I don't think it's something the more 'senior' editors are interested in. They've generally moved on to Wikipedia's real life meetings and conferences or giving talks and lectures in schools and colleges or negotiating with the WMF for new software solutions, or become 'crats or Arbcom members. Enthusiastic younger editors are usually quite good at the CVU kind of thing as long as it doesn't turn into the 8th Graders' social party that we had to put a stop to 3 years ago! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely ask someone not to post on my T/P, but the arrogance was insupportable. I am only human I fear. An excellent call. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been helping out a bit at WP:RFPP (as you know, I recently became an admin). There's a certain user, William2001, who is requesting the PCR permission. I'm leaning toward declining the request, but I would like your opinion. Although they seem to technically meet the requirement at WP:RVW (albeit narrowly), I do have some concerns. For instance, on his user page he displays a "Veteran Editor" service badge, when in fact he is not close to meeting the requirements for that. (Not even I do.) Secondly, he displays the CVU badge on his userpage, although I can't find any indication that he ever went through the program. I'm a bit uncomfortable with that, since it may indicate hat collecting. His editing history is also quite sparse as of late (only about 50 edits going back to April or so). I see that you've posted on this user's talk before, mostly about AfC and how you thought he was too inexperienced for the job. However, since it's been a few months from then, do you think he would be ready for this permission? --Biblioworm23:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Give it time, you'll be indeffed and perma-baned soon enough and you'll be able to take your chess skills somewhere else on the Internet where you'll be more appreciated." Funny, I consider your posturing and derogatory and often absurd generalized POVs against people and imagined groups they secretly belong to, to be vastly incongruous w/ and poisonous to both the spirit & letter of this project. You left WP:Editor retention, right, and threw around blame, of not only the monitor editor there, but also imagined hawks buzzing about just waiting to add disruptive comments. You go around dis-inviting editors off the WP. (Who the hell do you think you are?!) In summary: We disagree. Please leave me alone with your chastising derogatory commentary. I have no interest to parley with you. IHTS (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First a gentle reminder that you are banned from posting on this talk page and that if you continue with your vitriol, personal attacks, and disruption of collaborative harmony, taking my quotes out of context, , yes, your self fulfilling prophesy will almost certainly become a reality and it won't need me or Drmies. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your ArbCom answers
I have quite enjoyed reading them so far. And I thank you for putting your name in this time, and wish you the best of luck in this endeavor. Regarding the subject of Insider Baseball, as a Canadian who played the sport (and still follows it) I am unfamiliar with the expression myself. Outside of my looking it up and seeing it's some sort of book. Likely a play on words. Cheers, --kelapstick(on the run) 23:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the questioner meant to write "inside baseball". The term refers to detailed aspects and nuances of the sport that are only known to on-field participants, or "insiders". Accordingly, the question was about specifics regarding the arbitration process. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Dukakis playing catch with an employee on the Tarmac is comparable to Arbitrators editing a workshop along side regular editors and administrators on the workshop page. The question is, does it have value, or is it a dog and pony show for the sake of appearances. Of course I'm just making this up. I really have no idea what it means. But it makes for a good sound byte. --kelapstick(on the run) 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also, insider trading. :-) I thought the phrase was 'inside baseball' but I definitely prefer 'insider baseball'. Either way, it is (broadly construed) a weird turn of phrase. By which I mean, it is a weird metaphor generally, not that the usage on the arb-cand-q-pages was particularly weird. May have been a test, to see whether people would complain about the phrase itself, versus looking it up... or versus making guesses about the intended meaning on usertalk? ;-) Ping User:Gamaliel arrgh... question was *actually* from User:Guerillero sorry, who perhaps can disambiguate the deeper meaing of the section-subtitle for the curious. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
making AE "fun again"
On a mostly-unrelated subject, in answering Gerda's first question you said "userbox" when you meant to say "infobox". As for Gerda's second question, I will attempt to put some words in her mouth: she is talking about the recent unilateral block of User:Eric_Corbett for a month over comments at Jimbotalk which technically violated a project-wide-topic-ban, followed by drama including a unilateral unblock and emergency desysop, see the arb-candidacy of User:Kirill_Lokshin and the voter-guide of User:Reaper_Eternal for some reactions to the associated arb-case (was called Vested Contributors but renamed as Arbitration Enforcement 2 reasonably quickly). Gerda is asking whether you can state a position on that particular case, of course, re-litigating the immediate past and pre-litigating the near future since the proposed decision is still open. Per your answer to Yash, I doubt you will address the first half of Gerda's second question, but I would like to hear some thoughts on her broader question: do you have ideas for writing AE sanctions, which are less likely to lead to future drhamahz?
