User talk:Kudpung/Archive Mar 2019

Transphobic rant

I am rarely shocked, but I am really and truly shocked. What were you thinking when you approved this GARBAGE? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim, I am rarely shocked, but I am really and truly shocked. What on earth motivated you to leave such a message on my talk page? If you had done your homework instead of listening to the lies by Headbomb et al, you would have discovered that not only have I had very little to do with The Signpost for months, but I had nothing whatsoever to do with this latest issue. In fact I was in hospital most of the month. I am speaking as a 70 year old straight white male who has spent my entire life in support of LGBT even before the acronym was invented. You guys really need to be less paranoid, AGF, and get off my back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You are the co-editor in chief of the signpost, and you actively participated in reviewing the article. You bear responsibility for it. The only one personally attacking anyone is you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Please dial down the aggression and accusatory tone. If you don't start moderating your behavior there is a real possibility that Arbcom will do it for you. Here is some light entertainment directly related to the witch hunt you are engaging in: [1]. I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of which, how many pages does this need to be discussed on? It looks like ten pages are not enough for you and certain other editors who agree with you. Will one hundred be enough for you? A thousand? At what point will you and your friends say that enough is enough and stop posting this dispute on new pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely hope the "et al" was not in reference to anyone in particular. Also, I pray you are feeling better! :) ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. First off, I'm sorry to hear that you were in hospital, and I hope you're feeling better now? As I know both you and @Headbomb, I'm sad to see the dispute between you two (particularly on his talk page), and am wondering if there's anything I can do to help? From what I can understand, Kudpung, you're still listed as an editor in chief at Wikipedia Signpost/About because of this message, but it sounds like that's outdated? With the article in question, you didn't edit it at all, but you did apparently defend its publication, twice, and from the timestamps that happened before it was published, but it's not clear whether that was after reviewing it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike, I've known you personally for years, and I thought that you were one of the really good guys. I'm so sorry to see that you have joined the witch hunt. There is absolutely nothing which connects me with the decision to publish the February issue of The Signpost. If stuff about The Signpost is out of date it's not my fault. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not on a witch hunt, just trying to make sense of this part of the issue. The signpost about page has you as co-editor in chief from December 2018,is there an end date for that or was it not correct to start with? Then we can update the about page and clear up the confusion. (Sent from mobile, apologies for typos). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said before, I made the publishing decisions for the February issue. There's no need to demand anything further of Kudpung. Kudpung, if you want to post-date a leave of absence, that's fine by me. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that I understand that you were not involved with the current issue, I apologize, Kudpung. I saw that you were listed as co-editor but now I understand that did not apply to this month. I am sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I made this change to the signpost about page - if that's wrong, please correct it! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the update. Amorymeltzer, Cullen328, SMcCandlish, Barbara (WVS), Boing! said Zebedee, Atsme, Guy Macon, The Blade of the Northern Lights, (and anyone else who watches and stalks this page): Neither a formal editorial board nor even a 'team' has existed at The Signpost for a long while. There are however some semi-regulars such as Bluerasberry who occasionally offer content, and comments in the editorial office. I think it's extremely courageous and diplomatic of Bri to take the responsibility for publication although he too was almost on a 100% Wikileave during the entire month's preparation for pressing and urgent personal reasons. As far as I know, he never wished to be tagged as E-in-C anyway, and I would fully understand if he were now to fully reject the notion and even retire from The Signpost. Perhaps he should therefore be allowed the final say on how he is to be characterised on the magazine's masthead/imprint, while I continue to reject emphatically the attacks by Headbomb who is certainly not noted for his tact and cannot expect his defence of one contentious issue to be taken seriously if he breaks other multiple rules in doing so. We are all volunteers, and we should not be expected to be subject to personal attacks even if things sometimes don't run as expected on Wikipedia, nor are we expected to be at the community's beck-and-call 24/7.

Wikipedia certainly does get trolled, misused, and abused by plenty of so-called editors, but we are not engaging with them here, we are concerned with dedicated, established long-term users who do a lot for the project and in good faith. However, because people are determined to turn it into one mega drama across multiple Wikipedia space, this Signpost column, due to its perceived gender-related insult, has escalated to a large ANI case and an equally contentious MfD, and is now as damaging to Wikipedia's collaborative spirit as the article itself. The article has now been blanked anyway without consensus or comment by an admin (also a WMF employee), leaving the MfD moot.

