse), which was deleted because I accidentally added semi-ads in. I didn't mean to add ads anyway, and I did not add any ads in this time. I already said in a big font 'This page is under construction', so why did you speedy delete it?

P. S. I am a kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TseRonnie (talk • contribs) 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realised immediately  you  are a kid. We've got  nothing  against  kids editing  here as long  as they  read the rules first.  Click here on  Kjarposko and you'll find out  why it  was deleted three times already and why  you  unfortunately won't  be allowed to  recreate it again. Please read Advice for younger editors, read some of our editing  instructions, sign your messages,   and then don't hesitste to ask me for help  when you have something   to write that  meets our criteria for encyclopedia articles. ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey -- how's everything going? I hope RFA Reform is going great. I check in every now and again, but it's all Drama, Drama, Drama, ohh and did I mention, Drama. I hope you're doing well, and will be back as soon as I get the time for it again! All the best, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 01:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, nice to hear from  you. Yes, drama. I've been an admin for  getting  on  for 6 months already and I  get  the distinct impression  that   building  an encyclopedia is 95% drama and 5% new content.  WP:RFA2011  is making  progress, it's slow, but  I  knew it would be,  but  we have a strong  suggestion for one item already - an  entry  threshold of 3000 edits/6 months - that  might  soon  be  a central RfC. It's designed to  prevent noobs and cranks from  making  a fool of themselves, but  of course there are people who  are saying  our  intention  is to  make it  harder to  become an admin. Hope everything  is fine for you in RL. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad all is _mostly_ well. When RFA Reform does go to RFA RFC, leave me a message on my talk page, or email me. All messages posted on my talk page are emailed to me as well. See you soon! T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a long and interesting thread today on User talk:Jimbo Wales . I do  wish  however that  people would keep  discussions like this on  the right  project pages. Still, it's nice to  get some comments from  Jimbo  and to  hear him reconfirm his opinion  that  RfA is a broken process. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to say that the whole Jimbo thread has rather bugged me. For one thing, it appears to me that it was started from the point of view of "Some editors can't become admins, is that fair"? Which is wholly missing the point. Since we've been looking at RfA over the past few months, I've personally found that whilst there are problems with it (not enough candidates, people trying when they shouldn't, people feeling savaged etc), I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that it isn't broken. I'm all for an alternative method to adminship, especially to encourage more people to run, but not to circumvent the current process (IE, if the community says no, you shouldn't be able to go and ask a committee)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The thread annoys me because it was started by someone who has now failed two RfAs and still can't understand why. That person may have a talent for eloquent speech but the community has twice decided that the candidate does not have the skill set for adminship, and I don't personally think that person has sufficient emotional balance to take on the challenge of adminship if they had the tools.. The thread annoys me because we have people posting on it who are simply surmising because the haven't/can't/won't consult the stats we have provided at RFA2011, who are themselves some of the worst drama mongers at RfA,  who have no intention of actively pursuing any of the suggestions for reform, and who are wannabe admins who don't stand a chance of passing an RfA even if they tried. I went through hell week, and it was absolute sheer bloody hell - mainly because I had been around long enough to upset people by just doing my job, and they resorted to every kind of personal attack, incivility, lies, deceit, and pile-on of the very kind that turn RfA into a fiasco. And that's the problem the mature, experienced potential candidates of the right calibre are faced with and why they won't come forward. I've never said I'm against any completely different system for selecting our sysops, in fact I would be all in favour of a new system that would work and I spent hours discussing it yesterday at a face-2-face meeting, but I'm so convinced that it would be impossible to implement through our normal process of RfC and consensus, that I have personally ruled the possibility out, and probably won't take part in any discussion on radical alternatives until we've at least had a go at making some concrete changes that vastly improve the environment of the current system, and if we get consesus on some of those changes, giving them time enough to see if they are taking effect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you mind linking me directly do that thread (or if it's long in the archives, don't bother). This is what I mean...too much Drama for me now. I liked it when it was laid back, and people didn't stick a ten foot pole up your ass every time you spell something wrong :P. All the best, T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Y Kudpung, cuantos español sabes? T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 00:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
