Would you or the first admin stalker who sees this removed the autopatrolled permission from my account? I haven't done much article creation lately, so I am not a burden to NPPers, and when I do create articles, it can't hurt to have a second set of eyes take a look in case I miss something. Thanks. GoPhightins!02:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary, or to even remove them. Once again Malleus shows himself in his same old true colours, and admin Jayron is quite capable of complaining if he wants to. Let's not over-react. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I am just asking you not to be too strict and stingy to users requesting rollback as seen here: [1], we don't want to drop a user's hope in being an admin in Wikipedia as you did this to User:IPhonehurricane95. Please even though you are an admin here does not mean that you can be rude, go on and apologize to that user! Please and Thank you. --PrabashWhat?22:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment here and your edit summary are inappropriate. (and the issue is none of your business). Please investigate the background more thoroughly before coming here and making personal attacks. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I never meant a personal attack towards you. I shouldn't bud in. Again I apologize for my rude behavior to you, just wanted a more nicer approach towards that user that's all. --PrabashWhat?23:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments like this one strike me as being highly inappropriate. How can we ever develop a consensus to ban an editor if any discussion of how disruptive he is is immediately shut down? Issuing warnings and hatting discussions is not the solution here, as it defends the use of personal attacks during discussions.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That shows just how little you know of the background and about me. The very last thing I would do on Wikipedia is to defend the disruptive, uncivil, and PA pushing users. I didn't initiate the biggest campaign ever to reform RfA to waste mine and everyone else's time. You'll note that the section was finally hatted by another, highly respected admin who shared my opinion. What I also intensly dislike is side tracking - it's what mostly disrupts almost every RfC and discussion on Wikipedia and makes consensus so hard to achieve. I find your comment above highly inapropriate, especially from a fellow admin. If you would like to know more, please contact by email. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of Gold Coast Parklands article
Hello, I'm new to wikipedia and wish to create an article on the Gold Coast Parklands, Queensland, Australia. It's a show ground, concert venue and major sporting complex which is about to be demolished to make way for the 2018 Commonwealth Games village. It's enjoyed a high profile over the decades so verification, sources and citations etc should not be a challenge. I noticed that you have previously deleted an article for a copyright infringement. Is it appropriate for me to start a new article? 10:22, 17 November 2011 Kudpung (talk | contribs) deleted page Gold Coast Parklands (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: of http://www.parklandsgoldcoast.com/about-us.html)Many thanks! Coastal.culture.vulture (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'm not sure what to make of this. It could be a fork. if it's a college of the Lyceum of the Philippines University, it should be merged to that article if it provides additional information. The Filipinos are notorious for spamming the encyclopedia, but I don't think it's spam - it appears to be a bona fide institution offering undergrad and post grad courses. You might wish to check the histories and see if the same editors have been contributing to both articles. I wouldn't have declined the submission per se, bu as it rings an alarm bell, I would have engaged the creator in some discussion. I know this isn't much, but I hope it helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize how much I missed your insight until you returned and started providing it again. Thanks for all you do here on WP. GoPhightins!11:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello!
I am andrewrp, and I would like to get active editing Wikipedia again. Currently, as well as in the past, I have done article anti-vandalism work, as well as CFD's using NPwatcher. I have taken a brief hiatus from Wikipedia to work on other projects, but would like to start working again. In addition to my anti-vandalism, I would also like to get more involved on actually editing and improving articles, as I see this issue as a sort of weak point for me.
My reasons for desiring administratorship are numerous. In my brief time I have been back here (though I occasionally monitored), there seems to be large backlogs in AIV, Speedy Deletion, as well as page protection. I have a pretty flexible schedule right now that would allow me to clear these backlogs when they become a problem. There also seems to be (not sure if this is the product of when I visit), a larger amount of vandalism then there was a while back.
I realize I most likely am not ready for an administratorship yet. When I was getting started, I think I took my important position as a rollbacker and anti-vandalism watcher too lightly. I do feel, as well, I had not taken the time to thoroughly familiarize myself with various Wikipedia policies. As a result, I have gotten myself into various uncomfortable and very bad situations, which I feel could possibly jeopardize my candidacy.
I would like to ask you if it would be possible to review my account and provide me with steps I may take as I return to editing that would help me not only become an administrator, but also help the Wikipedia community as a whole.
