User talk:Kudpung/Archive Nov 2017

Since, you are the school-project coordinator, is there any encyclopaedic benefit to list the name of past principals (which cannot be sourced to the best of my effort(s)) and/or the house system at Sumedha College, Gampaha? Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of former head teachers are generally part of a school article. See

WP:WPSCH/AG: Former headteachers/principals – A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful. Long lists should be split into a separate article (such as the List of headmasters at Eton College). We do not generally remove te list if it is not directly sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

See the TP of this User_talk:Maja_Polovina - I just did a G11 on one of the promotions. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Speedy was declined. The tour articles look pretty marginal to me. The first one e.g. has completely uncited dates & attendance figures; the single source is some YouTube footage. If there was just the one I'd boldly redirect back to Lepa Brena. A bundled AfD would probably be required at this point? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion at Zebedee's TP. I think it's important to get a final determination if we're going to allow WP to inadvertently be the promotional/marketing arm of concert ticket sales for companies like

WP:NTOUR. I'll add that if it's a farewell tour or similar highly publicized tour that's been mentioned in mulitiple RS in MSM, that's a different story. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Kudpung, I hope you are keeping well. You're probably already aware, but the above is back on his independent/private school hobbyhorse, hours after his latest, unrelated, block expired. Examples can be seen at Harrow, Eton and Charterhouse. Having failed to get private school in the first paragraph of the lead, he's now putting it in the second paragraph, with misleading edit summaries. I've reverted but I suspect another block will ultimately be required. Sorry to bother you with such a dull waste of time, again! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have time to look into the details at the moment,

WP:TEND. Pinging John from Idegon. His non-school edits need investigating too. TonyBallioni has a sharp eye for this kind of thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I've updated the fees for 2017 and made clear that, if there's any confusion, this is because Eton et al are private sector schools, as oppose to the free-at-the-point-of-use public sector schools. I haven't changed the description from independent school to private school. So what's the problem? Did you just want to thank me for updating the fees? Garageland66 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"His non-school edits need investigating too" Do they? And why's that? KJP1 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง How did the 'investigation' go? Being as there have been no further developments, one can assume that that statement was just supposed to be intimidatory.Garageland66 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(note to self): 05:34, November 15, 2017 Tedder (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Garageland66 (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 6 months (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. See also WP:TEND. Using misleading edit summaries even after warning. Refusing to drop the stick on consensus wording.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have mentioned your interest in biography, I am hopeful of finding some guidance here on how to (1) write a good biography of a controversial figure of some complexity, and (2) avoid an edit war with an editor who seems to have several warnings on their Talk page -- this can happen just because of post sequencing, I myself have had one such warning when I was defending a recently attained consensus via a Request for Comment against one of the minority editors who initially refused to allow the agreed to language to be posted.

Two of my contributions in the section "Lee's views on race and slavery" have been reverted at

Any suggestions of where I may be missing the mark? Any ideas of how to proceed? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:DRN. There are some resident editors there who are skilled at unravelling such things and they may well be more acquainted with the USA than I am. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

(

WP:MILHIST - I assume the people over there have dealt with writing articles on controversial historical figures. They'll probably be able to help. Galobtter (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Many thanks to both of you for the leads. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and corrections. Really appreciated!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakhtar891 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung I didn't realize there was a draft mode to create pages. Is there also a way to test if a page meets Wikipedia's guidelines? zackbates

(

Articles for Creation is what you are looking for. John from Idegon (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

could you elaborate why you removed the autopatrolled user right ? Inwind (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I can help. For starters, ginning out stubs into mainspace citing only 1 reference that doesn't qualify as a RS:

1. 11-11-2017
2. 11-11-2017
3. 11-11-2017
4. 11-11-2017
5. 11-11-2017
6. 11-11-2017
7. 11-11-2017
8. 06-20-2017
9. 06-10-2017
10. 05-02-2017
11. 01-28-2017
12. 10-21-2016
13. 05-10-2014
14. stub, 2 refs
15. stub, no refs - links to company website
16. User:Inwind/Cinema_francaise - many, many names of actors/actresses - stubs, 1 ref

The above are the kinds of articles that we, as reviewers with auto patrolled rights and as volunteers at AfC keep in Draft space. After reviewing the lists shown on your user page, much more of the same is revealed. I would think that is justification for revoking one's auto patrolled rights. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inwind, A random check I made reveals that many articles have insufficient sources, including BLPs. Please note that Autopatrolled articles must be near perfect. They should have no issues that would require tagging by New Page Reviewers. See also' Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thorstein Aaby. Translations (e.g. Bettina Wegner, Hermann Zilcher) must also be cleaned up and attributed to the original Wikipedia article. Do not worryabout the removal of 'Autopatrolled' from your account, it it neither a user 'right' per se, nor an award for contributions. It will not affect your editing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung,