Because more broadly, User:Gerda_Arendt is asking if you have ideas on how arbcom can write sanctions that are clear as a bell (no need for constant "clarification motions"), yet at the same time tend to result in discussion-which-does-not-end-in-blocks... hence Gerda's quotation of the exceedingly rare AE filings and arbcom cases which end up closed with no action and/or a trouting for trigger-happiness with the block button. User:Rich_Farmbrough is running partly on a platform of transparency, and partly on a platform that instead of "broadly construed" arbcom sanctions, enforced by individual admins in the name of arbcom but with wide discretion, a less-drama-inducing approach would be for arbcom-sanctions to be implemented as abusefilters or as bots (for instance if arbcom specifies a topic-ban then an abusefilter would prevent the user in question from posting at the pages included in a certain category). This seems to be a good idea on paper, though I have the very serious worry that bot-based-enforcement would lead to overly-draconian sanctions-enforcement. You can appeal an admin, but appealing a malfunctioning bot is harder!
Philosophically, the point of using "broadly construed" is to let the admins, and the editors under sanctions, exercise common sense. The problem of course, is that common sense is uncommon. So in short, do you have a position on how to make arbcom remedies, actually solve problems, especially the seemingly-ad-infinitum-intractable-problems (cf the dread pirate infoboxen! :-) as opposed to just inadvertently generating more arbcases and noticeboard turmoil later? How can arbs express sanctions in a way that damps drama, rather than merely deferring drama, and in the worst case exacerbating drama, or is this goal inherently impossible? Gerda, ever the optimist, believes AE could someday be a kind and gentle guidance-scheme; see also, preventative not punitive. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reading 75.108.94.227 and thanks for the heads up on the typo. I've done all the answering I'm going to do except perhaps for new questions from other editors.. Gerda is a nice person but tends to get into things over her head and I'm often not sure which side of the fence she is on in many issues, and infoboxes and Eric Corbett are some of them. Her questions at the Arbcom election have confused more than one candidate. I obviously cannot comment on any open cases and although I have opinions concerning Corbett, I keep them to myself. FWIW, I think there are far more serious issues than infoboxes to be resolved, especially incivility, paid advocacy, rogue admins, and the state of RfA and NPP, none of the reform of which is the mandate of the Committee. It's high time the community used their enormous power t bring about needed changes. Arbcom exists only to enforce policies when issues are brought to it. I don't intend to reform the Arbcom, and if, and it's a big if, I get elected I'll have my work cut out just doing the routine stuff and cases to the best of my ability and judgement, which I think I've also been doing for 5 years as an active, front-line admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am quite clear that I am for infoboxes and against petty restrictions, both in the interest of the readers. The two questions (perhaps I should not say it until after the election) do not deal with infoboxes and restrictions. The first is to see if a candidate really looks at evidence (which I missed altogether in the infoboxes case), the second if a candidate has visions to get away from the present state of AE for which I have no word. I will disregard all comments to infoboxes and Eric (as no answers to the questions, just examples). Being fair and having visions, that's what I want to see in a candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) sign added by JimCarter08:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also like User:Gerda_Arendt. Even though she is a notorious infobox-criminal. ;-) And yes, I think your question-answers to Gerda were fine Kudpung, and from my reading of the voter-guide tea-leaves, your pathway to election is likely to be successful, which I see as a good thing. Although it is true that there are large problems, the ones you name plus others, it is also true that arbcom should not be writing policy from the bathrobes, or "legislating from the bench". In particular, the AE#2 arbcase is attempting to revise the blocking policy, so that AE blocks are not to be overturned without permission, somewhat like CU and OS blocks. I also see a strong attempt to overwrite the spirit of WP:IAR. Part of the reason that I think you will be a successful candidate is that you are very much *not* seeking to use arbcom as a tool to Right Great Wrongs, and I expect many arbcom-voters will see that as a huge plus. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see someone noticed that I am running (partly) on a platform for transparency. Not being able to argue with an edit filter is close to the point I'm making, but not quite the same. No-one can accuse the edit filter of having personal animus against the editor - or if they do at least the edit filter's feelings won't be hurt. There might still be scope for those prevented from editing to ask for tweaks and exceptions. We get this all the time on the edit filter false positives page.