Thank you, and all the best, Andrew AndrewrpTally-ho!03:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Andrew. Firstly, you need to opt in for the month counts here so that we have quick access to what you have done on Wikipedia. Then I suggest you read WP:Advice for RfA candidates, and also follow all the links there. If you are able to check all the boxes at here you may be getting close. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Generally what people do on other Wikis in isn't directly a concern for us here. In fact under some circumstances, when we block someone we occasionally suggest they go to Simple English and get some experience there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Simple English Wikipedia has what's called their one-strike rule. If you were disruptive on another project, you may be blocked on the Simple English Wikipedia for a single strike, i.e. a single incident.--Jasper Deng(talk)22:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue (if there is one - and I don't intend to go there and look) is one for discussion on Simple English Wiki and their rules and admins.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user (I'm quite sure, all IPs belong to the same user, as they exhibit the same editing pattern) has repeatedly inserted the name (S.(Saikat) Nick Barua/Saikat Nick Barua) into articles (possibly his personal name?).
He also added two persons, which, by their name, may be relatives (Dipak Barua and Dilip Barua), as well as a number of company names (DC group of Companies, DC Enterprises, T.K Group of Industries, T.K. Group, KANBE Pte Ltd and several spelling variants of them), which, according to LinkedIn and other publically available business profiles, belong to him/them.
In particular the (re-)insertion of the name "S.(Saikat) Nick Barua" into various lists of notable people by User talk:219.66.194.91 and User talk:Mike willaims has been a significant and repeating edting pattern in recent months. We don't have an article about this person and according to my research, there is no coverage in the press or books as well. Once having been a programmer at Microsoft or Norton is hardly a notability criteria for us, either.
Yesterday, the editor switched to insert the "T.K. Group" name into a different set of articles (as he did already some while back).
The editor is totally unresponsive to hints in edit summaries and explanations/warnings given on the various IP talk pages, except for that in some cases, he switched between his current IP and the Mike willaims account soon after something was posted on the talk page.
I think that the user account and the corresponding IPs need to be blocked and possibly the names he inserted into articles be added to a filter so that he does not continue to add them under another dynamic IP.
The only thing to do here is to semi protect the pages - which I'm doing now. You can help by removing all the redlinked names from these articles, using Rm unsourced nn names without Wiki pages per WP:LISTPEOPLE as your edit summary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kudpung, I hope this will help him getting the message. I see that you have cleaned up the links as well already, thanks for that as well. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, that's not my IP. But strange coincidence it certainly is. The company is notable, since it's one of the leading business groups from the city of Chittagong. Given the city's economic importance, I felt there needs to be a page on it.--ChaudhryAzan (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware that it was in Portuguese. However I do not believe as it was it was a page from Portuguese wikipedia. It was just a pile pf pooh, still is. I'm a great believer in people developing their pages in their sandboxes, then putting them live, not just flinging everything into wikipedia. I think I'll mark it again, it's just rubbish, in Portuguese or in English. Why should other people waste their time translating this ordure? John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Fri 10:42, wikitime= 09:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will waste their timewith it - not even me. For those who don't read other languages, a quick Google translation will see what an article is worth. The emphasis is, however, on getting the CSD tags right. Silly articles in other languages will be deleted automatically if they are not translated into proper articles after two weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think you should remove garbage like this and make the OP develop it fully before not after. How can WP hope to be a work of authority with this sort of rubbish in it? John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Fri 11:40, wikitime= 10:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an Administrator please note: the editor Raysdiet repeatedly uses Administrators in a recurring scheme as proxies to exercise Administrartor rights: Raysdiet is in continuous dispute on basically allSzékelys and Hungarians in Romania related articles. Raysdiet is trying to hinder editing by simply deleting even properly sourced expansions of all such articles. Claims "there is no consesnsus" without counterarguments, expresses objection without presenting reliable contradicting sources and provokes edit-warring then turns to administrators to have the article protected. --Rob.HUN (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've protected the page for disruptive editing/editwarring, without prejudice to who is in the right or whatever the most recent stable version was. Please seek help at DR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't complain about your closing the article. I tried to explain you a scheme in which Administrators can be easily abused and lurked into acting in a way against the fundamental aim and spirit of Wikipedia. --Rob.HUN (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
have been largely replaced, however there is one part of it which refers to the disc itself and unfortunately the blog uses Flash, meaning it shares a URL with the main page.--Launchballer13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing my article Marilyn E. Jacox! Yes, I understand the issue, but I can't resolve it, since some of them don't have date of birth or alumnis on their University pages. I will appreciate if you will help me find more info.--Mishae (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? It looks like a blog, since it have comment option on the bottom. Plus there is no year date just: "she will be honoured with such and such award on March 25"???--Mishae (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, CNN.com all have comment sections. They're all reliable. GoPhightins!17:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above and beyond the call of duty...
