User talk:Kudpung/Archive Oct 2017

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Karen Hilderbrand HELP please

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Mitzo_Hilderbrand My page was deleted and I am not sure why? It said I tried too many pages or something like that. this is actually my first one. I wrote it in a format just like many of my musician friends? Can you please help me restore it? I can be reached at (Redacted) Thank you so much Karen Hilderbrand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khilderbrand (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Karen, it looks like you are a victim of Orangemoody fraud. I'll wait for Kudpung to reply more fully before adding anything else. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, our open editing policy makes it easy for people to operate scams using Wikipedia as a platform. The methods employed by Manc1234 are:

1. Create articles about women and demand money for it
2. Insert highly offensive content into article about notable female minors then extort the parent for money to remove it.

Sometimes we catch these people , sometimes we don't. We caught this one and the article was deleted. It cannot be restored. It must be rewritten from scratch by an editor who is not connected with the subject. First created 23:18, June 14, 2017 as one of his user draft templates of BLP to contact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick request

Hello Kudpung, sorry to bother you. Whenever you have time, would you mind taking a look at this user? They seem to be contributing in good faith, but with extremely poor judgement (Removing a complaint from my talk page, applying for rollback and pending changes repeatedly after literally having just been declined and revoked respectively). Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Shih, Will do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another one

I thought this was a great idea. Another one is needed, though the editor is a bit over 500 edits. See Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 October#Spot the dog. Bad RM closes, bad "vandalism" tagging, bad SD tagging, trying to become DRN moderator (while involved in an DR), repeatedly asking for user permissions, wikilawyering, incompetent handling of edit semi-protected requests, doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS at all, severely defiant attitude when problems are pointed out, etc. Constructive editor, very unconstructive wanna-be admin.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, thanks for the heads up. I'll take a look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

DR

Just a note to let you know that an AfD you participated in is up for review here. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it canvassing when a closer notifies all keep !voters, or is that just a coincidence? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I notified every single person who voted except you, Chris. Since you filed the report, it is obviously not necessary to notify you. And it is completely reasonable to notify participants in an AfD when it is nominated for review, as long as you do not selectively notify. I did not omit anyone but you, and obviously you are aware of the report. I'd have a very hard time notifying the delete voters, now wouldn't I? Your behaviour is getting more WP:POINTy by the minute. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

New plans

Someone just applied for a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation to improve the New Page Creation feed and help new page patrollers. Since you are one of the most experienced contributor in that project I thought I would notify you in hope to have some inputs about the proposed project. It seemed like a costly project, I just feel it is necessary to get people involved before WMF spend donation money on this. Cheers! Jim Carter 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up Jim. I and several others have commented there. If the WMF approve it, it will be another proof of how they waste the donors' money while at the same time claiming they don't have the money to do it themselves, and refusing to correctly prioritise the more urgent requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-NPR-1

Template:Uw-NPR-1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

patrolling new pages under the AfC trial

Hello. I'm afraid of CSD quality pages slipping into article space. Is there a system/method to check for unready drafts moving into article space? How can I take part? Thanks, Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim, after 6 years of intensive campaigning and finally getting ACTRIAL off the ground, I now focus on other issues concerning Wikipedia. I officialy retired from all things NPP in February and since ACTRIAL was launched I no longer actively follow general CSD issues. The place to post your question is at WT:NPR where it will receive attention from a broader community and in particular from TonyBallioni who is now the de facto coordinator of NPR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dloh (and any Kudpung stalkers who are interested), anything that passes AfC or is moved into draftspace has to go through the new pages feed. There might be other ways that the AfC regulars track moves. Primefac does a lot of cleanup of AfC drafts that have been moved to mainspace. He might have more ideas. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Tere are just some remaining issues: some paid editors have managed to get themselves autpatrolled status, and new pager reviewer rights in order to bypass scrutiny. They have also tried a few days ago to obtain access to the AfC tools (denied). There are also some people out there offering paid editing services who claim to be admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, really the only way to tell if an AFC was "legitimately" accepted is to check if the move was done by the AFCH tool. If it was moved (even if it has "acceptable draft" in the edit summary) without the (AFCH) tag on it, then it was moved without actually being reviewed by an AFC reviewer. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Question from the technically challenged/oblivious gallery: Is there a quick/easy way to filter edits by "moved from draftspace to mainspace NOT AFCH"? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi 78.26, after 6 years of intensive campaigning and finally getting ACTRIAL off the ground, I now focus on other issues concerning Wikipedia. I officially retired from all things NPP in February and since ACTRIAL was launched I no longer actively follow these issues. The place to post your question is at WT:NPR where it will receive attention from a broader community and in particular from TonyBallioni who is now the de facto coordinator of NPR. Primefac may also be able to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"I refer the Right Honourable Gentlemen to the answer I gave some moments ago"  :)