I noticed you deleted a page that I've created for an NGO organization I am affiliated with called LGBTech. LGBTech is a nonprofit organization that promotes diversity in the workforce in Israel and it is run by volunteers for nearly 7 years now. We are recognized by more than a few independent reliable sources as the leading newspapers, companies like IBM and the British Foreign Office: 1. ^[1] 2. ^[2] 3. ^[3] 4. ^[4] 5. ^[5] 6. ^[6]

I was hoping you can reconsider or assist me to understand if I made a mistake in the content of the page that led you to think it should be deleted.

Thanks in advance

Shachar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grembek (talk • contribs) 04:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grembek. I did not delete the page. It was actually deleted by another admin, Ad Orientem 07:50, June 12, who shared my opinion: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The sources above (which took me longer to unravel the Hebrew through Google Translate than it took you to write the article) are not in fact about your organisation and do not provide reliable , in depth coverage. Unfortunately but also, you should not be creating an article about an organisation you are connected with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,

The articles I've added are regarding projects led by the organization and explain our contribution to community. I might advise bringing into the loop a second opinion of a native Israeli as the articles are in Hebrew. I can only guess that it is hard for non Israeli to read them. Wikipedia terms of use don't state that a person affiliated with an organization cannot submit a term regarding the organization, but do say that he/she needs to disclose their affiliation. The organization is an NGO a none of us earns money form it. Can you please reconsider or advise with an Israeli editor?

Thanks,

Grembek (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shachar

Hi Grembek. The pagewas actually deleted by another admin, Ad Orientem 07:50, June 12, who shared my opinion: (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) - that's what we do here: checks and balances. The onus is on you to provide translations of reliable sources, we don't know where our editors come from and it's not our work to rescue an article that does not meet our notability standards (none of the sources are about your organisation). There is a message on your talk page regarding your COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prof Himanshu Pandya is Hon Vice Chancellor of Gujarat University. Why his page is deleted. Please undelete it. Regards Drbijendraagrawal (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drbijendraagrawal, you appear to have recreated it. Please see the messages from other editors on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About your comment here about "outlawing paid editing". I get it that you see paid editing as antithetical to everything WP is about. I totally get that. But as long as privacy remains a core value it will be impossible to enforce a ban. If you haven't read it, I would very much appreciate it if you would read this section on my userpage, and let me know your thoughts. Would you? thx Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did more than just read that section. I read the whole lot. I really appreciate what you're trying to do, and I know it takes a long time to put together an essay like that. However, IMO, you've missed at least two forms of paid editing. On the worst end of the scale there is the thoroughly disgusting blackmail and extortion of the parents of notable female minors, then the mass production of article templates destined for a similar process. I was lucky to be able to remedy the one with some help from Katie, and nip the rest in the bud - at least the ones by the socks I discovered. Those editors like KDS444 are in the middle. You and I have already dealt with that aspect in depth and brought it to a successful conclusion. They have no moral conscience and deliberately exploit the work of the volunteers who build and maintain this project - not to mention BOGOF - while claiming that declaring what they are doing gives them an undisputed right to make a career out of it. And, BTW, KDS is now emailing users asking them for help to get his articles published while he is banned. On the 'slightly' more innocent end of the spectrum are the company employees who sail by and dump their advertorial into Wikipedia without so much as a thought that an encyclopedia is not just another free B2B listing site.

It's all totally inadmissible and there cannot be rules for some and other rules for others. The Law makes no exceptions so why should we? The police will never stop crime, but they can detect and punish enough of it to be a deterrent. If one commits culpable homicide, it's no good saying 'I was America's greatest ball player, I promise not to murder anyone else if you let me off'. Nope, it just doesn't work that way, and there's no reason for us to go soft on paid editors - they are all unrepentant and we need to make an example of them - our stake holders expect us to demonstrate that we are doing our best to maintain our promise to the world that we are a quality data base of knowledge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{( Buttinsky)} I agree with Kudz, and I also see Jytdog's view because there was a time not that long ago that the two perspectives were very similar. I think Jytdog may have been even more aggressive (in a different way) at tackling COI. I have since had the opportunity to watch both approaches quietly in the background, and now that I've had some experience in NPP and AfC, I would not object to having 98% of the old Jytdog back working in unity with Kudz. What I don't know for certain is the best way to accomplish our goals but as long as we keep chipping away at the very foundation of undisclosed COI editing, I feel motivated to keep trying. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Kudpung, Thank you for taking the time to read all of it, and for appreciating what i am trying to do. the thing about young girls is awful. Is there a link to that mess so I can learn about that especially sordid aspect?