Hi Kudpung! Did you really join Facebook to check out the Don Bosco Bandel miscreants? That's well above and beyond the call of of admin duty. You should have asked me to take a look. I joined a few years ago with the far less noble motivation of snooping on my teenage niece and nephew. Anyhow, the Facebook prediction came true. The young lads started sockpuppeting and vandalising the article on a rival Don Bosco school in revenge [5]. In my usual quixotic fashion, I went off and cleaned up the flaming boosterism and copyvio in that one and two more Don Boscos [6], [7], [8]. Unfortunately, WP has articles on 31 more Don Bosco schools (7 of them in India), but I'm not even going to look at them. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To transclude, it seems like I need to replace this:
{{<!--subst:-->RfA/time|subst={{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship||nosubst}}}}''' {{red|'''Remove the <code><!--</code> and <code>--></code> around <code>subst:</code> in the template (as well as this comment) once you transclude this request.'''}}
...with this:
{{subst:RfA/time|subst={{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship||nosubst}}}}'''
And the link "Voice your opinion on this candidate" and redlink beside it says "Anna Frodesiak 2", but I did not accept the first time, so I don't understand that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluding an RfA is a horrible and complex thing - I can't remember how I got mine right (perhaps someone did it for me). I never cease to wonder how some totally inappropriate candidates manage to do it. Glad I'm not a 'crat, closing them seems to even more difficult. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that up. I have a feeling that the transclusion thing is deliberately complex to be some sort of bizarre and cruel competency test. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! One of my favourite songs - I have it in my in-car entertainment system (along with a couple 1,000 jazz rock, hard rock, and classics (especially Elgar, and definitely no Wagner!); Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So...
AFAIK WP:WPSCH/AG states that Non-notable school articles are generally redirected to the locality article so shouldn't we be applying THAT instead of keeping a non-notable school in it's own article in this case? PantherLeapord (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The full explanation is documented at WP:Outcomes#Schools (note that this is not an essay or an opinion piece, it simply chronicles what is generally done). Please be sure to read that, but to summarise: All bona fidehigh schools that are proven to exist will not be deleted, while primary (elementary) schools, being rarely notable, are blanked and redirected to the the list of schools on the school district's article (USA) or to the education section of the school's locality (rest of the world). These precedents are clearly established through hundreds, if not 1,000s of attempted AfDs over many years. Multiple RfCs and other attempts to get this precent changed have all failed. I hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
some information about Guorui Jiang
hello，i am a new editor for wikipedia,serval days ago,i edit the lemma “Guorui jiang”，this lemma have all reference i can find，but it still have two warnings:(1)This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia;(2)This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. i don't know how to correct it,can you help me?thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activeboy (talk • contribs) 11:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KingUvdaStreet Urban Clothing
Hi Kudpung
I want to thank you for the wonderful feedback and information you given as to the reason for speedy deletion. if you can please give us a chance to make add more relevent information that would be much appreciated. I understand that your time is important and Wikopedia is not a source for spam or not relevant information.