We think the claims of adminhood are bogus, at least as far as I am aware. There have been some usurpation of identity but no genuine paid admin. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

With some confirmed paid users having the tryptich of Autopatrolled, New Page Reviewer, and OTRS, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were - 1,100 is a lot to choose from. There's a bent copper in every police station. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Except for Stoke Newington in the 1990s of course... then it was 50%  :) — fortunavelut luna 21:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Le Tour du Monde

Does the page Le Tour du Monde now conform to your requirements? Thanks --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@BeckenhamBear: Yes. Thank you for adding the attribution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

General, and a specific question about NPP

I know you are knowledgeable and active in the process of reviewing drafts as well as knowledgeable about new page patrol. I'm sorry to report that I'm not active in either.

I think I know that new articles created in draft space are not indexed until they have been submitted and accepted by a reviewer which has a nontrivial backlog of a month or two perhaps?

I'm weaker on a new page patrol process but I assume that an article created directly in mainspace by a new editor is not indexed until it has been patrolled through the new page patrol process. Is this correct?

I know we use the word "review" for the process by which draft articles are looked at, and I think new page patrol uses the word "patrolled" but can I refer to that process also as a "review"?

While, I'm interested in generally having a better understanding of the processes, this is prompted by a question about a specific article Brabble, which I see is not yet been patrolled. I'm trying to respond to an OTRS query about the expected timing, and don't want to answer incorrectly. I don't think we have to be precise about the timing but while I think I know there's a backlog of over a month on draft reviews I didn't think the new page review backlog was that long so I'm wondering whether this article, created 18 September, has special issues, or if the new page patrol backlog is simply that long.

I'm going to leave a link to this discussion to the person asking the question.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:01, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I know that new articles created in draft space are not indexed until they have been submitted and accepted by a reviewer which has a nontrivial backlog of a month or two perhaps? - this is correct, and once the draft is accepted it immediately goes 'live' (is indexed).

I'm weaker on a new page patrol process but I assume that an article created directly in mainspace by a new editor is not indexed until it has been patrolled through the new page patrol process. Is this correct? - this is incorrect. Any page made in mainspace will go 'live' after 90 days if no one has reviewed it, or immediately after a NPP reviewer marks it as patrolled. (if it goes live due to the 90 day timeframe, it will not be removed from the backlog, someone will still patrol it at some point).

The current NPP backlog is 15,000ish pages (10 times longer than at AfC), I am not sure how long this normally equates to, but you can check the new pages feed for a basic look at the oldest unpatrolled pages. Dysklyver 15:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I see that @Mduvekot: has stepped in to help, so there's nothing further needed.

Thanks to @A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver: for the detailed answer. I did know about the 90 days issue, and mentioned to the person who asked, but failed to include it in my summary here. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize the NPP backlog was that long—discouraging.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it is currently at 12,896 pages. Down ~2,000 in the 3 weeks since ACTRIAL started. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, TonyBallioni, and A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, with a public Betata due to be released sometime very soon, the creator is obviously in a hurry to get the article published. The fact that it has been in the queue since 19 September 2017 is not so much due to the volume of work at NPP, but more to do with the reviewers, having identified problems with it, are exercising caution while being unsure what to do with it and in the meantime it has dropped off the first page of the New Pages Feed.

Written by SPA Ralum23, it reads like an advertorial and has all the carefully crafted hallmarks of a salaried or commissioned work created in deliberate anticipation of the product launch. The numerous routine reports used as sources do not afford notability to a start-up that hasn't even started up. I've sent it directly to AfD because history has shown that if it were PRODed or CSDd, the templates would probably be simply removed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Just as a note, for some reason the AFD got tagged onto the old AFD page from 2010. I've fixed the error but if you see anything odd that's probably why. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Serge-Thomas Bonino

Thank you for note about requirements living biographical pages on Serge-Thomas Bonino. I added a couple references and will remove the tag. I plan to fill out the page more later.

Nighm (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a PAID editor on some school articles

Hi from the states! Could you please take a look at WvsdSue, her talk and contributions and my talk? It's my feeling she should be blocked until she shows she understands the TOU in re PAID. Obviously I cannot do that, but you can. Defer to your judgement in this matter of course. John from Idegon (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I've full protected the pages for a while. When she asks you why she can't edit them, you can tell her why, and that her refusal to comply has prevented anyone else from editing them too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Bruce Arena article

I see you protected it for 15 days. That's perfectly fair, although I think it'd just be fine to have it on protect for a week. In case it isn't clear, what happened is the US soccer team was just eliminated from the 2018 World Cup qualifiers, with Bruce Arena being the recently re-appointed coach. Hence people taking their frustration out on his article. Hopefully they'll all simmer down within a few days.