Rich , you are wrong. :-) About the personal animus thing, specifically, see the edit-filter mentioned in the User:Kww arbcase, which was for a singular-human IP-hopper vested-contributor with a specific linguistic tell. If you succeed in writing a tools-framework, which lets arbitrators create and promulgate secret decisions that are silently enforced by secret abusefilter regex, you just deep-six'd transparency forever. Do you understand the disconnect here? The problem is that abusefilters are written by human programmers (theoretically at the direction of human arbcom-members if your push to make AE sanctions automated should succeed), and those devs and arbs are human. There is a severe risk of blowback, in creating automated aeBots to enforce the whims of arbcom, current and future: I see that *you* are strongly in favor of transparency, and I trust you personally to *be* transparent, but creating abusefilters for use and theoretically mis-use by all arbcom members (including those unknown folks who will be elected in 2019 for instance) seems like bad civic hygiene, to my wiki-eyes. I don't like "broadly construed" either ... but I'm a pessimist that bots && abusefilters are the answer. :-) I will see if I can come up with a solid question about the balance betwixt transparency, and low-drama low-clarification enforcement, and how that can best be achieved. p.s. I have a personal animus against at least eight different overly-broad and/or buggy abusefilters, that I can recall offhand ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I'm running in this election for a joke or something?
Yes, your answers do give that impression. If you are actually serious, well, you might want to get a handler or two. Or maybe take up comedy at your local open mic night. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to take another look because if you look closely you'll see that the questioners are turning the process into a farce - just like they do at RfA.. How you vote is entirely up to you and your PA here is totally superfluous. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you attacking people who are asking you about your positions? That's a [removed name of real-life politician] tactic. Just be yourself, unless you are a complete asshat, in which case, be someone else. I thought it was pretty poor form for you to make backhanded attacks on certain people. It wouldn't hurt for you to try to identify, empathize, or understand the people who are asking you questions. That's the best way to develop a rapport. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have surgically redacted (heh! funny) the off-wiki BLP's name, as an indirect NPA. There appear to be several other indirect NPA problems with this subsection, but since both of the participants are wikipedians, currently involved in arbcom cases and/or arbcom elections, I will not redact the other problems I see, but let them consider it on their own. As a philosophical note, I don't think that the way to improve wikipedia is by sniping at each other, directly or indirectly. Arbcom is a place where tempers run high, certainly -- they don't call it The Abyss Of Intractable Disputes for nothing -- and it is also a place where agenda-pushing and baiting and other such nonsense tends to get out of hand. I would insert some silver bullet quote here, from a famous thinker, which solved all our problems. If I knew the quotation. Or if the thinker ever existed. But I suspect there is no such silver bullet: wikipedia has gradually become less and less WP:NICE over the years -- 2005, 2010, 2015 -- and the only way to solve that lack of nice, which we are currently facing, is to slowly reverse the trend, which will again take years. Though I would hope, not a decade! Sometimes you can get an exponential curve of self-reinforcing kindness. Of course, you can also get the opposite. I think Kudpung is a good candidate, who is reacting poorly to some unfair questions; this reaction, in turn, leads to further problems. Rather than blaming the questioners, or the candidate, and trying to figure out where things first went wrong, and who to blame for the drama, I think it is better to IAR -- cut through the Gordian knot of who-deserves-blame, and switch gears to what-pathway-will-best-improve-the-encyclopedia-and-the-collaborative-editing-environment? Part of the job of being an arb, is dealing with the peanut gallery, such as myself, in a way that tamps drama when possible, and improves the encyclopedia as the end-goal (even when collateral drama is sometimes the result). Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, don't withdraw. Arbcom needs reform, and can use your experience and insight. Please remember you have people wanting to support you. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I work for the North America region of Geobrugg AG. We do have a page in German, it was created by my Swiss headquarters counterpart. They then did translate the page into English. That page was deleted as spam. Is there some different language that I can insert into the post that would allow us to reinsert the page? My coworkers gave me the English text so I can make any adjustments you deem required to get our English page reposted.