Those who look forward to reading The Signpost appreciated that it continued to be published at all for a while after April 2018, and they are going to be disappointed in the future - plenty of calls have been made for contributors and for users to take the responsibility of some of the 'official' slots concerned with publication and do better, but no one came. Those who regularly read it purely with the intention of criticising it and its contributors, will probably soon need to find a new hobby horse. In order to avoid criticism and comment, the WMF moved its home page to a third party host. That may be the solution for The Signpost where it would not be subject to PA and/or censorship by the torches-and-pitchforks collective (Chris troutman). Of course, there are people - even prominent admins and arbitrators - who maintain a dialogue on Wikipediocracy and other WP hate sites; in fact perhaps The Signpost as we know it is indeed no longer needed at all:

As a contributor to the Signpost (I was most active back in 2009, but have contributed articles sporadically since then), I would like to express my disappointment with the current editorial leadership (or lack thereof). It would be better, IMO, for the Signpost to gracefully be retired than for it to become a soapbox for trolling, bad jokes, and conspiracy theories. At the risk of sounding like an old grump, the Signpost used to actually be a well-respected and sober-headed publication. If there isn't enough energy to continue it at a reasonable standard of quality, I won't be disappointed if the current slow implosion ends in its final demise, as sad as that is to say. I won't be contributing anything to it myself in the meantime. – Kaldari

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Floq was the one who courtesy-blanked the page and he ain't an WMF employee, to the best of my knowledge. As it appears, Anomie mistakenly reverted Floq and then re-reverted. ∯WBG^converse 08:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The only one that attacked anyone here is you. If you've got diffs and specific passages where I attacked you, be my guest, expose me to the world as a liar. But you don't, so you instead resort to making baseless claims about me, rather than take responsibility for what is published in the Signpost. If you want to step down as EiC, that's fine by me. But you WERE EiC at time of publication, so you DO have responsibility here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Every time Headbomb has referred to me as "transphobic", he's been violating WP:NPA. I just chose not to act on it, because the real instigator is Fæ, who started that and canvassed it like mad, and whom I have noticeboarded. It likely won't have any effect this time, because too many people "disagree with" (misinterpret and straw-man) the essay and are thus willing to let any policy violation slide as long as their side WP:WINs on that content dispute. But it gets the diffs into the ANI record, and someone will use them later if Fæ tries this attack-and-canvass routine again on someone else. That seems likely, since it's been happening since at least 2012 and is what got that editor into five years of topic ban. If Headbomb continues attacking people over socio-political disagreement, then people who are less averse to the dramaboards than I am will deal with it. I don't care that much about incivility, so it didn't rise to that level for me, but canvassing plus incivility (after multiple objections and after Fæ was long-term T'banned for the same behaviors in the same topic area) was just too much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 2|March 2019 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, All anyone needs to know about Headbomb is is here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, I don't recall referring to you as transphobic. Your essay/signpost article, yes, but not you. If I'm wrong about that, feel free to point where and I'll amend my words.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: It's not possible for an article/essay to have a phobia, because it doesn't have a brain. An accusation that the piece is transphobic is an accusation that I am. You can't use WP:SANCTIONGAMING to magically make it permissible to verbally attack people and cast aspersions on their thoughts and motives as if you're an omniscient mind-reader, just by tweaking the wording around to shift the accusation about their mental state on to their words. If I criticize some essay of yours as "mentally deficient, evil-minded twaddle", I should be blocked for NPA violation, because a work of writing has no mind; it's pure character-assassination against the author. If you applying an adjective to an writing/argument/position that can only logically apply to a person, you're walking info NPA territory.