I need a more global view of my speedy deletion tags. -- Σ  talk <sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex"> contribs  04:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Iv'e aded something to  the comments: Review of speedy/prod tagging by ErikHaugen. NPP is a broken process and in  complete disarray, and there appears to  be no easy  remedy. Meetings and discussions are therefore currently  taking  place to  find alternative ways of controlling  the quality  of newly  created pages and possibly completely avoiding  the creation of totally  unsuitable ones. This will  significantly  change the way  NPPatrolles work, if indeed there will  be new page patrollers in  the future. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Worm told me you work with High School articles a lot
There is relevant discussion on the notability occuring at User talk:Jimbo Wales and Talk:Salmon High School. Ryan Vesey Review me!  08:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I cannot  offer any comment  to  this issue. I  was completely wrongly  accused of being  a school  article deletionist on  my  RfA where the proof is that  I  have saved 1,000s of school articles from  deletions,  created many  others, and redirected 100s of non notable schools to  their schools districts or localities. Jimbo  seems to  have done a volte face on  his earlier statement  about  high  schools which  has been interpreted for years as meaning  that  they  enjoy  inherent notability. Since my  RfA I  have refrained from getting  involved in  any  contentious discussions on  this subject. I  have rewritten much  of the WP:WPSCH/AG pages together with  the other project  coordinators in  an attempt  to  lead editors to  the respective policy, guideline, and essay pages, from  which  they  can make up  their own minds. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies. It appears I misdirected Ryan. I must have read your RfA and linked you incontrovertably to schools in my mind - I will do my best to undo this!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to  apologise whatsover Worm -  you  did right. In  fact  I  am probably one of  the most  active Wikipedians on the WP:WPSCH school project, school articles, and new school  articles. I  also follow  CSD, PROD, AfD, and merge proposals for schools very  closely. However, due to  the fake accusations conjured up  by  one or two  participants at  my  RfA, or who, as per usual, put their own spin on  my  syntax, I have since refrained from getting  involved in  controversial deletion  issues concerning  schools and leave it up  to  others to  battle them out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All I  would like is a clear policy  statement to  be issued now, either as a fiat from  JW or from  a new RfC, that  I  can work from  without  having  to  second guess what  we are supposed to  be doing  with  nn schools. I'll  be leaving  a kind  of neutral  statement  on  the JW  talk  page thread in  a few minutes.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy if schools were treated the same as other organisations ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think they  probably  should, but  I've been happy to follow what  I  genuinely thought  was an established exception. If there can be a clear statement  of policy  to  clear up  the notabilitiy ambiguities, I'll be quite  happy  to  abide with  whatever decision  is made, so I'll not  be arguing  for either side. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan to me ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability: Schools
Hi, many thanks for the heads up. TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironic post
Is there anything you felt particularly wrong about the ideas I laid out or what was the purpose of your comment? I am curious. Ryan Vesey Review me!  02:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It is never wrong  to  present new ideas, particularly when they have been as well  thought  out as yours are. Nevertheless, because the problems must  be considered from  two different  angles: 1. the tens of thousands of existing  school articles, and  2. the school articles that  are still  likely  to  be created, it  can  also  be a good idea to  see if solutions  have been suggested before, or if similar solutions have been tried and tested in  other areas. We  need to  be wary  of changes that  may  incur ex post  facto mass deletion, as much  as we need to  avoid preemptive mass deletions of the kind that  moved us to  propose and create the WP:BLPPROD. We also  lack the manpower to review  each and every one of the existing  school articles for relevant notability policy, as much  as we also lack it  to  send every new school article for debate at  AfD because we don't  have a clear policy  to  follow, and because school articles are mostly created by  WP:SPA who  never read the instructions and who very  rarely, if ever, come back to  address the problem issues with their new articles.
 * Fortunately, where several hundred BLPs are created every day, school articles now only get  created at  the rate of one or two every  couple of days or so  (and most  of them now from  the Indian  sub  continent), and are neither  a likely  source of libel, nor a serious priority issue. We have bots catching and listing most new school articles (which  always have problems) at  WP:WPSCH, and CorenBot  catching  the G10 copyvios. Also, the vast  majority of  schools are run by the government  of the country  they  are in and therefore will  not  benefit  from  G11 blatant  advertising - all the puffery and hyperbole in  school articles is more as a result  of student/teacher/parent  pride in  their establishment  than for advertising  purposes aimed at  financial  gain.
