It was about Draft:Rachel J. I made an extensive google search for the terms "Rachel J" and "Rachel Jambaya" but couldn't find anything related with/to these names. Currently none of the information on the draft is verifiable. This artist may be popular regionally but that too requires proofs to verify notability. I suggest for moving this page back to mainspace so that I/you can start a potential AfD for it. What do you think? Harsh Rathod Poke me!04:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Harshrathod50. I have searched as well but found nothing. This is probably what I would have done but there have been a lot of discussions recently about what is supposed to happen with drafts of clearly non notable subjects and inappropriate pages which I no longer follow. t may be that inclusionist influence has already outlawed such moves. Best to ask at WT:NPR or WT:AfC, but DGG is more of an expert now on these matters than I am. I Keep me in the loop though, please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The situation is unclear. There seems to be consensus that moving to mainspace to use AfD is not appropriate (and I agree). It seems still undecided whether MfD can only deal with obviously non-notable drafts unless they have been fruitless reviewed multiple times. Some people say the only way is to leave them for G13 after 5 months, but I think that , as at AfD, any good reason is sufficient. One approach is to give a good reason without mentioning notability, such as "impossible to verify" or even just "violates WP:NOT" . I see the reluctance to delete even for obviously impossible notability not as inclusionism but as a reaction against the previous erratic nature of AfC. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@DGG:--Whilst I wholly agree with your generalised assesment, I think you have missed that this was actually draftified a day back by K, a day after being initially created in mainspace.I guess that since the draftication is unilateral, K can easily choose to kick it back to mainspace and AfD or A7 it.As I have noted in the draft, I disagree with the action of draftication in this case (as a clear cut non-notable entity, daughter of a country-DJ....no more mentions in news....) but that's thoughts for another day, unless Harsh or Kudpung believes that the draft might lead to something.∯WBGconverse16:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Winged Blades of Godric, you are correct. One can revert one's own move if nobody has edited in the interim. I too generally disagree with draftification unless an article would be likely. It adds to unnecessary work at AfC, and we have more than enough necessary work there. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello Kudpung, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Some long overdue WikiLove from me. Thanks for your stoic work on the Signpost - I am a big fan of the WikiPublication. Moreover, allow me to apologise for being so unnecessarily curt towards you in this diff. I misunderstood the meaning of your message, and failed to comprehend the positive intents of the comment. You tried to assist me in participating in Wikipedia's elections, and I was needlessly deaf towards your message. For that, I sincerely (and belatedly) apologise, and hope that this cookie go some way as a token of my regret. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pylon Reenactment Society (band)
I am attempting to have a brief article regarding my project Pylon Reenactment Society (band) entered into Wikipedia. I don’t think it is overblown or unworthy. Why do you continue recommending that it be deleted. There are several interesting facts that link to other music projects from this one including The Glands, Pylon and Casper & the Cookies.
I would appreciate your passing this article for review to someone who has an interest in indie music.
I know you have a lot of time invested on Wikipedia and have given a lot of your time, but I think you are wrong to target my project like this.
Peaches1955 It's not a question of being interested in your project - most of us who work in quality control are not interested in the subject. What we are interested in is keeping our encyclopedia free of non notable and promotional content. Your 'project' does not meet our notability requirements for bands at WP:BAND, and in any case you have a Conflict of Interest and you should not be writing about anything you are connected with. I'm sorry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration report
Hi Kudpung, it's been a while. Reading through the arbitration report from the Signpost, I started to think that for the sake of transparency, shouldn't the arbitration committee release a monthly report/summary of what has been done during that month? What do you think? It would make a good additional reading I think. Alex Shih (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking) I vaguely recall someone, either a clerk or former Arb, writing the Arbitration section in the Signpost back in the day, at least for a little while. It was probably a little more manageable on a weekly basis. In the past, the Committee published some annual statistics — I wouldn't mind seeing that effort revived, perhaps on a quarterly basis. ~ Amory(u • t • c)16:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih, Amorymeltzer, Amorymeltzer, and Guerillero: thanks for your input. I don't know how in the past how all the sections of The Signpost were compiled but I think this is a very good idea because the editorial team absolutely cannt continue to create all the content. If an Arbcom clerk would like tom commit to providing the report regularly on a monthly basis, it would be very much appreciated. 28 August is the copy deadline for the next issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see an overemphasis on deletion in your talk page and comments. You may want to read this. Cheers, DoctorSpeedWant to talk?