You said I missed two kinds. What is the other?

You lost me at "It's all totally inadmissable." I agree that advocacy content (including pure fan/hater content, paid advocacy = advertisements, and disgusting blackmail) will all violate multiple policies including PROMO, NPOV, V, and BLP. That is circular - bad content is bad content. And we can handle the content problem.

But turning to the editor who did it, the problem in our environment is why. How do we know if advocacy content was written for money or just fanhood or haterhood? Or just hate? Or both? (I have seen vile shit written about people by people who later acknowledged they were in litigation = hate + money)

How do you answer "why" -- how do you knowif people are paid or fans/haters? Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the BLP was the work of user:Manc1234. The bio was created by one account, he introduced disgusting slanderous vandalism under another account, then under yet another account 'offer' to remove it for money. There is no point of looking for the article about the young girl, it was all handled off-Wiki and I had it completely suppressed. Manc tried the same trick with bios of other women, models, academics, authors, etc., but who were too ashamed to admit publicly they had been scammed. He had a whole bunch of started bios lined up in his sub pages: This might give some idea of the extent of his operation - we will never know all of it.

As you know, my aversion to paid editing is primarily that it exploits the 1000s of hours donated by our honest users who contribute the content and maintain it, and secondarily that Wikipedia is absolutely not a platform for promotion of any kind, even if it's a online directory entry. I belive Doc James shares my viewpoint. German law has already decreed that if a company or person stands to benefit from a mention in Wikipedia, then it's promotional . Freeloading is not socially acceptable in any context. Worse than gatecrashing a party, I've even likened it to taking pennies out of a blind man's begging bowl. It's like keeping something you found instead of making an effort to return it to its rightful owner. It's theft and recycling of other people's voluntary work.

You asked why people do things, at the end of the day, we don't need to know why - we just need to act on it. Forgive my analogy with homicide - I realise that it is probably not very tasteful and I'm certainly not comparing paid editors with homicidal maniacs, but why do people commit murder? Well, there are all kinds of reasons. There was the weird

Rosemary West, killed large numbers of children for fun. And hit men, who are very professional and very difficult to trace, simply do it for money... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the link. An early version of orangemooody... there is nothing new under the sun here is there.

On the question I asked, you kind of missed the question. I am asking about coming across a blatantly promotional edit.... figuring out who made it... checking out that person's edits... reckoning that they ~might be~ editing for pay... asking them... they say "no". So now what? How do you determine why they are editing promotionally such that you could indef them under a paid editing ban? (btw I am watching your TP so need to whisperback...) Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO paid editors should not be allowed to directly edit in article space. They should be allowed only to edit / suggest changes on talk pages. And when reasonable we should deal with the narrow well defined concerns in a reasonable time frame.

To enforce this we are going to need to have an ability to work with other websites on the Internet. We are going to need a greater than 66% consensus to be consensus.

We are also going to need to be formally transparent about who is breaking our rules such as I have sort of begun here so that this exposure ranks above these companies own webpages when people search for them.

This is a difficult problem which requires multiple measures to address it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, You've put as much work into these issues as I have - perhaps more - so I can't answer those questions. Except for the blatant spam that arrives from software companies, local pizza deliveries and other services in South Asia (which is something we can address quite easily, and do), the kind of paid editing that we are really concerned about is not necessarily easy to detect apart from the fact that the articles arrive in near perfect condition and even often meeting notability criteria. They nevertheless carry all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. We can't second guess the 'why', but it's obviously because those who are doing it have discovered a lucrative source of income. James is right, but we need to come up with a complete policy package. Hacking away by addressing the situation with lots of smaller changes is not going to help. As I keep saying, probably 99% of paid editing is not declared, so IMO, banning all paid editing outright would simplify things. In the light of recent revelations, it worries me just how many users with senior rights - even Arbcom candidates perhaps - are doing it.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what both of you have said. It is just that we have had many efforts to ban paid editing, each with extended discussion, and all of them have failed mostly because (in my view) we cannot know if someone is editing for pay. My view of community consensus is that an RfC would fly that obligated paid editors to post for prior review instead of directly publishing. There will be people opposed to paid editing who oppose that, saying "its not enough" and people who take a hardcore "content not contributor" stance who will oppose on those grounds... but I think most people are in the middle and just want a) paid editing managed and b) don't want to be constantly bothered with drama around it.

We will always be able to remove bad content, because it is bad content.