Thanks for your work!

Rafaelloaa (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Hello,

Thanks for the notification, but nope, these are not tests but work in progress: see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#An_offline_app_for_History and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#An_offline_App_for_Physics. For the record, we're also preparing apps for pretty much every subtopic. Cheers, Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I think we've met at Esino Lario, if I recall correctly :-)

Quite possible :) I was a bit confused with these pages. As Wikiproject sub pages they shouldn't be showg in the New Pages Feed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stephane It seems as if I was right despite the confusions: 06:32, October 13, 2017 Diannaa (talk | contribs | block) deleted page WikiProject History/Offline (R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace). Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I finally realized what went wrong: I created the page in the wrong namespace (Wikiproject XY instead of Wikipedia:Wikiproject XY) 0_o Stephane (Kiwix) (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

No harm done, Stephane - I've done it myself a couple of times but fortunately I can delete my own mistakes ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Global Wrestling network

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like you to take a second look at Global Wrestling Network and reconsider the speedy nomination.LM2000 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CSD was declined by Ritchie333 after it had been improved.Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

LM2000, at the time of its tagging, Global Wrestling Network was a classic example for CSD on both criteria. If you want to avoid CSD, a good idea would be to create your articles in your user space or offline until they are ready for mainspace. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It was declined because it had sources and it had four sources when you tagged it. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean there's no indication of importance. Subjects qualified for speedy deletion should be unambiguous and that wasn't the case here.LM2000 (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

LM2000, at the time of its tagging, Global Wrestling Network was a classic example for CSD on both criteria. Simply having sources is not an exemption to CSD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mark Gillespie Wiki Page

Hello,

We would like to reinstate the Wiki page for Mark Gillespie - CEO of Three Six Zero, Entertainment Manager to Calvin Harris, Travis Scott, Frank Ocean amongst others. Please let me know how to move forward with this. It appears his page has been taken down due to a ban of sorts.

Thank you.

Please see the instructions above for posting messages on this talk page. Unfortunately, the article cannot be restored because it was created by someone who was abusing our voluntary encyclopedia by writing articles for money or as part of their salaried job and creating hundreds of accounts to this end. As you are strongly connected with the subject, you should also not be involved with this Wikipedia issue, and we do not attend to requests of this kind from anonymous users. Hope this helps. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Mud Monument deletion

Hi. I hope you are having a fantastic time. It is with a sad heart that I write this message. I would like to know why the article containing information of this important piece in Isipingo has been deleted. That monument was built by people who love their town, to comemmorate and celebrate their town and its people. Thank You Generouscontributor (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Generouscontributor, unfortunately the article did not explain why this monument is important enough to be in Wikipedia. There were also no sources that tell us it even exists. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Image copyright infringement, need removal assistance

Hello,

I needed to find an admin for six images that were uploaded to Wikimedia Commons where the contributor claimed work that wasn't theirs. The article is for the Toyota Century, a luxury limousine built for Japan. The first image that caught my attention was [File:Toyota-Century-2018-1280-01.jpg] which was created by Toyota Motor Company. This image can be found all over the 'net, and the car isn't to be officially be released until October 27 at the Tokyo Motor Show. This editor then uploaded five other images which I've seen elsewhere, [File:CENTURY ROYAL-4-714403.jpg], [File:5097659 Century Royal.jpg], [File:Maxresdefaultcenturyroyal.jpg], [File:Toyota century royal imperial 2 hearse 1.jpg]. How do we delete this copyvio files? Thanks Regushee (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

(talk page stalker)@Regushee: Kudpung is not an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. I tagged all but one of the files for speedy deletion on Commons. (You click, report copyright violation on the side, and then supply a URL or reasoning plus a URL). For one, I started a deletion request at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Maxresdefaultcenturyroyal.jpg, because I could not find a previous source. You are free to comment there, and if you can find a source, we can also tag it for speedy deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TonyBallioni, and @Regushee: I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as a 83% copyright violation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, just the images should be deleted, not the entire article, tha hatnote is a little confusing. (Regushee (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

The images will be dealt with by Commons admins (and most of them have already). Kudpung, I removed your G12: that blog had copied from us, not us from them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Seen and done (uw removed from creator tp). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Content question

I stumbled upon this today, Wahconah Park and found that two months ago a large block of text was pasted in that is labeled "Wahconah Park, the Short Story As researched & written by: David J. Potts". This obviously does not belong in its present form. The edit history says that this is the research submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission which led to the place being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I'm not sure if it needs to be deleted as a copyvio (I'm not sure it was ever published anywhere), needs to be deleted because it must be pure plagiarism, or it is sufficient to leave and tag it. Thanks. MB 00:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