Thank you for your enquiry. The answer is unfortunatly 'leider nicht' because you have a massive WP:Conflict of interest and your editor account here will also probably be blocked for representing a company. We have nothing to do with the German Wikipedia and it's possible our rules are much stricter. If your organisation is truly notable and can met the requirements at WP:ORG, then someone unconnectd with your business might write an article about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider your block
23:18, 15 November 2015 Kudpung (talk | contribs) blocked Lembrazza (talk·contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)
From what I see, Lembrazza wanted to add a more detailed categories, such as Category:Science fiction adventure films. As I see he is met with strong oposition. Eventually he got very pissed off : "Fucking godddamn, if there can be sci-fi action, sci-fi horror, sci-fi thriller why there can't fucking be sci-fi adventure?" If you skip f-words, his point is an my uneducated glance is quite reasonable. But this does not mean "not here to build encyclopedia". Please look at his contributions since 2013. IMO he deserves a cool-down block for incivility or edit warring, but IMO perma-block is not warranted. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: the policy says "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used,". In our case we have a real case of disruption besides being "angry user". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We'll end this discussion here and now. The venue for discussing the block is the user's talk page where I have commented.The user knows how to appeal a block if they wish to and such an appeal will receive just and fair attention. We'll end this discussion here and now. Thank you for expressing your concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have read your answers at the arbcom nom page, and I will be voting for you. Just tone down on these "Stop it right here". In this way you will get less enemies (unless you DGAF.) Staszek Lem (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I revised your incorrect block rationale, and I see someone's reverted your page blanking. Since you don't want to talk about it here, you can do so at my talk page, or the user's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to talk about it here. In the interests of the transparency that I aspire to, I have clearly addressed ADMINACT and commented already on the user's talk page and at no time have even hinted that I would not be open to a review of the block. I therefore have absolutely no intention of fracturing the discussion over an univolved 3rd party talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a clear application of IAR, and give her time to think about what she is NOT doing properly, which is to say, she is not running for arbcom, despite many people telling her to do so. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS ought to trump WP:CHOICE, right? Sigh. Okay, don't realy block her. I will attempt to emulate a stiff upper lip, whatever happens, with the various arb-election difficulties we are all experiencing. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not, not run per WP:IAR's evil twin "WP:IYE" (In Your Ear). Seriously though, maybe next time around. Right now, I have off-Wikipedia things that are preventing me from reading up and would prevent me from being a good member. Plus, there are other reasons why this may not be for me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anna, are those logical NOTs, which cancel out when there are an even number of them? In which case, you are running? Okay, I see you were especially careful, and used an odd number. Grumble grumble. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, the article on Aleksandra Dranka has been nominated for deletion despite earlier consensuses by the group of wikiusers who continue to delete everything that is related to the study of extreme longevity. I'm adressing you for help, because I consider you to be among the most professional, reliable Administrators of the English Wikipedia. Please consider, as I've already stated in the discussion about the matter, that the fact of being the oldest verified person in the modern history of Poland not only makes Mrs. Aleksandra Dranka notable in respect of longevity study, but also it does make her a notable person for the history of Poland. One has to have the sensitivity to notice that. Therefore, I believe she deserves having a stand alone article. Moreover, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT are not applicable in this matter, since the age of Mrs. Aleksandra Dranka has been a matter of the international study performed by Gerontology Research Group which ended with a success unprecedented in Polish history. Finally, reaching an extreme age can hardly be considered as "one event" which is emphasized by the fact that Aleksandra Dranka has been present in the Polish press for more than 7 years, independently from the scientific study that was conducted in order to prove the authenticity of her extreme age.