 * What happens to  new school articles in  the future is a matter of establishing a clear policy  or an official  guideline for the notability  of schools once and for all, and educating  new page patrollers to  do  the job  properly. WP:NPP, because it is largely  done by the least experienced of all  editors, is a broken system, and possible solutions for its replacement have been closely  researched now for nearly  12 months. Discussions on what  to  do  about  new pages are now taking  place  at  a higher order. Schools are therefore low on the priorities, but  as the editor  who did a lot to bring  the all but  dead WP:WPSCH project  back to  life last  year, I  am very pleased to  see that  the recent  discussion has finally stimulated some much-begged-for comment  from  our founder, and I  hope that  suggestions such  as yours will now continue to be discussed at  the appropriate venue. Much  depends however, on  your availability over the coming months to  follow through  on  your own suggestions, and whether you  will have time to  dig in  and help  with  the clean up list  at WP:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First, a little explanation on my essay. I am not advocating any sort of mass deletion of school articles.  What I am doing is trying to create an essay which describes what a good school article is and what we should do with the bad ones.  Jimbo, and many editors, have made it clear that an article which only states "... High School is a school in nantucket" is not notable.  The argument I am trying to get across in my essay is that if those articles are brought to AFD, they should be deleted if they are not improved.  I am also arguing in the essay that the possibility of improvement is not a valid argument for keep.  The article must be improved for it to be kept.  On a side note, corenbot is down and has been down for a month or two.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  12:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For nine years, schools have enjoyed what was considered to be a clear statement  from JW that  all high schools are generally  to be considered notable. This week he has made volte face -  the first  time he has, to my  knowledge commented on schools since his famous statement  in 2003. He may  be right, the situation could be very  different now from what  it  was nine years ago. In that  time, thousands of school articles have been created based on that 2003 premise; if you change the rule now to  strictly apply WP:ORG, you will get  a stampede from gleeful deltionists wanting tens of thousands of school articles to be summarily batch  deleted. Such is the nature of Wikipedia, and it's happened before, hence my  citing our experience with BLP last year as an analogy. Thus one  needs to  be careful that  any  new essays or suggestions don't  cause certain people to  jump for glee and send 100s of articles to  AfD -  we just  don't  have the human resources to  cope with  it. I've said many  times over the last  two years that  I don't mind what  the notability rules are for schools - I'm an admin and I just want a clear set of rules so that  I  know when to  press my  delete button, without  fear  of having  the inclusionists calling  for my  resignation, and when not  to  press it without feqr of retribution from the deletionists. My personal dilemma is that as one of the most active members of WP:WPSCH, and the one that  galvanised the project  back to life, I'm not comfortable with the vagaries of the !voting patterns at  school AfDs. I know CorenBot  is down -  I  reported it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Anger displayed at RfA reform 2011
I am aware of the fact that you started the task force in its infancy and have worked to create the machine it is today. Things that may have appeared pushy to me are things that to you would be "taking care of your baby" (see my essay). You have a vision for the task force, and then I showed up and while we might have the same goal, we both have slightly different ways of getting there. As a new contributor to the task force, I realized that it was organized in a much different way than other projects I have taken part in. As I re-analyze the parts of the talk page that I have taken part in, I see much less disagreement with you than I first imagined there was. The angry post came from a combination of off wiki stress (I am packing for college at this very moment), some issues with the goals of my essay, and some issues I had with the ironic post from the other day. I apologize for the nature of my comment and will be striking. Ryan Vesey Review me!  00:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I created it on my own initiative and after doing a lot of initial research, but RFA2011 is absolutely not my baby. I also rewrote and got the WP:WPSCH project back on track that had been dead and inactive for a couple of years, and I am sincerely hoping that others will now finally clear up the ambiguities over school notability. I'm sure there was some misunderstanding, and I appreciate your apology. I also do not forget how you defended my position on another unconnected matter, for which I was most grateful. Good luck with your studies - fortunately I have all that behind me a very long time ago - and stay in touch as much as possible :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand the concept of ownership. I just meant that you want to make sure the task force doesn't go astray.  I am trying as hard as I can to remember the unconnected matter you are referring to, but I can't remember.  Care to give me a link?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I think I remember the instance, if we're talking about the same one. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform archiving