MB, it depends whether it is a verfiable source. If not it has to go. Probably added in good faith but in any case it's too long for inclusion in an article of that kind. Best start a thread on the article's talk page along the lines you have mentioned here, and notify recent contributors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. No real recent contributors to notify, but I posted something on the NRHP project page. MB 01:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the NRHP folks found the text on Facebook and not in anything associated with the building's nomination. So it has all been deleted from the article. Thanks again. MB 02:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for chiming in at the RfA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Was this your edit? If yes it may needs oversight. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 02:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) How so, when there’s a declaration of the connection on the old account’s User page?—Odysseus1479 02:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I was talking about editing while logged out, showing possibly Kudpung's IP address. Just wanted to make sure. Alex Shih^Talk 03:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be extremely rare if I were to edit without logging in. However, If my computer shut down and automatically restarted without me noticing (it does happen) fr security reasons it will log me out of Wikipedia until I log in again. I'm actually not worried about my IP address showing - it always geolocates to Bangkok which is nearly 700 Km from where I live. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

On this day, eight years ago...

Happy First Edit Day, Kudpung, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 06:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Somehow I had the impression you came with the original CAT 5 cable. Happy 1st edit day! John from Idegon (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần An

I disagree with your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lý Thuần An. The nom and I both said the subject had no claim to notability. There was one keep !vote essentially saying the subject passed GNG. The other seems to argue either NPOL or INHERITED. I don't see how this could close as "keep"; maybe "no consensus." (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I am happy with my closure. If you feel a different closure would have been more appropriate I will not make a drama out of a DELREV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lý Thuần An

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lý Thuần An. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Editathon at Duquesne University, Pittsburg, on 1 November

I remember that some time back you suggested I should let new page reveiwers know about editathons but I could not find any mention of where to place such information on Wikipedia:New pages patrol. In any case, you can find details here.--Ipigott (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ipigott. I've placed your news banner on the page at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers. You might wish to add that page to your messaging list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you rapid reply. I'll find it myself next time.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Library Systems & Services

I am contesting the speedy deletion of Library Systems & Services, please restore. --RAN (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I will look into it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), the article has been restored by the admin who tagged it for deletion. It still has issues to address that may be the subject of a future AfD discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

November editathons from Women in Red: Join us!

		Welcome to Women in Red's November 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: The Women in Red World Contest Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

-Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Kudpung, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

AfC

Hey, Kudz - who oversees AfC? When an IP is long established, and has a user page-talk page, they aren't required to do anything more to get an article about a novel published, are they? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Atsme::--As to overseeing AFC, it's mainly Primefac.As to this specific incidence, all IPs, independent of their competency levels, are technically bound by the MediaWiki software to be not able to submit articles to mainspace directly.The sole way for them is to have their their creations succesfully vetted through AfC.This has been in effect for years, way way before ACTRIAL was launched:) If you feel that the AfC submission was incorrectly declined, just have a chat with the reviewer and move it out to the mainspace, yourself.Or you can ask the IP editor to create an account and enjoy it's numerous benefits!Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Godric - I choose the latter. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:, nobody oversees AfC. I introduced the minimum qualifications for reviewers a couple of years ago and Primefac and I watch over the requests for use of the HS. Apart from that, AfC is fairly disorganised and has no infrastructure or coordination or even anyone who comes out as a go-to person . What it does have, however, is a vibrant talk page which demonstrates some kind of cohesion among its operators - something that never existed for NPP, for example, until I got the New Page Reviewer group created. I pushed and pulled NPP along its dirt track for years until then. Now I have thankfully stepped back rom all that, TonyBallioni has graciously stepped in as it new de facto coordinator and NPP is now on the highway. I expect he'll be taking a look at AfC too, now that ACTRIAL is up and running. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudz. I am definitely one of the editors who appreciates (and depends on) Tony at NPP, and I hope to hell his adminshp doesn't take him away from us. If there are no plans in the near future to merge AfC and NPP, then it probably wouldn't hurt to get a little project team together for AfC and organize the place. The backlog there is growing, so I start with the oldest first unless there's a direct request for me to review something else. My free time comes in spurts, so while I think I can easily knock-out 5 AfCs and maybe 3 NPPs/day, I'm barely getting 2 or 3/week because (1) I'm taking the time to fix issues, and/or (2) I'm being pulled away to work on something else; a song I'm sure you've sung for years. *lol* ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme:, personally, I wouldn't bother doing anything at all with the infrastructure of AfC untill ACTRIAL has run its course and we have some stats to go on. Depending on that outcome, there may be arguments for or against a merger. If the backlog at AfC gets too severe, they will soon organise something amongst themselves to speed things up. Ironically, they may have to make an appeal for help to the New Page Reviewers (who aren't all exactly pulling their weight either). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm....

