Wikipedia talk:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall/archive

Draft?
Is this meant to be an active proposal, or is this just a draft while it's in your userspace? If the latter, consider putting atop it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. This is indeed a draft, and one I'm hoping for comments on from editors more experienced than I am. ~ RobTalk 04:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thoughts
Hi Rob. I must say I'm pleasantly surprised, I assumed this was just going to be a standard "all admins must face regular elections" (which I keep thinking about how to implement), but this is much better. What's more, as it's already been seen as working, we're not re-inventing the wheel. I do have a few questions though, and then will give a more full analysis. Overall I like it, I'd really like to see something like this come to the fore. WormTT(talk) 07:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the grace period? Does the administrator have the choice to run the re-confirmation at any time in that period?
 * Where would the quorum be recorded?
 * Would there be any appeal process? What's to stop the use of socks / canvassing etc.


 * The grace period is to provide a chance for relatively inactive admins to respond. If quorum is reached and an admin does not respond (or avoids responding), there should be a guideline in place to determine when their sysop privileges are removed to prevent gaming the system. We could also discuss at a later time (next RfC?) whether an admin keeps their tools until the end of the grace period once they've decided not to run for re-election. I imagine the answer will be a resounding "no".
 * On German Wikipedia, they have a single page where each admin has a subpage (if one has been started) to reach quorum. By the way, the notes about protection relate to the one year "cooldown", to avoid confusion; they protect the pages for a year following a successful re-election to prevent intentional abuse or accidental misuse.
 * That is an interesting question., would you mind commenting on how the German Wikipedia handles WP:SOCKs in this process? Has this been an issue, historically? I would assume bureaucrats would be permitted to void votes, as they are in RfA. Personally, I would support activity requirements (for the quorum, not the re-election itself), but based on my short time here, I don't think that would reach consensus. ~ RobTalk 10:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * German Wikipedia has had incidents of sock usage during the admin elections - socking there is considered serious enough that it merits CheckUser investigations, and the dewiki CheckUser policy and practice is far more restrictive than the enwiki one. I don't know of incidents happening during recalls however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember one RfA in German-language Wikipedia that was manipulated by sock usage, which affected the outcome (at first, the candidate was not elected, as the socks were opposers). I think it was resolved through a CheckUser investigation, the culprit was permanently banned, and after striking the sock votes, the candidate was subsequently declared elected. Suspicious votes may merit a CheckUser investigation - be it in a first-time RfA or in a re-election, though I too don't remember such an issue in a re-election. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, the issue of socks sounds like a job for the bureaucrats, and I added some language earlier today to make it clear that they're free to strike !votes from an attempt to reach quorum. That seems in line with what they were elected to do at RfA, so I don't think that's really an expansion of their role. ~ RobTalk 00:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case, it is essential that the "longer" period is not greater than 3 months, as checkuser data is removed after that point. WormTT(talk) 07:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is something I believe could and should be handled at a later time (future RfC), but I absolutely agree. I doubt you'd find anyone that would significantly favor 6 months over 3 months, especially given the much greater activity level on the English Wikipedia compared to the German Wikipedia and the general culture on the English Wikipedia of an admin needing to do something terrible to be removed (compared to the German Wiki, where they occasionally use "hasn't been re-elected in a while" as a rationale). ~ RobTalk 07:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to resolve things amicably first
One of the things that discredited the recall system is that some editors will ignore the step of trying to amicably resolve matters and go straight for an attempted desysop. I've literally seen this done where someone agreed with a block but not its duration. So I would suggest a requirement similar to arbcom's that editors need to try to resolve matters amicably first. That wouldn't apply in cases such as compromised accounts, but nobody seriously disputes that arbcom has proven itself quick and efficient in such cases. So I would put that in as a prerequisite for starting any recall process.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add some language to the proposal suggesting that a re-election is a last resort, but I do not think it is feasible to require each of the editors commenting on a re-election quorum (dozens, probably) to supply proof of attempts to resolve amicably. Who would take on the workload of checking those? Do you believe it would be possible to get together dozens of users in a short period of time to reach a quorum without first trying to resolve the issue and showing how those attempts failed? (That's not a rhetorical question. I don't know enough about the community to evaluate if that's likely.)
 * This could be a specific question in a future round. ~ RobTalk 15:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that every individual try to resolve matters first with the admin, happy to have one diff at the top of the page showing that this has been attempted, that seems to work well for Arbcom. We could easily empower the crats to dismiss as incivil cases where people have skipped that step.