That said, I don't mean to pick on you in particular; Cullen328 was much worse in this regard, including on this very page. I'm also not personally actually all that offended; the point isn't "you'd better be intimidated" or "oh, I'm so hurt, I'm going to quit Wikipedia". The point is that it's not okay, and you'll eventually do this to someone who cares more and won't stand for it. It's also a trebly weak debate tactic, the fallacy of argument to emotion (more specifically argument to ridicule), laced with guilt by association and of course ad hominem. I don't think it's any accident that you were called out in the same debate on Godwin's law grounds; it's the same bullshitty labeling trick: "I don't have a real argument, so try to distract everyone into being angry at my opponent by associating them with something we all hate".
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Kudpung, sorry to hear you've been in hospital. I knew you weren't doing much Signpost these days and I didn't think for a moment that you were behind the current issue. I'm surprised by people piling on with attacks without trying to ascertain the truth first, and reading this section saddens me. Hope you're getting better. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 11:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

+1 -- KJP1 (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Great job serving as editor for The Signpost. I appreciate how you use this role to assist Wikimedia community members in publishing what they wish to share. Every month for many months you have invited additional Wikimedia community members to either volunteer to manage the newspaper, contribute content, and judge Wikimedia community standards. I appreciate the sincere and intentional support that I personally have known you to have given to LGBT-related Wikimedia efforts. No one should expect you to manage every aspect of The Signpost because of how often you have invited every commentator and critic to join in the creation of the newspaper. The Signpost is a hub of community discourse and the center from which our policy and collective action originates. I encourage anyone with criticism to join The Signpost in submitting and reviewing content. The Signpost is an excellent channel for discussing and setting Wikimedia community norms about the controversy in this issue and others to come.

@Cullen328, Headbomb, and Mike Peel: I hope that you can only direct positivity and support to all involved. If you see a shortcoming in The Signpost then I hope you will recruit editorial labor to contribute going forward, and also to direct other critics to do the same. I hope we are all in agreement that a Wiki community newsletter is a good thing, and that The Signpost has a valuable place in identifing and addressing controversy, and that we can turn all controversies into a productive outcome. If any of you have criticism or want something, ping me individually. My own hope for an outcome of this is for development of some community policies in diversity and inclusivity, which we needed anyway. Wherever we go I think that mutual support is a better target than pushing anyone's good faith contributions away. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Considering you left me this

6 months ago I assumed hostility was over. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALeaky_caldron&type=revision&diff=856460111&oldid=852876022 Whatever you think, you are entirely wrong to clam that my sincere message left earlier was trolling. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I give credit where it's due. Sometimes I may be wrong. Nobody is perfect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Kudpung a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Civil discussion

Hello Kudpung.

I would like to discuss things in a civil manner with you about the latest controversy.

As you know, the humor article had objections from myself and Headbomb. I do not know the full extent of your history with him, but I do know that it seems contentious. I would like to hear your side of the story. You are under no obligation to respond to me, but I do ask you assume good faith since all I am seeking is understanding.

Here are my questions:

• Why, in your words, did you comment in support of the humor post?
• Do you feel like you have been personally attacked in the course of this controversy?
• What users need to correct their behavoir in the wake of this controversy?
• How would you most like to see the Signpost improve to regain its credibility?
• Is there anything you have left unsaid about this topic?

I can take my answers via email. Thank you, ―MattLongCT -[[User talk:{{U||Talk]]-^☖ 15:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• In re: this comment by ‎Serial Number 54129 (which I understand was reverted). I honestly felt the questions were rather softball. Besides the first one, I really do not feel I was pressing too hard on Kudpung. Do recall, I am in politics. I have seen some loaded questions before, so my conception of softball is probably much different than others. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 16:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you should probably spend less time pissing about doing "adminy things"—judging by remarks on your talk, which are often poorly received—and popping up All Over AN/ANI which Is Not A Good Thing™. Press harder here, maybe. Happy editing! ——SerialNumber54129 16:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

MattLongCT, There was no reason whatsoever for Serial Number 54129 to remove their comment, in fact it was quite apt. Neither I nor anyone else on Wikipedia is in the slightest interested who or what you are in real life. You may have a need to get yourself noticed in real life, but you are going about it very much the wrong way here. With your message above you are walking a very fine line of Wikiopedia policy. I suggest you remove that message from my talk page before an elected Wikipedia user, such as TonyBallioni for just one example, decides to rmake your Wikicareer a very short one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Canvassed witch hunt?

Regarding what you wrote here. It's actually worse than a canvassed witch hunt, Kudpung. That would be a one-time event, regrettable, but which can be overcome. The staff is trying to put back together Humpty Dumpty. IMO the publication has been irreparably harmed; any kind of editorial independence of The Signpost is in jeopardy until the writers/editors wrest it back for themselves. There used to be a tacit understanding that it was the community's Speaker's Corner, one which I was proud to support. No longer. One should consider the health of a society in which people feel virtuous in quashing contrarian voices in the name of an all-encompassing security blanket. The parallels to The Evergreen State College#2017 protests are unmistakable – an incident in my home area in which a group smugly sure of its moral superiority demonstrated that they were willing to literally take bats and smash the offices of those who ask them if their course is right.