Would it be nice to upgrade this block to an indef given the fact that his very first edit after the block was this edit and he seems to qualify NOTHERE by a mile.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
On a side-note, do you consider Jon Brod to pass our notab. criterion(s)?Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 17:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Godric on Leave, Anshitji indeffed. Jon Brod is nothing but a vanity CV, maes no claims of importance or significance, and has all the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Deleted: G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Starshine60: Nikolaievans. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fully protected article on Spokane Valley High School?

Hi,

I noticed that you Fully Protected Spokane Valley High School. Was this intentional? As far as I can tell only one user has been violating WP policy, and those edits were made in good faith. This user could be blocked from editing the article in question with Extended confirmed protection, but I think it would probably be better to answer the editor's request for help. I'd help, but I don't know how. Apparently the issue is that this high school has updated their logo and would like to see it updated on WP. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance for your help! Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Webbbbbbber, I don't see a request for help, but I have reduced the block level. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Webbbbbbber, if I can add to my coleague's reply, please do not honor her requests unless or until she complies with TOU. If it were reasonably sourced editorial content she wanted changed, I could possibly see it. However, I do not see enough urgency in her request on behalf of the school district to update a graphic to give this PAID editor any slack on the updating of a logo graphic, something that has more promotional value than informative value. John from Idegon (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Webbbbbbber, John, I've uploaded and put a new logo on the article. That is the best they can hope for without: 1. Avoiding ToU, 2. The rigmarole of going through OTRS to validate copyright issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Query

Hi, it is some time now since you suspended my NPP and AfC editing, as shown: 04:27, 27 September 2017 Kudpung (talk | contribs) changed group membership for A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver from extended confirmed user, new page reviewer and rollbacker to extended confirmed user and rollbacker (Temporary suspension pending investigation of subjects of BLPs).

This is almost a month later, so, have you finished the investigation? Dysklyver 20:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

hi

hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.124.125 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Please sign your posts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

sheesh

whatever side or angle one takes - there is a dammned good masters thesis in the issues raised in the naval (sic) gazing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Should_the_Reference_Desks_be_closed.3F alone methinks JarrahTree 02:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Clarification please?

WP:AFD states in the section "How to contribute" - 4th para, 2nd bullet point - (my underline and bold) If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so assume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention.
Now scroll down the page to "Withdrawing a nomination" wherein it specifically states: If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic, or because you realise the nomination was a mistake. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion. I interpret the two situations very differently. In the first, it is a matter of addressing/correcting the reason the article was nominated, and once that has been done, it doesn't matter what the iVotes are because the problem was resolved. In the second, it is a matter of the nominator changing their mind, not that the reasons were addressed. Input, please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

almost always the reason the nominator changes their mind is because new information has been presented, or at least their attention called to information they had not recognized. The two are essentilly thesame think. WP policy and guidelines get added to piece by piece, and WP is not a place where complete consistency can be expected. . DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

So are you saying that if an article at AfD is there because there are no independent RS, and within 5 days of the nom, the independent sources are added, but there are 3 or 4 delete iVotes, and 20 keeps, and the nom is asked to withdraw because the issue has been addressed, they cannot withdraw because there are 3 or 4 delete votes? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

As far as I understand, if the AfD has progressed to proper debate (i.e. a quorum), then it can no longer be withdrawn and should run its full 7 days. There's nothing to prevent users from mentioning that that the article has been improved or more refs added, but the job of the closer is nevertheless to assess the consensus, not the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Then either the paragraph I quoted above should be changed because it contradicts the later one, or vice versa. It makes no sense to me that if the issues were resolved that the debate should continue. What are they debating? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)You are probably confusing withdrawal and closure.WP:WDAFD states:--

To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation, and sign it.If no one has supported deletion of the article, you may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion

WP:NotEarly states:--

The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination and close a discussion as speedy keep, if all other viewpoints expressed were for Keep and doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion.

i.e., you can withdraw your nomination i.e. an effective-delete-!vote at any XFD at any time irrespective of the trends/vote-count but once the disc. has garnered !votes from both sides of the border, you can't be the one to close it, for reasons as to why we don't allow involved closures! But, in very obvious cases, IAR may be a resort.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Just strike your nomination reasoning, and write something like: "nom withdraw per WP:HEY". you can also make a comment lower down in the AfD making it clear what changed your mind if you like. Dysklyver 08:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh...thank you all for the clarification. Godric shined the light precisely where I needed it but all the responses together brought things into perspective. My own experience withdrawing as an AfD nom was a pleasant one because the issues had been addressed; therefore another editor could close promptly. I see now that a nom's willingness to withdraw is what's at issue, not policy. If a nom has their sights set on deletion despite obvious consensus the issues were addressed they can still refuse to withdraw, even though policy says they should, and force everyone to wait for a formal close. It could be viewed as borderline stonewalling. Hmm. ^{Atsme📞📧} 11:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