Hi Kudpung. I've been looking at the RfA reform pages and I do think they could be improved to allow better flow. What's more, some of the talk pages are enormous and I was thinking that archiving them would be a good idea. I'm trying to decide what the best archival idea would be though - I'm quite tempted to make one big archive, where all the sub pages archive to. Do you have any thoughts? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been in a quandry  over this myself. At least  the mass of data and discussion  that  has taken place since the project  was created is more than enough to  prove to  the idiots who  think it's dead that  it's still  very  much  alive. One of the reasons why  WT:RfA never got  beyond a Rover's Return discussion, was because threads were indiscriminately  archived, so  the same topics kept  getting  brought up  anew over and over again by  newcomers to  the neighbourhood. As you  know, I  tend to  chide people for not  checking  on what's already  been said, and for starting  spontaneous 'support/oppose' polls and making  sweeping  statements without consulting the stats we've spent hours providing. Nowhere is this more in  evidence than with  the recent discussion  on  setting  a bar to  stop newbies and cranks from transcluding, and where the  tables at RfA reform 2011/Candidates, and WP:RFA2011/U -  which  I've just  spent  2 whole days manually  extending, are ignored by  people commenting, people creating  new pages on  RfA reform outside the project, and people cresting  random new pages in the project and just adding more confusion to  the link map I made  and people trying  to  jeopardise the show without  even the courtesy  of joining  the task  force. I'm sire they  are contributing  in  good faith, but matter such  as setting  a minimum bar have to  be based on  the facts rather than subjective point of view. I  keep  stressing  that   the RFA211 is for people who  are in favour of reform and that  there will  be ample opportunity  for people to  vote against  it  when we release our proposals for community  debate. I think probably  the best  solution is to  collapse some sections of talk  rather than archive them, and for the coordinators to  make a concentated effort to  point those sections out  to  errant newcomers to  the project who rather than moving  it  forward, are inadvertently  giving  us reasons why  it  should not  succeed., and asking  other commentators politely  if they  would like to  display  the courtesy  of either joining  the task force, or shutting  up. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - I'll have a think about what's best to do next...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One idea that I've had for quite  while is to  make a special  TOC for all  the stats, tables, and their extrapolations and analysis. We  also need to  link heaviliy to the very  recent  thread about  RfA  reform  on  Jimbo's tp -  or even copy  it  to  the project. It got  a lot of valuable comment  from  Jimbo again  in  support of reform, but  MyStrat  did not  do  us a favour in  taking  the focus away  from  the project  itself -  it's meant  a whole bunch  of new comments from  people who  don't  know we have a dedicated project for RfA  reform.  The  point  being, that  we already  know RfA  is broken, and don't  constantly  need reminding.  We  have to  stem this Rover's Return style talk and do  some action. We  need to  be extremely careful  how we word any  proposals though -  especially  where the devs are now  allowed to  unilaterally  allowed to  refuse any  site software tweaks if they  don't like them, even if there has been a vast  consensus for them.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Kudpung. I'm afraid you're going to have to blame me for many of the points in your first post - I created a proposal off the bat, suggested Ryan do the same, I was the one that put the Sysop on request page in the pink box and even created a straw poll on the minimum requirements page. Heck, I'm fairly sure that if you were nearby with a baseball bat that I should be ducking . However, I've been looking at RfA reform from a slightly different angle, trying to get commentary on proposals, and whilst straight opposition is not likely to be helpful it can give us ideas of how the community might react. Also, I did bring up the fact that Cerajota hadn't joined the task force at his talk apge, something he did a couple of days ago.
 * There are many RfA reform detractors, including members of the task force, making things slightly more difficult but I think that's something we're going to have to accept in RfA reform. I'd actually rather someone was actively voicing dissent than not discussing things at all. At the moment, I think there are less than 10 editors who regularly contribute to the discussions, whereas there are 40-odd who I think may not even watchlist the page!
 * Having thought a bit about archives - I think the best idea would be to create one large archive - which is searchable, and summarise each of the threads on the relevant talk page with links. This will be a bit of an overhead, but I'm willing to do it and I think that it will help with readability. I'll also have a look at tidying up the data a bit more - partially by doing some transclusions. I can understand why there would people out there who do not understand the data, due to it's complexity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to make it more digestible.
 * Although we know RfA is broken, anyone new to the project is likely to want to air their views. I'd rather we didn't close the project to new users, especially given how little 3/4 of the current ones are actually doing. Perhaps it might be a good idea to set up a talk page for people to air their thoughts about how RfA is broken - meaning it doesn't seep into the conversations elsewhere. It's all well and good saying that things have been discussed before, but editors are human and often impatient - so when someone says "there's a lot of backstory to read", they are unlikely to put in the time.