DoctorSpeed, Then you'd better sit down and read the rest of my talk page archives. You might learn something. You might think innuendo is a clever literary device - it may be, but not when used in substitute for WP:PA. I don't need tips from raw newbies and certainly not from ones who don't have a clue what they're talking about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung It is unfortunate that someone of your rank being disrespectful to an editor. May I remind you about Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks. Please refrain from being disrespectful to other players when attempting to provide help, it's unprofessional and may result in a block.
I would recommend you read this, regarding on proper etiquette which should go without saying for someone of your level.
I have no idea what you're talking about., If you are already so well informed about our norms I would expect you to respect them. As I said, Ive been around a bit longer than 100 edits and 3 weeks and don't need your recommendations. Try to use your Wikitime by improving or creating content. Trying to Wikilawyer without a clue does not bode well for you enjoying stay here. If you are looking for help, you're in the wrong place, if you're looking for something else you're very mistaken in posting on this talk page. Go away. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff from editor told to go away
Kudpung, I asked you to stop, I asked you politely to cooperate with me to prevent further escalation. Seeing that you continue to attempt to escalate the situation, I will be forced to request for further action. For the record: I was polite to you to begin with, you replied hastily and unprofessionally, I replied seriously, you began to get more hasty, and I requested that we end the trivial dispute between us, and you refused to. I am ignoring you, and will take further action. I apologize that you feel this way. Cheers, DoctorSpeedWant to talk?
Kudpung, can you please userfy for me Martin Gjoka, if it's not too much trouble? It was deleted back in 2008, but it's definitely notable. I'll see if I can improve it and restart somehow. He is definitively a notable musician. Thanks! --1l2l3k (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1l2l3k the only thing in that 2006 article was the one line: Padre Martin Gjoka (1890-1940) was an Albanian composer and Franciscan priest. Please create a new article at Martin Gjoka (draft) in Draft space and then submit it to AfC for review. However, do not translate the article at sq.Wiki because it won't pass notability criteria here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah that was it, huh, my predecessors weren't very hard working, lol. Yes, I'm aware that the one source article in sqwiki won't cut it. Thanks! --1l2l3k (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not related, but, I'd appreciate if you can provide me any feedback on my AFD or New Articles' work, should you come across my contributions. Best! --1l2l3k (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless and shameful RfA votes
I think it's off-topic for Jbh's RfA, but if somebody dragged Xxanthippe to ANI and proposed a one-way interaction ban with Megalibrarygirl, I would support it. I think I had about 20 emails back and forth with Sue all week about how to handle questions, and in my view she didn't put a foot wrong anywhere, which explains why she got the second most successful RfA of all time. (talk)(cont)21:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the currently unsigned comment above. What stopped you from doing that yourself (although I don't necessarily encourage you to do so)? Xxanthippe (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Ritchie333, Xxanthippe needs to be very careful that his repeated and self-emphasised attitude to women doesn't get rewarded with a straight site ban, but as long as his comments are limited to RfAs we can't do anything about it because RfA is the official venue where people can be as vile as they like with total impunity. At best, his comment to me on the talk page of the JBH RfA just now, simply doesn't make sense, and at worst, it's just another example of him being deliberately disingenuous and making yet another murky mention of his misogyny. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A user's talk page is a public space and should not be used to make personal attacks on other editors which you did by calling me a misogynist above on this thread. Also here [1]. I am disappointed to be called a misogynist, and I deny being one. I have edited much on topics involving women. My two contributions with the largest edit counts (306 and 209) are to biographies of prominent nineteenth-century women and I have done genealogical research for the biography of another. I have contributed to the Women in Red project, where I have tried to make my edits constructive and supportive. I was pleased to see the direction in which that project's activities are now heading. [2]Xxanthippe (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