Don't both replying there though - they've declined to provide any evidence of "unsavoury user conduct", and will soon get a formal warning for civility unless they can provide even an iota of proof PDQ (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question Retro: policy and human decency both state that when faced with a concern with another editor/person, you're REQUIRED to discuss it directly with them in order to resolve it at the lowest level. Could you please show me where such human decency was tried and unsuccessful? As you well know, going anywhere else first is merely drama at its highest (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Answer withheld as Bwilkins should remove himself from this discussion as he is clearly WP:Involved. By stating that my no vote was WRONG, I don't think you can have an impartial discussion regarding this RfA. ★★RetroLord★★11:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) :::There are 8,320 messages on this talk page, 5,718 (68% of them) by the top 10% of active Wikipedia users. Retrolord, you are now only the third user who I have ever banned from posting here. (see my talk page notice for more information). You are welcome to continue your 'discussion' anywhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, the discussion is pretty much over. It has been decided you went a bit too far labelling opposing votes as purely disruptive. I'm done talking on your talk page now, ban me if you must ★★RetroLord★★11:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really bothered, as you can see from my talk page header. Please go and troll elsewhere, and if you continue here, I raise a formal complaint. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kudpung. I won't waste your time by filling up your talk page, but I will say that I should be available for a chat later - it's been a while since we caught up. I've said elsewhere that your comments that votes are disruptive are unfair, as I mentioned it only puts the opposers on the defensive, making them oppose more vehemently, making the whole process more unpleasant for all involved. Personally, I think that "virgin" RfAs are a bad thing, those who have them don't appreciate that they are acting at the communities will in the same way. Those admins who either pass narrowly or have an unsuccessful RfA seem to make the best admins, appreciating the role.WormTT(talk) 11:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 85 'no oppose' RfA since 2008 and most of those were in the days when the turn out for RfA was a lot lower than it today. I don't see how it has affected their performance one way or the other, indeed if many of them are still truly active. The interesting thing is that now where the turnout is much higher, a 0 oppose is obviously going to be increasingly rare, but the increased participation is a positive turn, even if many of them are 'one-off' voters or relative newbies who don't fully understand thne system and its problems. . The core of regulars has changed over time, and there are very few RfA 'regulars' around from the time when I started voting at RfA. Sadly, among the regulars are still several of those diehards who either disrupt, or simply vote 'oppose' because they have an antipathy for everything connected with adminship. Even more disturbing, among them are some of our most prolific content contributors - and that's mainly the fault of an overly forgiving ARBCOM, and this give a cue to the newbie voters on the block. It had been hoped that the new ARBCOM would do something about it, unfortunately the ARBCOM trend appears to be even more forgiving, and the status quo at RfA remains. I wouldn't ever want to be an Arb - Like Wilkins and Beeb and a few others, I do too much of the dirty work here to avoid accumulating enemies among the trolls and I wouldn't get elected anyway, but I do consider myself to be among the handfull of outspoken admins who like to see justice done - harshly if need be - and although I can be occasionally blunt with my comments, I do get things done and occasionally changed and I've never been legitimately admonished; I'm never as rude or out of order as some of the Arbs occasionally are. I think you're doing a splendid job up there, but I still don't see ARBCOM generally changing much for the better - there are just too few of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done bit of reading, and it looks like I'm pretty much totally wrong about the people who have "virgin" RfAs, they're generally people who deserve it. It's amazing how much your memory clouds the actual facts with perceptions. The biggest pity about the increased participation in the process is that it is marked by a decreased number of candidates - I wonder how much the two facts are linked, if we were to up the candidates would participation go down?
As for ARBCOM, when you see how much crap there is to deal with, you start to understand why the committee isn't proactive and why they define a narrow scope and stick to it. The committee isn't able to fix processes, nor take out specific editors, without following the bureaucracy it has put around itself for protection. As for rude or out of order arbs, I'm doing my best to keep the committee on the straight and narrow, but if something comes up where you see an arb acting out of line, drop me a note, either on my talk page or by email and I'll see what's going on and if there's anything I can do. WormTT(talk) 09:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt for a moment that there is a huge amount of crap that arrives on the ARBCOM desk that the rest of us never get to hear about - not quite the same, but probably a bit like OTRS. I don't envy your work. I think probably now is the time to increment the number of arbs. RfA 'seems' to be picking up a bit lately. There will always be the occasional troll who spoils things, but it looks as if the community is slowly getting the message. We'll probably have more new admins in 2013 than we did last year. That said, the threshold for computing the number of active admins is ridiculously low, and a close look will show that we're really only about 10 - 15 (if that) who stand up and take the flak when the shit hits the fan. Someone's gotta do it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to point out that the golden rule applies here. When you say Kudpung is banned from your userpage for life, in all-caps no less, how do you think he feels? How would you feel if he ignored your own request?--Jasper Deng(talk)07:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more peep from you here RetroLord, and I assure you, you will be blocked by some admin or another for harrassment, disruptive editing, or any other complaint that fits. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can now add 'trolling' to list of uncollegial comments and a refusal to bide by polite requests. I am now doing something unprecedented in the entire history of this talk page - I am going to full protect it for a few hours until you have learned some of the guidelines and policies here. There will be some collateral damage of course, because I'm a busy user and admin and others want to contact me here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page protection
I have protected this page for a short while to prevent further disruption. My apologies to anyone who wishes to post here. If anything is urgent or important, please feel free to email me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SkateSlate (Magazine)
Hi, I believe i have addressed your concerns. Can you please take a look and let me know if you still have any concerns? I have removed any subjective language, I have added publicly available 3rd party references to cite the dates and and information in the article. The article is just as relevant as any other skateboarding magazine, but I understand the article may have been written poorly before. Please take a look and let me know if you still have concerns. We are happy to address any problems.