 * Another thing you must consider is that there is a portion of people who are joining RfA reform in the hope of making RfA easier for themselves. The fact that they think it's a viable "in" for adminship means they are editors who are looking for a shortcut and therefore unlikely to read lots of data. Worth remembering.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Just four points: 1. If you  are going  to  do  any  archiving rather than just  folding  threads in  a collapse box (which  I  tstill  thinks would be the best  solution), I  think it  would best  to  archive the individual  talk  pages rather than shove everything  to ether somewhere. 2. I  am only  too aware that  many  may  have joined this project  in the hope f getting  an easier process for themselves -  that's  one of the reasons I  keep telling  detractors that  those of us who  run  this project who are already admins have nothing  personal to  gain from  investing  their time and energy  in  it. 3. We  already  have a  talk page for people to air their thoughts about how RfA is broken, at  WT:RFA -  the sysop soap  opera of a local pub. 4. I'm  slowly  getting  disenchanted with  the whole thing -  not  with  those of us who have worked so  hard at  it, but  at  the people who  come in, know it all  better, and do  nothing  but  criticise but  won't  roll their sleeves up  and help,  especially  the one who won't have the decency of joining  the task  force. I've drafted  a newsletterto  send  not  only  to the members of the task force, but  to  all  who  have commented on the talk  pages. I'll  mail  you  the text  before I  send it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand the disenchantment - if you fancy taking a backseat for a while, I'm happy to try and hold down the fort. I'll have a word James, see if I can get to the bottom of his thinking - some of the stuff he's come out with is just plain unhelpful. The reason I want to archive is that we have such a horrible TOC on the main talk page, 60 sections plus another 24 subsections, with titles that go over the length of a page. It's no good for navigation and makes the project look amateurish. I'll hold back on the "whinge" page for the time being - it may be that we don't need it.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can always put  on  the page. The most  important  nav aid is the pink  box I  made, and that  can be updated for all  pages because it's transcluded. I  don't  really  want  to  take a back seat -  I've just  spent  two  full  days manually  updating  one table that  is the most  important  feature of all  for an objective estimate that  the bar for admin transclusions for newbies should  be at  least 3,000 if not  a lot more,  but  James does not  appear to  think it's important  t  take stats into  account. This is what  gets me fed up -  all  that  hard work  for nothing, and to  be discounted by someone who  chimes in just  to  wreck things. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * True, that will improve things, but the TOC is a useful tool in most cases. Glad you don't want to take a back seat, I think it would have really hurt the project - but I did want to allow you the option. I'll have to look for that quote by Jimbo about "too long have we relied on emotion, and not stats", make sure that we reference it. And for now, I'm going to review that table that you've sorted out.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't hesitate to  improve it. I'm no  good at  making  tables, that's why  it  takes me so  long. The most  important  thing is that  it's searchable. It  certainly  needs no  rocket  science to  understand the picture it  paints. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, 41 editors don't meet the criteria I suggested (32 under 2000 + 9 under 6m), with only an extra 5 editors if we increase it to 3000. I'd say that's convinced me further that 2000 is a better bar. At 1000 (and 3 months, because 1000/6m doesn't meet many people's idea of "active"), we go down to 21. I'll have a look at any fixes for the table when I get a chance.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget  that  this table is only  for failed candidates. Perhaps we should also  remove the failed RfAs from  it  from  established editors to  avoid giving  undue bias to  the stats. Everyone seems to be forgetting  that  the current proposal  is to  prevent  newbs and cranks from transcluding -  not  to  set a higher bar  to  prevent  serious, mature editors of the right  calibre. Interesting  to  note that  almost  all the SNOW/NOTNOW are self-noms, and many  of them from  children and people who  joined Wikipedia with  the sole intention  of being  an admin. I firmly  believe that  3,000 is the right  bar, and anything  less should have a nomination  from  an establiushed user (and not just  another fan club member). I  had to  read every  single RfA to  make that  table. BTW, I've just  left  a stinking  message on  Sandy Georgia's tp because of the scathing  comment  she made about  our work at  WT:RfA. My  patience is drawing  short with  some people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So I see, have replied to Malleus there. It's probably best not to engage, if people hold a certain opinion of the project but consider themselves too busy to help out, you're only going to get yourself into a mess trying to argue with them. I think that removing other failed candidates would be an issue actually, making it look like we are trying to taint the statistics. It might be worth making an extra table regarding the SNOW candidates - especially checking the "self nom" stuff. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * When setting a bar to  prevent  newbies and children from  transcluding  when they  only  have a couple of weeks and a couple of hundred edits, it  would obviously  not  be intelligent  to  mix those stats with  failed RfAs of established editors who  failed for  reasons other than being  new and clueless -  that's why  it  would be unwise to  pull any  averages out  of those figures. Almost  all the NOTNOW/SNOW were self noms, there were about  two  that  were nominated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Hey. Just dropping by to let you know that I created WP:RFA2011/COORD, which is just a talk page for coordination-related matters. The main talk page is just too cluttered and all over the place and things frequently get swept off topic, carried away, etc. Swarm  u 15:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)