178.208.193.171 at the Ref Desks

I noted your question on the request for suit advice at ref/misc by 178.208.193.171. Unfortunately, we don't have enough admins who come in and look at the merits of such questions. Note this user geolocates to Gibraltar (pop. 32,000) where he claims to want to start a computer business (see his contribution history), a highly unlikely prospect, and also a request for financial and legal advice in my book.

It would help if admins like yourself would consider blocking such single-purpose accts (this user is fluent at markup, not having contributed to a single article) and hatting or deleting their questions. Unfortunately, some users feel compelled to answer every question posted at the ref desks, no matter how subjective and regardless of what policies WO:NOTAHOWTO they violate if they are "interesting". I close them when they are outrageous enough, but there are users who will edit war to retain such crud, and users who will revert valid actions of mine out of pure animus towards me personally.

Your input and action as an adult in the room would be most welcome. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Medeis, one thing is certain: There is no doubt that it has become a playground for some of the regulars who work there and sadly that includes at least one admin who plays along with the totally irrelevant questions, and other users who simply can't resist adding a comment. It needs cleaning up and some users should be asked to channel their energy to the encyclopedia proper. There is currently a lively discussion at Village Pump, According to the User Contribution Search tool you have not commented there. Whichever way you vote, I think you should, and carefully read the Oppose and Support votes before you do.

I've been an admin a long time and I've been around even longer but researching to answer this RfC was the first time I ever went to the Reference desk - and I went with an open mind and while I'm not really personally bothered whether it gets closed down or not, I'll certainly make an effort to dissuade the huge amount of totally time wasting questions and to urge the regulars to either keep their answers succinct and to the point, or to help out on some urgent critical issues in the encyclopedia instead. There's no other influence I can exert there, for one thing, not using common sense is not a blockable offense. I will of course use incremental warnings for disruption to those who repeatedly abuse the desk. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

user:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM for example, has never has any intention whatsoever of of contributing to the encyclopedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Medeis:--I wonder, why this was not collapsed straight-away?! Seems to be a prime candidate.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Kudpung:--And honestly, how could utterly non-encyclopaedic question(s) in the like of How do I find distributors of computer hardware to open my own store? be even tangentially entertained?Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Godric on Leave, Or this I'm just waiting to see how long it takes StuRat to chime in there. How can he claim to be a Master Editor II with only 4.5% edits to the encyclopedia? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm...You may wish to chime in at a related discussion over here.On a side-note, many folks at RefDesk seems to have taken YahooAnswers, Quora etc. as their prime competitor(s).Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

And, in the process, we have become the owner of the ref-desk(s).Feeling elated.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 09:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• What a mess. Asking for shopping advice [1] and not just giving opinions on how to set up a business or what to wear. I hatted several discussions. We shall see if anyone challenges that. Legacypac (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Therer's your answer Legacypac; Admin (!!!) Graeme Bartlett thinks those questions are a profitable use of editors' time and a benefit to the encyclopaedia. Unbelievable. — fortunavelut luna 11:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--And this reversion was just surprising, (esp. after one has already commented that it is not connected to the encycloepedic purposes of the project).Someone point out to Graeme that there exists certain sites in the name of YahooAnswer/Quora/StackExchange for these very purpose(s). Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

There is also a plethora of dedicated sites and forums for Samsung Galaxy Tab 3V phone SM-T116NU. When the RD was created it was supposed to work like a library reference desk. I'm rather surprised at Graeme Bartlett's edit. He is one of our most mature and knowledgeable science editors and a very stable and fair admin. I'll become a RD regular for a while and my stock answer (if I can get in fast enough to beat Baseball Bugs) will often be:

Sorry, the Wikipedia encyclopedia does not have a page on this topic, but you may like to search the Internet. When you have found the information, you may wish to start the Wikipedia article on it or add the content to an existing page.