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-election at the German Wikipedia doesn't proceed based on cases at all. There's a single page to request re-election where you can write your rationale and sign, such as de:Wikipedia:Adminwiederwahl/Aka. Note that the rationales on that page are terrible, and they have not reached anywhere near a quorum as a result. I believe that this rule would kind of exist "de facto", assuming the bar for number of votes is set at a reasonable level. Without providing diffs and explaining the call for re-election, there will be inadequate support for a quorum. This is one of the reasons I prefer re-election over BARC, because BARC allows a case to proceed based on the concerns of relatively few editors. Would you be opposed to pushing this type of question off until a second round? This is the type of thing that, no matter how we decide it here, people will oppose the entire RfC based on a small detail. When you add enough of those small details together, an RfC is doomed from the start, despite a majority supporting the overall idea. The general roadmap I'd like to take is an RFC to get consensus that re-election is worth investigating, possibly an RFC to compare BARC to re-election if both get consensus, and then an RFC to work out the details such as number of votes required, etc. Possibly a final one to approve the whole set-up at the end? I don't know enough to be able to say if that final one would be necessary. Either way, I think that type of structured discussion maximizes the chances that this turns into a productive exercise. ~ RobTalk 15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe in dealing with design flaws as soon as they are spotted, so I'd prefer to resolve this now. Of course I'm in that minority of editors who think Arbcom is already doing this job and I'm uncomfortable with processes that try to structure things to steamroller away those who have concerns. whether this system requires people to try and resolve their concerns first makes a big difference as to how toxic this proposal would be.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about explicitly allowing bureaucrats to discard votes that do not appear to be made in good faith? Would this address your concerns? It seems to be very much in-line with what they do at RfA. ~ RobTalk 15:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We could also reference in the proposal how good faith efforts should be made to deal with the issue amicably prior to recall. How about this? ~ RobTalk 16:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be wary of describing this as a lack of good faith, better when these sorts of incidents occur to focus on the process. Happy to have crats be able to strike votes from blocked editors, and I'm sure we can come up with some other scenarios where votes should be struck. But I also think it important that the process has to be preceded by a serious and unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute amicably. This to me is one of the strengths of the arbcom process and a perennial weakness of alternatives, those who don't see the need for a tolerant atmosphere where we try to work together will be happy to dispense with this safeguard, but in my view they are trying to make Wikipedia into a more brusque MMORPG and less like a bunch of people who are trying to write an encyclopaedia and on the way trying to resolve the inevitable disputes with minimal use of petrol.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just thinking about how that would work, practically, and I'm having difficult envisioning it. Would bureaucrats have the power to strike votes that they do not believe have been based on efforts to resolve amicably? Does that mean that everyone there has to do so, or just that someone has to broach the topic with the administrator? How does this requirement stay compatible with the idea of an admin who hasn't done anything outright abusive, but has nevertheless somehow lost the consensus of the community to have admin tools? There are so many questions and borderline cases that I struggle to give the power to decide to the bureaucrats, who were not originally selected for that purpose. I should note that on the German Wikipedia, this process specifically does not imply wrongdoing on the part of the admin. For me, the safeguard lies in the threshold to reach a quorum, and I think that's likely how I'll move forward with this proposal, although I'm of course open to continuing to discuss this. ~ RobTalk 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The way it works with Arbcom is that one person has to have made an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the issue with the admin, a dif is sufficient to evidence that. As long as one person has tried to do that and been ignored the case can go ahead - scores of attempts are definitely not needed. If people choose to skip that step they are likely to have their case dismissed by arbcom and I would suggest if you want your proposal to be as good as Arbcom the crats or whoever serve as gatekeepers should have the ability to close cases that have skipped that step. The price of allowing people to skip the step of trying to resolve their dispute amicably is that you make the site much nastier than it is.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What if there is no specific incident that led to a desire to recall? See comments by Gestumblindi below on how the culture is surrounding this on the German Wikipedia. ~ RobTalk 00:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I am of the opinion that cases of likely abuse should still be handled by ArbCom. ArbCom has the unique power to issue a temporary injunction to stop an admin from using their tools (probably not the right terminology, but you know what I mean). In cases of abuse, that may be the appropriate venue to put a quick stop to what's going on. This process is to reassess consensus, at least as I'm envisioning it. It's a direct response to the notion that RfA must have an insanely high threshold because the community can never take back the tools once given. ~ RobTalk 17:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In German-language Wikipedia, this isn't an issue, as it's not perceived that any particular reason for expressing a wish for re-election is needed. The intro for the re-election request subpages created for each admin says "Kurze, sachliche Kommentare bzw. Begründungen werden empfohlen, sind aber nicht Pflicht" - Short, factual comments resp. reasons are recommended, but are not mandatory. So, often there is no comment at all. After all, what the process initiates is a re-election - and if there is no plausible, widely shared reason for revoking admin rights, people are just re-elected. The re-election process (collecting votes) also is not something that is started at a particular point in time, but always ongoing: As long as the re-election page is open (that is, starting a year after the last election), people always can add their votes. It's quite typical that admins have a handful of re-election votes on their page, distributed over several months, resulting from some disgruntled editors adding their votes after some decision/action by the admin - but the quorum usually isn't reached "by accident". To reach 25 votes in a month or 50 in six months, something must be going on that really troubles people. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That description gives me worry that one could easily canvass or (sock-/meat-)puppet a recall motion. Or that a controversial but clearly two-sided incident would lead to a recall (which is one-sided). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, as said above: The ultimate safeguard against abuse of the system is the actual re-election, so to speak. As an admin, I too had to stand for re-election once after a controversial decision I made; the 25 votes were gathered very quickly. But in the actual re-election, there weren't even 25 opposers... Several people who didn't share my view and didn't agree with my decision nevertheless argued that a single decision that's perceived as wrong shouldn't lead to revocation of admin privs, and thus either voted "pro" or abstained. - Because of the "Stimmberechtigung" (you're only entitled to vote if you're active for more than two months with at least 200 edits in article namespace, at least 50 of these edits in the last 12 months), using sockpuppets isn't that easy, but of course not impossible - if there's a plausible suspicion, CheckUser may help. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats can sort out canvassing/socks, as they already do at RfA, per my comment above and some extra language added to the proposal. ~ RobTalk 00:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One caveat: As we have learnt through BARC (but which we actually knew full well already, but it was worth a try), and other discussions elewhere, most current active Bureaucrats (and their supporters) appear to be extremely opposed to any new activities for which they were not expressly elected - whether they have time to do them or not. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Timing of RFAR