Hi Tim, unfortunately, the article does not meet our notability criteria for periodicals, so I have sent it for discussion by the community who will decide if it is to be kept or deleted. That discussion will last for 7 days during which you are welcome to search for reliable sources that will confer notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You PRODded this, but the PROD was removed. That was reverted, but I have told the reverter he's not supposed to do that. Over to you to decide whether you want to AfD it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to find our more on your deletion of my BBQuIP page that I constructed this morning. I re-submitted the page again with links to University affiliation and government program WIkipedia pages and it was still deleted. Mpinkelton (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four different users - two new-page patrollers and two admins have concluded that the page should be deleted as not complying with Wikipedia requirements for articles. Unfortunately, our rules are not clearly enough expressed for new users (we hope that will change in the future), but the two main issues are: It's promotional (although it may not immediately appear to be so from the creator's point of view), and most importantly, it fails to meet our criteria for notability. All articles must be referenced to reliable, independent sources that give in-depth coverage to the subject. These sources may not be primary sources or sources closely connected with the subject, or any other sources where the information has been supplied by the subject (e.g. interviews, press releases, routine listings, or the subject's own web site, etc). For more information on notablity, please see WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kudpung, I'm in the process of archiving requests on WP:AN/RFC that have been dealt with. I saw you make suggestions on the RfC talk page about the closure of the above. Are you in the process of closing it, or should I leave the request open on AN/RFC? SlimVirgin(talk)04:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I wasn't thinking of closing it myself (though I will take a look), but was wondering whether I should leave the request open on WP:AN/RFC. I'll leave it open for now anyway. Thanks again. SlimVirgin(talk)05:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if you could could archive it. IMHO, such a close at this stage would be uncontentious. If involved parties still have any remaining grievance, they will have to start a new discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the problems and I have left a message for Jclemens but I'm not going to offer an opinion or advice here and risk my talk page being turned into a surrogate dispute resolution venue. If you wish to escalate, please choose an appropriate noticeboard and take it there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really offensive, isn't it, basically being accused of nominating an article out of dislike for someone's position. I try to let these things just run off me, but I'm not always successful at that. Take it easy Kudpung, Drmies (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
22:32, 26 June 2013 Kudpung (talk | contribs | block) changed protection level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)) (vandalism from blocked IP hopper) (hist | change).
The page was only full protected for a couple of hours and the protection should have automatically expired long ago.. If the server clock has a glitch, then I'm afraid I don't know what to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks Dennis. I fully realise now what happened and i was in the process of doing it when you beat me to it. FWIW, I always use the regular pp page and not the Twinkle version. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your heavy handed approach is coming across as bullying. I've only recently joined the situation, and the comments you are focussing on with respect to WorldTraveller101 are completely legitimate and only trivially problematic. He doesn't have to conform to your ideals, he just has to follow policy, which he's doing. What's more, he's actually doing good work too, which is often not the case in these adoption situations. Can you please, as a favour to me, put WorldTraveller101 completely out of your thoughts for the period of 1 month? Unwatchlist his page, ignore comments on other pages, do whatever you need to do. You need to give him a chance. WormTT(talk) 07:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The kid needs the rigours of a schoolteacher. I can't deny my instincts from 30 years as a teacher, teacher trainer, and lecturer, but as a personal favour to you Dave, I'll accede to your request. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wanted to ask some advice. You did some work on the sockpuppet investigation for this user, and he is back editing as IPs again. He had a couple dozen accounts blocked and went on editing US independent hip-hop articles from Tokyo IP addresses for months and I systematically reported them for months, eventually resulting in a rangeblock. He went away for about six months, but recently he's been editing again; the IP range and editing style is unmistakeable (see recent edits by e.g. 114.150.47.95, 114.164.6.226, 114.164.199.157, and 114.163.207.146). The trouble is, these edits have not been controversial; they've actually been rather helpful, in some cases. This is a known account abuser whose editing privileges have been revoked and whose block-evading tactics were extensively disruptive. But if he's not really doing anything wrong now, should I still pursue further blocks? Do I wait for him to "go rogue" again before reporting? Chubbles (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vigilance. It's still block evasion. However, this is obviously a dynamic IP so blocking won't do much good, especially as they haven't made any egregious edits (yet). But do continue to let us know of any more. BTW, it would help if you could provide links to the diffs in future - it would save me several mouse clicks and some time with my slow Internet connection. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