If you deny being one, then you should guard against making comments such as the several ones that have clearly been interpreted by several users and labelled you as one - RfA is even more public than my talk page. Your memory is obviously short, so don't you accuse me of PA or take my comments out of context - diffs don't lie. I suggest you take more care how you phrase yourself in future and if you've got nothing good to say about candidates for RfA, perhaps it's better you stay away from RfA rather than contribute to maintaining it as the cesspit it's become. You may wish to read WP:RFAV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To accuse an editor of being a misogynist seems to me to be a transgression of the policy Comment on content, not on the contributor, regardless of whether the accusation is true or not. On your user page you quote with evident approval A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. All the boxes are ticked. On the basis of an Oppose vote that I made in an RfA, which closed ten months ago, the making of which was disapproved of by many participants, but not by all, you suggest that I should be subjected to a site ban. Editors are site-banned only as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions[3]. This is an extraordinary strong claim for an administrator to make. Please will you justify your claim for a site-ban with rational arguments based on policy, rather than emotive words like Baseless and shameful, so that I may respond to your allegations, on policy-based grounds also. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe, please don't take my comments out of context, as you did here and above, or attribute others' words to me, otherwise you may find yourself being accused of a lot of other breaches of policy too; 'baseless and shameful' was stated by admin Fuzheado with whose comment I and many other admins and editors wholeheartedly agree. Admin-baiting and mobbing is a very real phenomenon on Wikipedia, and you are well aware that admins are not allowed to defend themselves, and there are other words for this kind of behavior that I will not use so as to allow you cause for further backlash. If you want to know how it ends however, check through the archives of this talk page.
If RfA had not been the one place where disingenuous commenting of all kinds is allowed to be uttered with total impunity, had it been anywhere else, not only would your vote and comments on the Megalibrary RfA probably have resulted in a block, but possibly also a site ban. It's perhaps best not to play with fire. Let's see what Ritchie333, Joe Roe, Boing! said Zebedee, Ad Orientem, and Molly White from among our most experienced and respected admins say, and the many other admins who commented there. In the meantime I do suggest again that you read this and then this again - you caused one of the greatest conflagrations RfA has ever known, and if you continue to fan the flames, you are the one who is going to get burned. I suggest you give it a rest now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not direct to other people the blame for your own actions. The words baseless and shameful were first used by others in an RfA which, according to your own ideas, is some sort of consequence-free zone, although I cannot yet find any justification for this in policy. You have used those same words and misogynist outside that zone to apply to me. You have made personal attacks on me. Please justify them as I asked above or withdraw them. Xxanthippe (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Kudpung. Sorry for ducking your ping but I am actually not able to get involved in anything on here right now as I am about to head out on a long planned family vacation. I won't be back until Thursday of next week. Thanks for the entirely undeserved compliment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kudpung. From looking at this edit[4] I have concluded that you have been harassing me in an attempt, possibly in your mind, to earn Brownie points from the Women in Red project by attacking what you suppose to be a critic. Now that you have had a bust-up[5][6] with that project I hope that you will stop harassing me with further personal attacks and threats. It's a bit rich to be told you are a misogynist by an somebody who makes an edit so sexist [7] that a woman user asks for it to be changed for future use[8]. Your response to her request was not gracious. See also [9]. I found this[10] edit to be particularly incongruous: when you were whining about admin-baiting while simultaneously making personal attacks and threats against me. Here[11] you ask me to give your talk page a "permanent pass". I will be happy to oblige provided that you stop making personal attacks and threats against me either explicitly or implicitly. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I thought I'd take a look at just how experienced the editors who expressed their opposition at the last RfA were. Perhaps you find this helpful: User:Vexations/lists/RfA_Opposes. I was surprised at how high the median number of edits is: 22,768. I'm in the lower half myself. --Vexations (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry. I should have written that I would have been in the lower half myself, had I opposed. I supported the candidate. I am disheartened by how RfAs are conducted, and hoped to glean some insights from looking at how experienced the opposers are, and see if they're administrators. My subjective impression has always been that admins are usually more supportive, because they understand what the work involves. --Vexations (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: If you can work out the stats, I'd be interested to know if any RfAs over the past year or two (particularly the close calls) would have had the result changed materially had !voting been restricted to admins only. I'm not suggesting for a second that a "only admins can !vote at RfA" proposal would be met by anything other than immediate disapproval and a near-unanimous opposition, but it's an interesting data point to collect, in my view. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I Never Cry's oppose made my day:-) And, Yash's RFA is a pretty good reminder to the potential-toxicity of the atmosphere........ ∯WBGconverse15:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do note the disclaimers at top: the data is calculated manually using current admins, so it will be less accurate the further back you go, and the percentages include neutrals, unlike the official tally. Also, without comments by non-admin either way, the discussions would likely have looked very different. In any case, if we assume that the data is an accurate predictor of how the discussions would have gone: Goldenring would have been well below the discretionary range; Oshwah would have gone to crat chat; others (such as Onel5969, Mike1901, Yash!, Anarchyte, and GAB) may not have withdrawn as quickly, though there's no way to predict how the discussions would have ended; and, well, Jbh probably would have just missed the range (though I'd guess that it would still have gone to a crat chat). In general, admin votes seem to drag down borderline RfAs, not the other way around. ansh66619:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For your stats: this half-way experienced editor who never want's to become an admin and looks at every RfA that comes along, never opposes. The harshest I get is ignore the thing. We are requested to AGF ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but it seems as if after all these years Andrew Davidson has finally got the message. It has taken two major ANI, neither of which reached any consensus, but if he does it again he'll be looking at least at a TB from RfA if not stronger sanctions. It's all very well saying "AW, l;eave these people alone, the 'crats will ignore their votes', but the sheer cesspit it turns RfA into is untenable and turns candidates away. I could never figure out why Davidson can do such good outreach work but be such a deliberate disruptive influence on RfA. Doesn't make sense. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A request
For anyone following this thread or my recent series of Admin Ship articles in the last three issues of The Signpost:
Some years ago in 2011, I started and facilitated what still today is the single most in-depth research into RfA. It didn't bring about any changes because after a lot of hard work gathering background information, the on-Wiki efforts began to be trolled so much by the anti-admin brigade that we just gave up. However, apart from the huge mass of data being now slightly out of date, the arguments and suggestions in that project are still as valid as they are today - perhaps even more so: 'Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself' . People who since then post at WT:RfA keep coming up with all these ideas as if they were new and they are the first to come up with them.
I didn't provide the stats myself. Although like everyone, I had to do courses on stats at uni, it was in the days when desktop computers were still science fiction, so I later never learned more than the most basic regex, and not at all how to quarry a database. Our greatest help was Scottywong who has unfortunately long since retired.