Hi White Eaglet, thank you very much for considering me to be among the most professional, reliable Administrators of the English Wikipedia! I don't think I deserve it, but it's a kind word. Personally I believe that the article should of course be kept. However, the big problem now is that because you have brought it to my attention, I'm not allowed under the WP:CANVASSING rule to vote on the AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Kudpung. I saw the message from White Eaglet above because I have your talk page watch-listed for other reasons. White Eaglet was indefinitely blocked today as a sock puppet of a user who was banned in August. I am a new participant in the "oldest person" AfD discussions, but as a long-time AfD participant I have rarely seen more suspicious activity that would seem to indicate the presence of either off-site or email coordination among "keep" !voters. There is also the problem that these discussions are overwhelmed with !voters who either disregard or simply do not understand our notability and other suitability guidelines. It's a real mess. Assuming you are successful in your Arbcom bid, you may be dealing with these issues in another venue in the near future. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dirtlawyer1, I'm sure you noticed that I was humouring him in my reply. I never even looked at the article or its AfD. Generally such issues don't reach Arbcom but
Motion: Longevity (August 2015) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to longevity, broadly construed. Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 5:49 am, 31 August 2015, Monday (2 months, 26 days ago) (UTC+7)[1]
is possibly something that could be enacted here. There's also a comment I made at User talk:CommanderLinx#Possible disruptive editing following a discussion on my talk page here several months ago. Thanks for the heads up and reminding me of these issues; if my time at the moment were not almost totally taken up by answering a long list of rather strange questions at ACE2015, I would dedicate more attention to to this longevity issue, but unfortunately that's the way the cookie crumbles.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed as much. There are a number of experienced editors watching this "oldest persons" mess. You keep doing what you're doing in regard to the election; you have bigger fish to fry. Cheers, Old Man. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formal request
I've noticed a patten of repeated appeals to hypocrisy (see tu quoque for details) from your account made against multiple users in different venues. The tu quoque argument is a direct violation of the civility policy, as it represents "ill-considered accusations of impropriety" and is an unambiguous example of both a personal attack and assuming bad faith. Because you continue to do this over and over again, I'm making a formal request that you stop engaging in this rude behavior. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to point out that after formally requesting you to stop making rude personal attacks by way of the tu quoque, you launched into yet another personal attack using the tu quoque fallacy. I would like to start the admin recall process, however it appears that you designed your recall page in such a way that prevents anyone from recalling you. Nevertheless, if I see you making another personal attack against another user, I will start a community discussion using this formal request as evidence that you were warned and notified. Thank you for your attention. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished my analysis of Arbcom candidates. I vote tomorrow. I shall be voting for the saner ones among them. You are amongst the sane. I shall be voting yes or no. No neutral votes. Irondome (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advice for RfA candidates
Regarding my edit to WP:Advice for RfA candidates and your reversion: I understand it is an essay, but shouldn't the document that is handed out as encouraged if not required reading for RfA candidates not contain such levity as "While many Wikipedians are academics and intellectuals, research has shown that most are not." I'm all for a good humorous essay here and there, but I don't think this is the place. On the other hand, if that is not meant to be humorous (also possible, considering it is likely true that most editors are not academics), then a reference to the supposed research is a reasonable request, regardless of if it is an article or essay. Potential candidates may benefit from reviewing such research.