Calling for banning paid editing isn't productive or helpful in my view because it is unlikely to ever get consensus. So it is not part of the solution and distracts from efforts to find workable solutions. Folks can and will say what they want, of course! Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing is blatantly obvious to those of us who are highly experienced. The problem is the people who disrupted the RfC for the New Page Reviewer right, by insisting that every newbie, child, and his puppy be allowed to tag new pages. They haven't got a clue and they would not recognise a paid page if it had 'Look! I've been paid for!' written all over it. Most of the editors who easily recognise those signs are admins, and we have other things to do than sit with mouses poised over a live feed. Like for example discussions like these which are looking for desperately needed solutions. What people don't undestand is that sooner or later editors like you and me are going to get so pissed off by these leeches who are abusing our volunteer work, that we'll eventually simply leave Wikipedia for good. I have a fully equipped music studio in my house that I'm supposed to be enjoying my 7th decade in with a grand piano that's just waiting to be played. That's more fun than the bickering and corruption that we allow to go on here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just gets more ridiculous, we now have users at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer saying 'Hey! I'm a paid editor - gimme the New Paid Page Reviewer right'. Which translates to 'I'm a fox, put me in charge of the hen house. I promise not to eat any chickens!' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are able to enjoy your piano and studio at some point, and continue here! :)

It sometimss is easy to spot paid edits, for sure. It is very easy in health and medicine for example, where we have high standards for N and a very clearly differentiated literature for sourcing, and we have a culture of high sourcing standards. But much of WP is not like that.

In my view KDS444 generally had low standards for N and for sourcing (and a lot of editors do) and i think he honestly was baffled that the work he disclosed was rejected, because it actually was just like his volunteer work (with the exception of the Levenson article). Was Conso International Corporation undisclosed paid work or did he really write it because the company makes frilly stuff that goes on hats, which KDS444 obviously cares about per the pic on his userpage and as he said here? We can never know. But we deleted that article and I wonder how many of his nonpaid articles we would delete if we looked at them?

I'll also note that Salvidrim and Soetermans both normally edit a lot about video games and pop culture, topics where N is very low and sources are mostly crappy blogs or entertainment magazines that are PR driven, and many editors are fans or haters and advocacy is rife... and there is almost no boundary between Wikipedia and the blogosphere. Salvidrim and Soetermans are likely in the same boat as KDS4444 there, where edits they normally make and edits they would make for pay look the same, but the disclosed edits are very likely to look trashy when independent editors review them.

In my view you are painting with too broad a brush for wide swaths of the encyclopedia.... Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That could be one explanation for why drafts that I thought were so obviously non-notable they thought were perfectly fine. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From someone who has little experience of this side of Wikipedia but with an interest in problem solving, may I suggest something that could (in the long term) turn the tide with business adverts? My logic train looks like this. Why do paid editors in regards to business adverts do what they do? Because there is an incentive for the employer to get their business listed on Wikipedia and have exposure. So what can we do about that? I believe the solution could be to make it less appealing for businesses to use Wikipedia as free advert space. One part of this solution is to take one of Wikipedia's biggest negatives and turn it into a weapon against paid editors. Full details ahead.

Backlogs. There are a tonne of maintenance categories that are deeply backlogged. Even for things as simple as adding more wikilinks to an article (which I do from time to time). So the idea is simple, force new business articles through a separate AFC process. Name it something like: 'Business Articles for Creation' (BAfC). Don't allow any new business articles to stand until they have went through that approval process. Now it's funny because I don't think many people are going to enjoy looking through these business articles and a backlog is likely to ensue. In the long term, there will be very little incentive to advertise a business through Wikipedia because the backlogs will be steep.

Now one of the issues with using a system like this would be that large businesses that very much deserve to be on Wikipedia because of their distinct notability and users have a right to know about them. I believe an exemption for business articles that are able to use at least 10 references from reliable sources (which I believe most large business articles would meet) would be in order to solve this. What do you think? As I said, I'm not experienced with dealing with paid editors so if something in this idea doesn't work, no big deal. Hope I've helped though. Thanks. -=Troop=- (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All the paid editing in Salvidrim and Soeterman's case was about people not business. This is way too heavy handed too. How would you determine 10 sources too? Lot of businesses can get 10 mentions in reliable sources but are not notable. One think that would be useful is being more forceful in deleting non-G11 but promotional marginally notable stuff (which has been suggested by others). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not so desperate for new users and/or new content that we have to accept paid contributions however notable they may be. See

WP:BOGOF. All this kind of thing does is tax the time and patience of our genuine unpaid volunteers who have to sort the mess out like we're having to do here, and they are the ones who will eventually abandon Wikpedia. Enough is enough. @Doc James:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think Kudpung will mind my thoughts here, so I'll give them: we need to stop talk of immediate RfCs for big changes. Those never work. Even ACTRIAL, which had massive consensus in 2011, didn't work at the time because of a WMF veto. It only became achieved because we continued to build demand for it over time and worked with partners in the community and at the WMF to achieve it. There was a policy RfC, but getting the implementation took 6 years of hard work that Kudpung largely headed up.