Scott came up with some excellent tables that demonstrate voter trends and patterns which are shown at WP:RFA2011/VOTING. What would be an enormous help would be to have a new set of tables based, say, on the last three years of RfA voting. CAN YOU HELP? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the upcoming Signpost story
Hi Kudpung! I have read your upcoming story on The Signpost about the Go Fish Digital UPE. It is a great piece and I think it is important to update the community on the issue. Since the story talks about the later discussion on Jimbo's talk page with specific quotes, I would not mind getting credited for finding the link between Go Fish Digital and the BurritoSlayer sockfarm as well as finding a few sockpuppets of the company. If you don't consider the inclusion relevant, I completely understand, it's your piece after all. Best, MarioGom (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, You recently deleted a page about Bill K Koul, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_K_Koul. He is an Australian author and editor who has published three books so far and many blogs on his website. How can I improve the page so it can be published in wiki. Thanks and regards, --Fhb999 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fhb999, I didn't delete it, as you have apparently discovered. If not, please see it's history at Bill K Koul. And then see the tags on the articles. It is most unlikely that this article about Koul will meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion. It's totally promotional, and apart from having written three books and a few blogs, which anyone can do, there are no compelling claims to importance or significance. The article has no independent, in-depth, reliable sources (see WP:RS), and notability is not asserted (see WP:BIO). It also looks very much to us as if the article was written by Koul himself or someone very close to him, which of course is inadmissible for an encyclopedia. If he wants the world to know about him, he or his publisher should exploit social media such as FaceBook or LinkedIn, but not Wikipedia. Please see the pink banner above on my talk page, and perhaps you would like to write something for Wikipedia that you are not directly connected with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ..., for your feedback. I do agree with you about its content and, the way they are presented, it may appear to be promotional. I will carry out all the necessary changes in the page and resubmit it in a few weeks. Thank you.
As the author of the page, I obtained all the information about Bill K Koul from the following sources which are all on the net:
Fhb999, and those are exactly the kind of sources that are not acceptable for Wikipdia. It's highly unlikely thiat this person will meet our inclusion criteria any time soon. Please see the information pages I linked to. If you don't understand them, in a nutshell, what is required are in-depth dedicated articles 'about' him - not his books - in the mainstream press. I wouldn't want you to waste your time. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you publicly refer to yourself under any name, you have to get used to being referred to in whichever one users legitimately choose. There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you are upset with Women in Red, Kudpung. I must say I have very much appreciated your support and your useful suggestions. I hope we can restore friendly relations in due course.--Ipigott (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing you mention this now on two different talk pages on my watchlist aside from your own (TonyBallioni's and Rosiestep's), I wanted to come back and figure out what is going on. I'm shocked at your reaction to what I thought was a polite request to be referred to by my username rather than by my real name when being listed among a group of other users who I believe are all men, and who you referred to by their usernames (with the slight exception of Joe Roe, who seems to use his full name as his username). It might be a quirk of my own, but to me it feels very similar to the fairly common (and often unintentional) occurrence of referring to women by their first names while addressing men more formally. I would have been happy to discuss this if you didn't understand why I was requesting it or you disagreed, but I was taken aback when you immediately labeled me a "man hater", said you were withdrawing your support for Women in Red (which strikes me as bizarre—as Gamaliel pointed out above, I'm not a particularly active member of that group), and now have begun notifying several people that you're no longer supporting WiR. GorillaWarfare(talk)19:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I may offer my unsolicited opinion, while I think Kudpung may have overreacted, I guess it could have been avoided if the original post by GorillaWarfare contained a simple clarification note that there were no insinuations of wrongdoing, ill-intent nor ignorance. As it is, it could justifiably be read as a mild criticism. Alex Shih (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wkipedia is supposed to be a friendly space, both off- and on-Wiki. GorillaWarfare's comment was unnecessary, divisive and incendiary. And successful. I always understood (and worked towards it) part of our mission to be close close the gender gap. Where I come from - even as a member of a much older generation, the use of first names is considered a friendly part of social intercourse. She obviously thinks otherwise and it's a long and obvious hangover from this. If there was an overreaction to my defending a lady's dignity once more, it was hers. I'm actually not even sensitive to such veiled personal attacks, I put up with a lot of them, but I will make a political point of pointing out that 'men' have just as much right not to be offended as the ladies. Much more of this kind of thing and WIR won't be the only place I'll be leaving.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I politely asked you refer to me in a different way. It was not unnecessary, divisive, or incendiary—it was just a quick request that I prefer to be referred to by my username when other people are, especially if they are men. I didn't think you were being sexist or otherwise offensive by using my full name, and if I implied that I apologize.