You also reverted my change of "Most people tend to regard 'intelligent' language as simply being pompous and authoritative..." to "Some people..." Again, I understand it's an essay, but considering it serves as a set of instructions, maybe it's best to leave out the sweeping exaggerations about editors' opinions? DiscantX11:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DiscantX. Its an essay. It does not need sources. As such it carries the standard disclaimer on the top of the page that you did not see. I wrote it, and its become one of the most read essays on Wikipedia (literally 1,000s of hits)[citation needed] and no one, not even the most senior and experienced editors here has seen fit to hack it about. I don't own it although I wrote it. Please yourself - I'm above edit warring with you about it. I hope the advice helped you. We'll meet up on your RfA ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, true I didn't read the disclaimer. My eyes skimmed it over because I've seen it hundreds of times before. Anyway, at the very least I'd like to retain the edit of "most" to "some." That's actually the bit that drew my ire in the first place. So long as you don't mind, maybe I'll just change that bit. See you around :) Cheers, DiscantX12:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was directed to you for my case.
Would it be possible to restore the page in order for me to try and edit it to the required standards?
Just to clarify, Jacob Biderman is a well known Rabbi in the Jewish community of Vienna and his actions throughout the years have made him a noteable person for the Viennese community.
(Continued from here, but I was getting personal and off-topic):
Having people like yourself who can read multiple languages reasonably fluently (here) and who are experts in linguistics and related fields involved in the both content-creation and the "administrative/non-content-creation" side of Wikipedia is an asset to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David, but apparently Pedro doesn't seem to think so. The irony is that if this community could wake up and start voting for some badly needed reforms instead of so desperately wanting to keep RfA as the one place they can dish out incivility, lies, and PA with impunity, we wouldn't need pages like WP:RFAADVICE or WP:ORCP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David, I am far more familiar with your editing history than you perhaps realise because I have you earmarked for adminship and I'm just waiting for you to complete an unbroken 12-month period of editing. I had a 3-month absence myself early last year and felt already quite out of touch when I came back. However, an almost total absence of 4 years, only coming out of the woodwork to vote on RfA, issue threats, and make personal attacks is clearly not a 'mood'. For whatever reason (Wikipedia or RL) this is not the pattern of a regular editor - moods or no moods. I will be investigating further, and if you have a moment, you may wish to do an actual review of his edits over the last 4 years and the remarks on his tp. Due to something totally innocuous I said somewhere else entirely a few hours ago, he has made a song and dance about changing his vote at ACE - not that I am in the slightest bit bothered what effect that will have on the massive 1,500votes that have been cast already. More to the point, such a long absence can normally be an indication of being out of touch. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An almost total absence is far different than a total absence. He's made a at least one edit every calendar month but one since his first edit, and I only see 4 times where he went two consecutive months with less than 9 combined edits. He's also had multiple periods of >20 edits/month since he stopped editing heavily. This likely indicates semi-retirement or at least a great scaling back of activity, not a compromised account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On adminship, see User talk:Davidwr/Editnotice and ask me first before nominating me. I've got some off-wiki things that need to happen first and I don't see them happening within the next 6-9 months. Once those are done, I can close out some old on-Wiki business. This closure needs to happen before any RFA starts. Then again, I said the same thing last year and the year before and they haven't happened yet, so it may be 2017 or 2018 before I'm ready. Email me if you need details. Also, by the time all that happens, I may not want the bit, especially if (as I hope-seemingly-in-vain) some further un-bundling of tools or further admin-proxy-bot de facto un-bundling is finally accepted by the community so I or a bot acting on my command can do things like history merges, speedy- and prod-deletions, and maybe a few other things without having to ask the community "do you trust me not to accidentally hit the wrong button when you give me access to ALL the buttons?" and "do you trust me to use good, informed judgment on ALL the buttons when the reality is I only plan on learning how to use a subset of them?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to go OTT on my adminship comment - do I look the kind of person who would be stupid enough not to have some serious, in-depth discussion with an editor before nominating them for adminship? In fact such an act IMHO is one of the greatest indiscretions one can commit, and fortunately it doesn't happen very often either. When it does, it's usually the work of a troll. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. Worry instead about finding new admins who are of the right calibre. This year will see the lowest number of new admins ever, and although I haven't checked yet, we might now be below the number who were desysoped this year. And if you are worried about having reached middle age, your now in the age group of my daughter; wait until you get to my age. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