That might encourage both the regulars and the questioners to channel their (serious) efforts towards building content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I will explain that what I was doing, was the R in WP:BRD. It was not an admin action or a reversal of admin action. Rather than formally closing the discussion with an extra comment, I believe that several of those questions were answerable, and if not by what the questioner wanted, by something like Kudpung mentioned above. However even with such an answer, if Wikipedia can help out with content of an article, an answer indicating the article could still be supplied. Any way WT:RD#Closing questions reverted is the place I would like any metadiscussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• To address various matters, I have indeed (unless it has been deleted) voted above the discussion section for keeping the ref desks in that RfC. As for the computer/electronics device, such questions are the norm at that desk, and when I have asked them, I have been told the name of the problem I am having (often laymen know something is wrong, but not what) and guided to the correct solution.

Likewise we have many good-faith requests for translation on the language desk and identification of species and objects on the science desk. These are normally in good faith and can be backed up with links even if the large part of the question is (hopefully) expert opinion. While not strictly requests for references as such, they are good faith and broadly related to our mission (e.g., many pictures of species are uploaded after they are identified).

It was not my purpose to start a side discussion here to that at ANI; I think commenting there is more appropriate than having a split discussion. My sole hope was that Kudpung or another admin would take action on the Gibraltar IP account, as it is obviously wp:nothere, if not outright trolling. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• After this edit, reverting me with the admonition "Be careful, your deleting lot's of stuff..." when I had restored @Legacypac:'s closure, I am entirely disinclined to offer further calls for restraint in regard of Stu's behavior.

I would point out that archiving trolling is not helpful, as it still leaves now-highlighted walls of text visible. I am not going to get in an edit war, an admin should be handling this, and using the {{hat|reason}} (top) & {{hab}} (bottom) template, which collapses the offending material entirely. For example:

WP:DENY collapse obvious trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Obvious Troling question Troll-feeding response I'm closing this trolling μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Medeis, Legacypac, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Godric on Leave:

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Suits and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Distributors are classic examples, in rapid succession, how Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM, Baseball Bugs, and StuRat are just incapable of not responding to every question, in particular even when it is obvious trolling. I have no idea why these users don't understand why people are calling for the Ref Desk to be closed down and why the users are at ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: As I'm concerned with maintaining our encyclopedia and not a general purpose Q&A site, I would prefer that this discussion continue elsewhere. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: A page you started (Port Talbot English) has been reviewed!

Thanks and sorry for not replying earlier. Are you saying that I should fix the spelling of some words now, or is it just a general reminder? If you're talking about the ise -> ize thing, I've just fixed that. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's all that was necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thanks. Mr KEBAB (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Warriors of Virtue

Did You refuse to Answer my Questions although You know the Answers? Explain?(107.141.87.185 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)).

You haven't asked any questions. Your only edit to Wikipedia is the one above.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I came to Restaurant IP. I’m the Same Guy Who asked Wariors of Virtue. Have You seen Warriors of Virtue so You can Answer my Questions on Entertainment Desk?(107.141.87.185 (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)).

Are you? Well it appears your question was answered then. Please note that in English we do not capitalise every word in a sentence, and please see WP:TPG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This troll has been blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Answer please

Answer my Questions about Warriors of Virtue please?(107.141.87.185 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)).

This troll has been blocked.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

RD. Back to basics and user right

Hi Chris. Bit perturbed by the shambles that appears to be the Reference desk. Surely it should reflect the procedures of libraries and academic institutions, in that it should be used as a point for intelligent guidance for serious editors who wish to find sources, and as R/L ref desks do, enable pathways for the questioner to frame their queries more precisely. Should working on the RD be a fully fledged user right demanding a proven track record in the skills and knowledge of sources and the lateral thinking to guide a questioner? I have no idea

how this would be structured at this point, or what the criteria should be for RD volunteers given the user right, but I seriously think we should be emulating a library or academic reference desk in style and competency. Also a structure to filter trash trolling questions should be created. It looks like Yahoo answers at this time. Perhaps only questioners with a proven track record of content creation on WP, who already know how to utilise sources. A strong admin policing presence seems to be needed on this board. Just initial thoughts. I think the RD is an underused and critical resource, but which is much misunderstood by many volunteers and questioners. Simon. Irondome (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) definitely not. WP:NOTBURO, and this seems horribly bureaucratic. Requiring auto-confirmed might be reasonable, anything else is just silly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