I assure you it is not a "long and obvious" hangover from you critiquing my use of edit summaries (or anything else) at my RfA eight years ago—there were 131 votes on that RfA and I couldn't tell you which way anyone voted on that RfA unless I looked. Now that I have looked, I can assure you that there are plenty of people on that oppose list that I work with just fine—including two I worked with closely while on the Arbitration Committee. I don't hold petty grudges like that.
As for my response being an overreaction to your defense of Megalibrarygirl, I don't understand. We both supported her RfA, and from what I can tell we were on the same side in the ensuing argument(s) on the RfA talk page. Why would I be upset that you defended her when I was doing the same? GorillaWarfare(talk)00:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have stricken my apology above. I assumed I had caught you at a bad time and that was why you'd reacted so disproportionately, but you've continued to react in this over-the-top manner and I am not willing to put up with it. I do hope it's not the case that I've caught you at a bad time—if it is, I hope things improve for you, but I'm also only so willing to accept people mistreating me regardless of what is going on with them. I made a polite request that you not refer to me by my real name when referring to others by their usernames, you reacted explosively, and after seeing you appear on my watchlist on several editors' talk pages to share that you'd left Women in Red because of our conversation (despite me not being an active member of WiR) I decided the best thing to do was circle back to post asking why you'd reacted so disproportionately and apologize since it seemed I'd been misunderstood. You didn't actually answer my questions but rather made another jab at me. I decided to let it go given things seemed to be settled... until I saw you'd posted on Rosiestep's talk page once again, this time telling Xxanthippe to "pipe down" and calm down, and telling them they "were the cause of all this". I posted to say that no, my request was separate from whatever conversation Xxanthippe was having and you told me to "Give it a rest now Ms GorillaWarfare" (I see you removed the "Ms" later because it was a "typo"...), that I'd "pompously declared [your use of my real name while referring to the others you listed by their usernames] to be an mysoginism", and "Gert over it". You need to stop making these accusations against me; I have done nothing wrong, and I have treated you only with respect. I would like the same from you. GorillaWarfare(talk)06:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NPR School
I am thinking of overhauling and resurrecting the NPR school sometime soon. I see you are listed as a trainer over there. Could you check your listing on the trainer list to make sure that it is accurate, or remove the listing if you no longer wish to be a trainer. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)23:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere, that school which I designed has never been used despite dozens of suggestions to patrollers who refuse to get it it right. That was all in the days before NPR became a user right. The instructions for NP reviewers are clear enough. The NPR user group requests are (supposed) to be thoroughly vetted, and where in future many new requests are going be accorded on probation, there is probably neither need nor demand for the school. On the premise that now that NPR exists as a usersright, I am therefore not going to be available to mentor patrollers , they either already know the requirements or they don't get the right (at least not on my watch at PERM). I believe you would be wasting your time and just looking for jobs for yourself as de facto coord. I think your time could be better spent doing what you are already doing, and please do reduce the number of newsletters otherwise nobody will take any notice of them as I have already explained, and insist that whoever writes them does so professionally with a good style - professionalism invites professionalism and at NPR there is no room for experimentation. Do try to address the very sharp and linear rise in the backlog - constant backlog drives are not the answer and they invite poor reviewing. Weed out those non performing hat collectors, tell me who they are (roughly at least 50% of the listed rights holders), and I'll remove their rights for you. I already have canned messages ready to send them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking that some sort of implementation in concert with the probationary NPR user right might be a good idea, but you might be right that it isn't necessary and it might not work. In terms of newsletters; its funny you should say that because I had an edit window open ready to change the next one back to at least sometime in September when I saw this post of yours (I honestly haven't got anything to write for it at the moment). The last newsletter didn't really inspire anyone to do a ton of reviewing, so I am inclined to agree with you. I don't like the idea of regular backlog drives either, as they tend to create a feeling of "take a break afterwards" as well. I'm waiting to see how we stabilise now that Onel has taken off on a break, so far it has been promising, with the backlog actually dropping over the last half-week, though this might just be a temporary blip. We shall see. I'll seriously consider making a list of reviewers which are inactive and probably should not have to tools. Now that completely inactive reviewers have been removed, I intend to review