Possibly the biggest drawback of BARC is that the admin has no control of the timing, trolls could literally launch one in the run up to someone's exams, or if you knew someone's religion you could start a BARC process during a festival for that religion. So I would suggest putting one element of the timing under the control of the target of the RFAR, for example ''once the quota has been reached it is up to the admin when and if they start a RFAR, but if they don't start one within thirty days and the quota is still met, they are automatically desysopped. This also adds the safeguard that the number of people calling for the desysop can fall during the thirty days as people are blocked or change their mind.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what the grace period is meant to allow. I'll make that more clear and ping you when it's edited, so you can provide thoughts on whether what I've written is in line with what you have in mind. ~ RobTalk 15:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does this represent what you were thinking? ~ RobTalk 15:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry yes your point four is largely what I was looking for, I've tweked it slightly, hope you don't mind, but would you agree to tweak it so that the admin can start the RFAR whenever they wish, but if they don't start it within 30 days the tools are taken away?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit away. This is in my user space for the moment, but I'm hoping this will be a collaboration between many editors. I've also been considering whether it's wise for me to be the one to propose this, given my account's age. I may seek another person to nominate, and then join them in the nomination, but that can be a later discussion.
 * Anyway: The admin can choose when their re-election begins based on when they decide to agree to it, if that makes sense. I would also have no objection to them agreeing in the first week to do a re-election to start in the fourth week, if that makes sense. Just to be clear, are you proposing more-or-less what I just described, or requesting that an admin be able to respond within the grace period and hold a re-election beginning after the grace period? Some changes made here for clarity:
 * As a more general note, and without going into any detail to sidestep WP:CANVASS, would you say this addresses some of the oppose rationales on BARC? That's kind of what I'm going for here. ~ RobTalk 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It addresses one of my reasons for opposing BARC, though not the only one. I'm uncomfortable with a public process for people having to give a reason why the timing doesn't suit them in real life, Arbcom resolves that by having a private process which of course then seems opaque and time wasting to those who are impatient or intolerant. There is also a natural tendency for admins to lie low and see if things blow over, one of the problems of Wikipedia is that it is vulnerable to the formation of angry mobs, and typically said angry mobs see their target as the problem rather than themselves. Building a delay into the process and giving a key part of the timing back to the target would solve more problems than it causes, I suppose there would be some instances where admins would say "this timing doesn't suit me, but I might run an RFAR in a few weeks", others might start things at the start of their next editing session.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Recall or administrator re-election?
Do you believe this process should be called recall or administrator re-election? I named it after the German process, but I think some people have taken the title as a proposal to require all admins to go through re-election, which is far from the truth. I've gathered that those discussions have been had before and have not been controversial, so it's important not to be confused with them. I'm also concerned that "recall" has a negative connotation, and this process is not meant to confer wrongdoing; that's ArbCom's job. I'm leaning towards recall in the title at least, probably "RfC for standardized recall" or something similar, but calling the process "re-election" in the actual proposal to avoid the connotation. ~ RobTalk 16:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Re-RfA request", perhaps? Since unlike the dewiki AKs RfA is not a(n almost) plain election. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, although it expands somewhat awkwardly to "Re-request for adminship request". It's good enough for an RfC, though. ~ RobTalk 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have one type of administrator re-election when a former admin returns after a gap of more than three years, and people occasionally propose another when they suggest that all admins should be appointed for fixed terms and go through a reconfirmation type admin re-election after a three year term. I would be inclined to call this a recall as that is really what it is.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, re-RFA request will not work based on how awkwardly it expands. It's also not terribly descriptive of what this process is, which should be a criteria for the title. I think it is clear that recall is preferable to re-election. As for a specific name, I'm considering "RfC for standardized administrator recall" as the most descriptive and accurate title of what this is. Thoughts/alternatives would be appreciated. I'd like to avoid the word "binding" to avoid confusion with another RfC seeking to establish whether RfA should have a binding recall question attached. ~ RobTalk 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for wording of RfC question
I'm hoping to push this out as an active proposal by tomorrow, given how quickly recent suggestions regarding RfA have cropped up. I think it's important to get this in the mix, because I strongly believe that our friends at the German Wikipedia have developed a powerful system that has been proven to work well. I'd like opinions on the wording of the actual RfC question. In attempting to keep it simple, I'd propose the following: Thoughts? ~ RobTalk 22:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Do you support the proposed system of administrator recall?"