What is silly is the disaster area it seems to be turning into. We should be professional about this i.m.o. I am just saying it should be more structured. Irondome (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't know anything about the Reference Desk until I looked at it in order to particicipate in a RfC to close it down. Having researched it, I find that it's a wild, anything comes, anything goes, murky corner of Wikipedia where some people play games. In short , despite a tiny few who try to answer appropriate questions clearly and succinctly, the rest is a forum of nonsense threads fueled by people who just can't resist answering every question whether they have the knowledge to answer or not - and many of them don't contribute to the encyclopedia. It's a mess and it should either be closed down, or properly policed so that only relevant questions are asked, and only processed by competent people - or better still, moved to a Wikimedia project of its own. That said, because in its present form it has nothing to do with our encyclopedia, I've voiced my opinion and I don't want to discuss it any more . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand your feelings on this. I think your instincts somewhat echo mine on this depressing subject. I shall comment no more. My apologises Chris for bring this up here. Irondome (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Outside Comment - I notice that a few editors express the "Strongest Possible Oppose" to shutting down the Reference Desks, and don't seem to know anything about them. I will comment that some of the editors say that the Reference Desks should be reformed rather than shut down. That raises the question of how to reform them. I would say that any reform should be consistent with the way the English Wikipedia is implemented. It isn't appropriate or reasonable to develop something new just for the Reference Desks. (That idea, that we need to do something new for the Reference Desks, because the Reference Desks are so special that standard policies such as occasional semi-protection are unacceptable, has come up. I certainly don't think that the Reference Desks are worth creating a new solution, but that is my opinion.) So what would be a reform that is appropriate for the Reference Desks? Some editors have suggested moderation, which is a good idea in the abstract, and in the context of some other systems, but is not consistent with the way the English Wikipedia is implemented. We don't have other moderated question-and-answer systems or moderated discussion systems in general. The one idea that I can see that is appropriate to the Reference Desks and has been done with reasonable success in troubled areas in the English Wikipedia in general is ArbCom discretionary sanctions, allowing administrators to hand out sanctions. I think that we will be just as well off without the Reference Desks, but I also think that discretionary sanctions would probably solve most of the problems. The few editors who cause most of the trouble could be dealt with without taking over the drama boards. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Further Comment - I am working on an ArbCom request to take up the Reference Desks, requesting that they either just implement discretionary sanctions by motion, or hold a full case to identify editors who should be sanctioned and also impose discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Wow! <<nods head approvingly>> Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Dlohcierekim - There has been so much animosity from time to time at the Reference Desks that the ArbCom is really the next and last step, if the ArbCom is willing to handle the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried closing the most off topic recent threads but I get reverted. If a few users started policing the Ref desk and supporting each other, we might break the culture there. Maybe, I don't know, but banning some users is a very good start. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

To help break the culture, particularly that of not doing anything about users such as StuRat who hover with their mouse to be the first to add just any comment and others wh encourage threads that become more banter than anything, or who feed the trolls, I'll support any appropriate attempts to police the Reference Desk Legacypac and I might do some myself to help.

That said, as I signed up to help build and maintain an encyclopedia, I do not really wish to get unnecessarily involved in further discussions on this topic and this section will shortly go into my October archive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment from an outsider Forgive me for commenting here - I didn't want to get involved in the main RfC discussion because, like many others, I wasn't even aware we had a Reference Desk until the discussion came up. (An indictment in itself.) As Irondome has suggested, I'd have expected any RefDesk to be like the Enquiry counter in a good library. If I go in and asked stupid questions about, say, the colour and flammability of belly-button fluff and how many Joules of energy are released when I ignite it, I'd expect to be politely but firmly turned away. If I return and repeat silly questions, I'd expect to be kicked out and told not to come back. If I ask a sensible questions about content in the library, and the enquiry staff (or the janitor!) pops up with total guesses and utter nonsense, or spends ages wasting library resources trying to answer my daft questions, I'd expect managers to deal with the staff concerned, warning them not to bring the library service into disrepute. The WP:TEAHOUSE and a Reference Desk really ought to operate in parallel with one another (and on the same basis). One should answer practical questions about editing Wikipedia; the other point towards Wikipedia articles as the starting point or jumping off point for users to go find answers to questions. I would expect every single Ref Desk answer to include a link to at least one Wikipedia article (even at times inviting enquirers to add missing information and sources to the article). I'd expect all other questions to be politely but firmly turned away as being outside the scope of the Reference Desk. I expect competency from my library enquiry desk, and to be pointed towards reference material when I'm stuck. Were I to desire to contribute at Wikipedia's Reference Desk, I might expect either to be invited to help there (based on the quality of articles I have contributed to) or to submit a request for a user right (a la NPP or RfA) and have my competency judged by others. Any other way of working just seems to be bringing the project into disrepute. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes. I strongly recommend that you post your excellent comment as a 'support' vote on the RfC. That RfC may not gain consensus because there are too many people voting 'oppose' who have nor even bothered to see what's wrong with the ref desk, but every rationale like yours is important. I have no more influence than anyone else and there is really nothing I can do here from my talk page, and I have already cast my vote. You may also wish to reinforce your argument by posting on the [2] case about user:Meidis who is doing their best, and at ANI about user:StuRat whose contributions at the ref desk have brought this long issue to a head. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)