the few reviews that were done by NPRs with limited reviewing experience and recommend removing the right from those that haven't done a good job. Where is the message that you have prepared? Could you ping me there so I can have a look? — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)00:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere, There are two. They are some of the many the many private boilerplate I use programnmed in Typinator. They are not up for discussion unless they become part of some automated process. You'll notice them when I use them. Have we removed alk the inactive users? I don't recall having disactivated more than two accounts. The Signpost is not ready for yet another NPP related article, and if it were, it would not drum up more support for NPR or new reeviewers. In any case, your submission will be reviewed by Bri because I'm leaving at the end of the month. If Bri finds running the magazine on his own too much of a burden, and that I could understand, there probably won't be many more publications as we know them. Probably just a basic info sheet once a month or something like that, but I won't be around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the post on my talk page (I pinged you) where I have fixed some stuff in the stats tables and realised that I had a misconception regarding this. No we haven't deactivated the inactive users. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere and Vexations: OK, so give me the clickable list of the inactive user names here (in a collapsetop) and I'll work through it removing the rights. I'll send my canned message to each one of them. It will naturally cause a stirr with some of them because most minor right holders regard them as badges of merit. If they kick up a fuss, we can always reinstall the right for a probationary month, then it will be gone again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to let you know that as you have never used your membership of the New Page Reviewers group, this access has been removed from your account. If this is an error on our part, or if you intend to actively review new pages using the Curation system, please let us know at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and there is one for the user right from all editors who have had the user right for 6 months and have made 0 reviews . Let me have that list in the same format. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
(largely copied from a comment on my talk page)--I set up some tables at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Reviewer_stats. Lets remove the user right from all editors who have had the user right for 6 months and have made 0 reviews (granting date in the table at User:Insertcleverphrasehere/Reviewer_stats#Table_of_promotions). I think it is also probably safe to remove the NPR user-right from all editors who have less than 10 reviews total and made no reviews in the last year (you can sort by last review date). Once this is complete let me know and I will have a look at who is left on the low review counts and have a look at their individual reviews and put together a list of editors who I think should not have the user right, or who should be put onto a delayed expiration probation.
I removed the (duplicate) names of editors who are already in the list of inactive reviewers. In total, there are 239 reviewers who have not reviewed any articles since 13 March 2018. This filtered list has 183 entries. Vexations (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to let you know that as you have not used your membership of the New Page Reviewers group in the last 6 months, this access has been removed from your account. If this is an error on our part, or if you intend to actively review new pages using the Curation system, please let us know at WT:NPR. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vex's list above does not take into account when the rights were granted to each account. Collapsed above is a list of all the NPRs with zero edits since Nov 2016. Those marked with 'yes' have had the user right longer than 6 months. Note that some are alt acounts of admins. Some on the list especially a lot of those marked 'no' were invited from the active AfC reviewers list a few months ago in an effort to get the AfC reviewers on the NPR train. Given that we still aren't entirely sure where we are going with AfC and NPR, I'd suggest that we leave off removing NPR from users on the active AfC list. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)04:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit concerned by what I see as an action that will likely be controversial given that I do not see authority for it on our guidelines page for the right. Please cite the chapter and verse from Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers which would allow removal. Thanks. --Izno (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea why we revoke rights from admins who have not been around for years, in theory people could have forgotten policies and there is a real risk of inactive accounts becoming compromised. so there are some benefits to justify the work involved and the risk that fewer such people will return. But if people are active elswehere on wiki there isn't the concern that their account may have been compromised, and if they haven't been active as a volunteer in an area for as little as 6 months that doesn't mean they are likely to be out of date in their thinking. ϢereSpielChequers