Thoughts from Kudpung
I was expressely asked for my opinion, which of course is dangerous, but here goes:

Like BARC, it will attract many opposers who claim it still leaves too many details to be settled in a further 'fine tunung' RfC.What those voters don't know, or haven't experienced yet, is that this is however the way that major new policy issues get finalised - and not only on Wikipedia but also in any other alternative societies that have a bascally flat hierarchy. If you come up with a flawless RfC for a proposal that has every T crossed and every I dotted, they will complain that there is no room for negotiation, so there will still have to be a further RfC to accommodate their views and alternative suggestions. In short, on Wikipedia it is extremey difficult to bring about change because our RfC system itself is inerently flawed.

Those who have a vested interest in desysoping procedures  fall very broadly into  two camps: admins who know they are not acting in the best of good faith and are afraid of being turned into a public effigy, and non admins who fear that too little is done to protect them from rogue admins. This breaks down however into:
 * Users who claim, for whatever reason, that admins have a thing against prolific content providers.
 * Users who have never been the object of Wikipedia disciplinary measures or warnings who nevertheless make loud and persistent claims that Wikipedia is doomed due to its admin structure.
 * Users who want the bar to RfA kept high to prevent the wrong kind of admins from being elected.
 * Those who want the bar to adminship significantly lowered (possibly to get easier access to the coveted tools or status).
 * Those who want the bar to adminship significantly lowered but at the same time want it therefore easier to desysop rogue or poor performing admins.
 * Those who want a community driven (i.e. an alternative to Arbcom) desysoping process that nevertheless is not driven by trolls and the pitchforks of the peanut gallery.
 * And of course admins who are reluctant to work in the front line trenches for fear of reprisals for just doing their job.

Drawing the comparison with the German Wikipedia is interesting (I did it myself years ago for WP:RFA2011) but the European German language region has an entirely different culture from our Anglo-American ways of thinking and interacting, and to try and compare them is to compare apples with oranges or to end up with a false dichotomy. I am a 99.99% academic native German speaker, and I lived there for nearly 20 years.

There are other points: and I might  (hypothetically) not  even be 100% sold on  BARC, but we launched it  because the community is demanding something but those who  scrike loudest are the ones who  won't acually  do  anything about it themselves. And then there are the ones who just simply like shooting the messengers.

I will support absolutely anything that wrests desysopping from the clutches of the lugubrious and sepulchral confines of the Arbitration Committee to make access easier to an equitable and reasonably punctual process for both plaintifs and admins. I'm not saying that the Committee dispenses poor justice any more than a crat chat at RfA might reach the wrong decision, but getting to the door of that sacred temple is never easy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to look this over and respond. I'm hoping the concerns regarding fine tuning will be solved by the explicitly laid out "final approval" stage, which means the community will not be bound by a future round of consensus-finding on individual points if the resulting total package doesn't achieve consensus. I admit that I'm one of the people that was not a fan of the wording of the BARC timeline and was concerned about this point, so I think I have some insight in addressing the concerns, or at least I hope I do.