The single most important thing we can focus on currently is enforcing both the WMF TOU and local English Wikipedia policies that involve paid advocacy. All advocacy and promotion is excluded from inclusion on Wikipedia by

WP:NOT, and the article can be deleted on those grounds alone. Admins are also well within their discretion to block for promotion. As Bri has pointed out at the WT:COIN page, we already know that the overwhelming majority of paid editors simply aren't going to abide by either the TOU or if they do, they aren't going to abide by our local policies.

The solution to this problem is not one massive RfC that will bring about a systemic change, but enforcing our policies and getting more admins and functionaries to realize how big the problem is and to treat it is as strictly as we do when blocking the school child who replaces the entire text of the article of Christina of Holstein-Gottorp with PENIS. That the latter is somehow treated as worse for the encyclopedia than paid advocacy by the majority of admins is a black mark on our admin corps. That being said, we are seeing a positive shift in admins and functionaries realizing how important the problem is, and I have personally seen and been approached by respected members of the community recently expressing disbelief on how big the problem has gotten. These are all good signs of change.

In terms of what can be done policy wise? I believe in the babysteps method. I think there is an appetite to create firm rules about positions of trust, and that we should have a well concisely worded RfC on the issue soon (whether it should be before or after the ArbCom case is a different matter.) That is the obvious next step in my mind towards protecting Wikipedia's editorial integrity and value to our readers. There might be one or two other issues that are ripe for the babysteps approach soon as well, but I've already wasted too many words on this page. Hope that they add some value. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

TonyBallioni, your words are never wasted either on this page or elsewhere and they are highly valued, especially in a conversation like this one; it's just a shame that this page might not get as much exposure as the topic deserves. One can always link to it though but it risks getting archived at the end of the month.

OK, so baby steps then - and I'm no stranger to it sometimes taking years to get new policy established. The first baby step IMO, is actually quite a biggie and already past the toddler stage: we should start with a policy that makes paid editing completely incompatible with the holding of advanced rights. My use of metaphors may range from the urbane to the glib, but trusting foxes with chickens is a big no no. Even if the fox creates another identity for his guard duties, a fox is still a fox and we don't trust foxes, so we don't make rules for some foxes and other rules for other foxes or predatory creatures. In fact I find the idea risible. It's just as silly as the pretentious claim by WMF employees that they don't think like staff when they are contributing to discussions as an editor - no one can claim to successfully manage a voluntary split personality.

Before taking that step however, we should wait for the outcome of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mister_Wiki. The community was just and expedient in its handling of the KDS case, and in doing so established an important precedent, but this one concerns an admin and Arbcom is a very different animal, is notoriously slow, and its decisions often create more new questions than the issue(s) they resolve. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
A long time ago, I read a collection of odd questions in your userpage, that were asked in RfAs. I dont remember the page's title now, but I think this may get a place in that list. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 11:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)This is not odd but plain and simple trolling.By the way, I too have faint remembrances of seeing such a list long back!Winged Blades ^Godric 11:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

velut luna^{Rarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.} 11:57, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Please accept the

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for assisting me with the VVFH page. I appreciate the input. Txantimedia (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a banned user...

Hi, Kudz - are you at liberty to tell me why User:Mishae was banned? Is it related to sock activity? Atsme📞📧 14:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, There's nothing secretive about it. Start here and work your way back to the earlier stuff. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit concerned over how the political slant may effect contributions, and MastCell responded with this great chart. One of the first things that came to mind was the discussions on NPP and "tools, tools, tools." ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know what they spend the money on, there is actually a total lack of true transparency. When it comes to community requirements, they are especially tight fisted. I guess a lot of it goes on senseless research, development of non essential software, dubious grants, travel and junkets. They definitely and provenly do their utmost to wriggle out of spending any money on the things the community really needs. This is typical of NGOs and non-profits who generally squander a lot of money on staff comfort and luxury, infrastructure, and endless compiling of reports, and outsourcing work to expensive consultancies. In short, a lot of the money in spent on methods of convincing the stakeholdes that the money is being well spent - which of course it isn't. Here in Asia I see it all the time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete MarTech Advisor Page? How does following pages credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G2_crowd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising_Age

Please see all the messages on your talk page. Especially those about COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]