@WereSpielChequers: On inactivity, the current guideline indeed allows for removal based on one year of inactivity, but that is not N months of disuse of the specific right's toolkit, which is why the discussion above is concerning. --Izno (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Izno, yes the guideline is very short termist in my view, even Admins get two years. But doing something much more abrupt as discussed above, that sounds like a lot of work and some editors insulted to achieve a disbenefit to new page patrol. ϢereSpielChequers20:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have not supported the 'six months inactive' thing that Kudpung said above, and in fact have discussed with him before that I disagree with removing the user right from users who haven't used in the last 6 months (see here), but he keeps bringing it up. I do support some cleanup of editors who clearly have never used to tools, or only ever made a few test edits: I provided a list of editors who have never used the tools, and noted those who have had them longer than 6 months as the only ones who should have them removed (clearly not actually interested in joining NPP). As for activity level, I noted above that over 1 year of no reviews, and less than 10 reviews total could be a safe metric to choose, given that users meeting these criteria basically never used the tools, and also have been inactive with the tools for a very long time. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)21:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I have the event coordinator bit, and don't expect to need it until March 2019. Do I think it was nice that someone was so considerate to give it to me based on my past work? Yes, I do. It's nice that someone cared enough to make an effort to try and find out who might need it, and grant it. It's appreciated. Would I be upset if someone cleaned up the list and said look, it turns out about some percentage of event coordinators don't use it, and that makes the list hard to manage, so I made a unilateral decision to remove you? Not in the least! I would support it. And I'd re-request it if I needed it again. The only reason I haven't requested to have it taken away is that it makes even more work. But if someone is willing to do it, be my guest. In the mean time, can we agree that some people really do need to have the new page reviewer bit taken away? There's one blocked sockpuppet in the list of reviewers who were inactive in the last six months. A shorter list, with only active reviewers makes managing that kind of removal much easier. There is one thing I'd like to add; the suggestion that the inactive reviewers are hatcollectors is not supported by my quick assessment of the accounts of new reviewers. I cannot identify a single hatcollector in the list of inactive reviewers that I provided.--Vexations (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comments at the NPR noticeboard: As far as I can see you started the Newsletters primarily as a way to send out an alarm to the reviewing team of the growing backlog, I see no reason why these newsletters should not continue and function as a way to disseminate relevant information out to reviewers. I have started drafting a list of useful scripts as part of the next newsletter, which you have no doubt seen, as a way of informing our reviewers of tools that can make their job easier. I havent decided yet, but I may well have that list all or partially collapsed when sent to keep the newsletter from being too large.
You keep banging on about inactive reviewers, but there isn't much I can do about the power law distribution of reviewers. We have discussed this at length, but the 80/20 rule will always be true about NPR. Regardless of how much you cull the inactive reviewers, it won't change the curve. If you want a "6 months or lose it rule" for the NPR userright, I suggest that you bring it to the NPR discussion board for a discussion, rather than trying to just impose it unilaterally, or petulantly blanking your user page and giving up your tools when some others objected. As I suspected, some users thought it was a step too far. Admins are supposed to use their discretion to impart consensus, and we don't have consensus for that. Yet. I'm happy to support a 6 month activity rule for NPR if we can get a consensus from the discussion board, and I'll even run the queries regularly to identify inactive reviewers, I just am not confident that such a consensus already exists, and don't want to make a unilateral move like that. Your style of coordination is a bit different than mine, sure, but I'm doing my best here. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)01:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
928
Hi Kudpung, saw you hit new warning filter 928, changed your edit and moved on. We just spun this up a day or so ago and it hasn't gotten many hits yet. We've tried to make it "friendly", was wondering what your impression was when you got this message on your screen? Thanks for any feedback you are willing to share! — xaosfluxTalk03:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, yes it was due to a typo. I had used curly brackets instead of straight ones (forgot to press the shift key). The warning is excellent. Told me exactly what I had done wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you put ECP to this article back, like you had on 9 May?[12] An SPA keeps returning to disrupt this page by edit warring for restoring his promotional edits and avoids discussion of any of his edits as evident on the talk page itself.[13] This page has been evidently subject to similar promotional edits before. Lorstaking (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