 * I noted that you mentioned those who would want the bar for adminship lowered to attain status. It's my hope that lowering the bar to adminship somewhat would reduce the perceived status, and reduce incentives for those types of people.


 * I do agree that recall working on the German Wikipedia doesn't guarantee it'll work here. Do you believe that the wording of this RfC implies that argument? If so, I'd appreciate advice on rewording it to avoid that.Thanks again for all of your comments. ~ RobTalk 22:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think I can offer any advice on the details. Previous and still valid research has left me with the impression that our en.Wikipedians arent really interested in knowing about the way things are done on other Foundation projects anyway, so the  comparison with the German system might fall on deaf ears and what I am saying above is that what works there might not find resnance or might not function well in Anglo-Amercan cultures.


 * Because they can quickly become kangaroo courts and lynch mobs for both admins and plaintifs, I am skeptical about any systems that like ANI, the now deprecated RFC/U, and our current RfA system that allow wild and uncontrolled voting/commenting. THere is a further fundamental difference in German systems in that like most other Wikis, they demand users to be stimmberechtigt, i.e. eligible to vote. I'll point out here that a recent mini-poll at WT:RfA staunchly defended the rights of anyone and everyone to vote at RfA on the en.Wiki. IMHO, I believe that is themain issue with RfA and should realy be addressed before any significant improvements can be made to RfA and hence the introduction of any retro-RfA desysoping process. The goals are thus twofold and on our Wiki we can't have one without the other: Nicer and less stringent RfA, and quicker, easier, but equitable desysopping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, I think this is about as comprehensive it's going to get. Ultimately, it's up to the community whether they think this is worthwhile or not. You're right that the German and English communities are very different, so I guess we'll see if the English community agrees with this. Thanks for all your feedback. ~ RobTalk 02:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I have one last question for you if you have a second; where would you recommend advertising this RfC when it goes out (with a neutral message, of course)? I don't believe I'm 100% familiar with all the noticeboards yet, so I might be missing some. So far, I'm looking at the following:


 * Wikipedia talk:Administrators
 * Administrators' noticeboard
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship
 * Village pump, but not sure which section would be best

Thanks for your help. ~ RobTalk 02:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you'll have noticed that I got well and truly slammed for canvassing for the BARC RfC. All lies of course trumped up to discredit me, including from a long-time former arbitrator. Anyone with a micron of intelligence and good faith could work out that the canvassing was perfectly legal. Timing is important though, and alone good timing can get a strong initial flux of supports just as it does on RfA. That's because (if youre like me and Worm) people have your work on their watchlists and they know what you're up to, and most of the people who have you on their watchlists are your friends or people who take your advice and their cues from you. Always post the RfC first when everyone at least in the US is asleep so they wake up to the messages. Then immediately stsrt your canvassing and don't listen to the ridiculous comments about it on BARC. All AN, BN noticeboards and their talk, RfA talk, Crat talk, VP proposals, VP Policy. And the important RfA Cetral template which is transcuded in around 3,000 places - mostly on editors' user pages. There are no rules whether you have to do this first or later. You most certainly can canvas, very neutrally, peope who have contributed to previous similar discussions (RfC or talk page threadsa), and of course their stalk page talkers will see the messages too. There used  to  be a  rule  that  one can't use a mass messaging script for this but I  think it  got  slyly removed. Anyways, I  do it all  manually to be on the safe side. Do read WP:RfC and WP:Canvass properly though. Most of my RfCs pass with consensus, but on a big issue like adminship a lot of people have a grudge, and they are simply voting against me or the fact that the RfC was launched by a couple of admins, without even reading what it's all about. In that respect, with fewer enemies yiu might do quite well. Obviously I can't commit to how I will vote until it starts, but good luck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, when you work on as many Internet forums, or own them and host them as I do, or contribute to other large collaborative open sourcr projects you will soon realise that dropping the bar for admis or moderators will in fact increase the clamour for the prestige rather than reduce it - especially from those who want something to brag about in the schoolyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel like my activities will be scrutinized quite a bit by longer-time users simply because I'm new, so I'll avoid posting to user talks just to play it incredibly safe. Thanks for the advice! ~ RobTalk 06:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)