Maybe worst of all, the admins I noted in this response either participated in the crowd or egged it on. It's worth noting that the event started with legal threats appealing to WMF. And Arbcom let that threat of "specific legal implications" just slide. The WMF tacitly endorsed the whole thing with their refusal to send out the publication notice. So multiple levels of watchers who are supposed to keep mob rule in check, didn't.

More than a specific error in editorial checks-and-balances, or even the end of The Signpost as we know it, I see the whole episode as a breakdown in fundamental ENWP governance, which leaves me queasy and worried. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Bri, Regarding what I wrote there, one of the problems is that not enough people will see it while others will pretend they didn't read it - even people like Jim Heaphy who I dragged kicking and screaming to RfA and whose election was the biggest success in our history. Obviously some users, such as MJL for example, appear not to read their watchlists or follow up on their notifications.

The WMF has clearly overstepped the mark yet again, and this time with unilateral action from an employee who simply has a personal vested interest. Now they've done it once, they will feel confident that they can censor The Signpost whenever they like - particularly when they are subject to criticism again, which will happen again and again. Arbcom has its own sociopolitical faction that uses The Signpost comments as a vehicle for their persistent misandry masquerading as bringing misogyny to light and using just anyone as a scapegoat for false claims. A WMF that openly declares that its CEO " "...lives in a metal tube in the sky" should be big enough, like any large and important corporate body, to take the anti-aircraft ballistics of rightfully concerned unpaid users.

The Signpost was the one rare organ available to the community through which it can bring WMF corruption and mismanagement to light. I would be quite happoy to never see The Signpost published again (on Wikipmedia servers) - the community will have brought it upon themselves. Total anarchy is lurking around the corner while the WMF continues to operate its doublethink and turns itself into Big Brother. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I do check both my notifications and watchlist (although, I will admit; the former more often). I am currently seeking advice from my adopter Swarm. I do not wish to upset you further. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Commenting because I was pinged and out of respect for Kudpung. I too check my notifications and massively bloated watchlist. I also read and ponder far more things than I choose to comment on. I erroneously assumed that you were part of the editorial process that approved the controversial humor piece, Kudpung. When I found out that you were not a part of it, I apologized to you and am happy to repeat my apology again. I am sorry. As for pretending that I did not read it (and I am not sure what "it" is in this context), I am a guy who pretends only on Halloween, and unconvincingly even then. If any editor in good standing asks me to read and comment on something, I assure you that I will read it, and if I believe that I have something productive to say, I will comment on it. If I have nothing useful to add, I will briefly say so. As for your "kicking and screaming" remark, I know that this is convenient shorthand for reluctant, ambivalent RFA candidates. It is inaccurate in my case. As I explained to everyone who asked me to become an administrator, in greater or lesser detail, is that my reluctance stemmed from serious family problems. I have a 29 year old son with a variety of genetic physical and intellectual disabilities, complicated by mental illness. For nearly 30 years, I have dealt with crisis after crisis with him, struggling to get him to a semblance of stability. My wife, who is also disabled though less seriously, feared that I was taking involvement with Wikipedia too far, in an escapist effort to evade responsibility for dealing with my son's problems. Perhaps she had a point. My other son expressed similar concerns, and my wife and this son and I operate a small business together. So, this was something that I had to work out within my immediate family, and when they agreed that they were comfortable with the idea, I agreed to put my name forward. I concede that I reacted quite emotionally to the humor essay and in retrospect, I wish that I had framed my responses more cautiously. In that, I was in good company. I am not interested in re-litigating the controversy but am willing to engage in less fraught discussion about whether The Signpost can survive, and if so, how that can happen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

God, this place does love its dramah

The Food and Drink options don't offer a glass of Sauvignon, which would be my preferred choice, so a coffee will have to do. It's been a tough time, but don't forget all that you've done. I, and others, certainly don't. KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Cabernet Sauvignon or Sauvignon Blanc? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gigondas or Vacqueyras. Or from my own yard, a slighly lighter and less noble Lirac. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Only thing I miss about life with sobriety is a nice taste of a good wine once and again. Feel better, compadre. We miss you. John from Idegon (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

FR30799386's User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, FR30799386 (talk) was blocked for sock puppetry. Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of FR30799386's scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

• User:DannyS712/communicator
• User:DannyS712/copyvio-check
• User:DannyS712/Undo
• User:DannyS712/Quick-undo
• User:DannyS712/Readonly
• User:DannyS712/Redirectify
• User:DannyS712/Section-strike

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Hi how are you I do lots of edits on Snooker. I noticed you locked Ronnie O'Sullivan's page. How do I get autoconfirmed or confirmed access to make edits on this page in the future please ?> Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnieFOL (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

RonnieFOL, you need to have had a registered account for four days annd made at least 10 edits. See more at WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi where can I register an account please ?. regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.188.198 (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

RonnieFOL, you have already registered your Wikipedia account. Please also see WP:SIGN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi I deleted that I am DooksFoley147 now. Will I be able to edit semi protected pages in 4 days ?. how about protected accounts please ?. My account name is in Red other registered users names are in Blue what is the difference please ?. Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

DooksFoley, accounts can never be deleted. Apart from some special exceptions, you should only use one account, so decide on the one you will always use now. You can edit semi-protected pages once your account is four days old and you have made at least 10 edits, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Your account name is in red because you have not yet created a WP:user page and there are no messages yet on your talk page. For more help please now ask at the WP:Teahouse. Kudpung3 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi I created my account on the 25th March 4 days ago. How come I am not allowed to edit Ronnie O'Sullivan's semi protected page ?. I have also made more than 10 edits at this stage. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by DooksFoley147 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your account isn't four days old yet, DooksFoley147 — look at the timestamps. In about 6 hours it will be, and then you'll be able to edit semi-protected pages. But please note that editing articles about yourself is heavily discouraged, in case that's what you want to do. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC).

DooksFoley147, perhaps you should wait until your account is really 4 days old. And then please address all yor further questions to he WP:Teahouse. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What article about my myself ?. I am here to help out with meaningful edits ok . regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DooksFoley147: I think it's because of your original username? ——SerialNumber54129 12:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Answered here. -- Begoon 12:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: But that semi-Teahouse discussion doesn't seem to mention writing autobiogs? ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

True. I was more addressing the urgent need to edit semi-protected pages now. But your point is well taken. I'm guessing Dooks isn't actually Ronnie... -- Begoon 13:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Begoon: heh. "World Champ Retires To Spend More Time On Wikipedia"  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It could happen. -- Begoon 13:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

to be honest I did not create the account right the first time. I botched it up so changed the name. regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Elbert Hubbard

If you cannot answer a man's arguments, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names. Elbert Hubbard--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nominate me for Adminship

Hello, Can you nominate me for the Wikipedia Adminship? I am an experienced Wikipedian and have more than 500 Edit Counts. Radadiyageet (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Radadiyageet, while I applaud your enthusiasm, are you sure you want to try for an RfA? It can be a very difficult and harrowing process. Many people with thousands of edits, or more, have failed. There's also the question of what kind of admin stuff you'd want to get involved in, which will probably be asked. If you don't really have a preference, there's a list of "admin-ish" stuff that you can do without actually being an admin. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Alpha3031, I can contribute more on Wikipedia through it. As I have read, There's no minimum requirement for RfA. Can you see my past record and suggest me that should I be an Administrator or not? Radadiyageet (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Radadiyageet, you're right in saying that there's no minimum requirements, but most people would have their own ideas of what kind of person they'll support for RfA. 401 edits is a little on the low side. I don't really see much participation in Talk or project space either. Generally, people want to see RfA candidates show that they understand the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which you'd be expected to uphold if you became an administrator. Overall, I'd say take a look at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and to see what people expect of you, there's a list of essays linked at the bottom of the page, where people say what it takes for them to support or oppose, such as this one.

I think most people would want to see 1000 or more edits before an RfA, and ideally some participation at discussion venues like the Village pump, so I don't think you're quite ready yet, but if you carry on for another few months you just might make it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Alpha3031, Got your point. I'll work more and then apply for RfA, Thank you so much ! Radadiyageet (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Radadiyageet, There is a very long way to go for adminship. Please read WP:RFAADVICE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)