User talk:Kudpung: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:18, 21 October 2020

Hi, welcome to my talk page!

If you are new to Wikipedia, please read A primer for newcomers, it will probably answer most of your questions.

Online now? It is 1:22 PM where this user lives near Udon Thani, Thailand

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of March 2020, following an ArbCom decision. I may make rare edits. My email is always open.

Summer greetings

Just enjoy whatever you do! Miss you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

... and today if you want. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliette Gréco

Juliette Gréco passed away this week at the grand age of 93. A true icon of French chanson, her miserable en.Wiki article is one I should have written. I saw her in concert in Bobino , Paris, in 1966. I was absolutely spellbound. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Ridiculous

I re-read the entire episode from when the incident originally happened & it’s just sad that you were punished for a righteous course. It’s very much annoying & saddening. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Celestina007. I'm getting used to no longer devoting 30 hours a week or more to this circus. As judge, jury, and hangman, Arbcom is not a neutral and reliable body and examination of other cases will reveal that it it often takes distortion of facts, lies, and gaslighting as prima facie evidence. The punishments are always most severe when an admin is involved. A desysoped admin is also allowed no appeal. Because they are relatively rare, The Committee actually enjoys every opportunity to demostrate its power in such cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteenth Anniversary on Wikipedia!

Hey, Kudpung. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris, but after one or more arbitrators together with a handful of more users with extremely dubious histories succeeded with a vengeance in destroying everything I held dear to Wikipedia, the ca. 20,000+ hours I spent on it, the several thousand $$ I spent on it, the participation in Wikimania on several continents, the important policies I got changed for it, and the many talks I gave in schools and colleges, now at well over 70 I'm not particularly overawed at being reminded.

Now that I am finally out of hospital with a chance of making it for a few more years, Wikipedia's loss is my gain in time to take more care of my health, the company I run, compose more music, taste some exclusive first-class wines before my taste buds give up for ever, making the occasional snarky but safe and truthful comment on these pages, and above all, continuing to write a book about the lies and corruption by some of Wikipedia's holders of advanced rights, FA fanatics, paid editors, and other greasy-pole climbing creeps. Those are the 'contributors' to the stinking morass of what the average reader believes to be the product of a happy bunch of crowd-sourcing individuals and its bloated, overpaid WMF.

It was nice (most of the time) when it lasted, until it degenerated into the circus it has become where some ill-spirited individuals are determined to throw their weight around while barely staying under the radar, and where its judge, jury, and hangman has turned it into a police state. I suppose one could say that I sound somewhat jaded, and perhaps even BrownHairedGirl shares at least some of my sentiment although she has chosen to soldier on while recently taking even more harassment and gaslighting than ever from some of them.

What I think of it all and what I'm prepared to say on-Wiki is of necessity guarded comment, but it would interesting also to know what Iridescent (especially), WSC, WTT, DGG, Boing, Blade, Bri, Ballioni, and Mr Brown, whose opinions I value more than most, really make of it all, but perhaps these Wikipedia talk pages are not the best place to discuss it. However, I haven't scrambled my PW (yet), my mail is always open, and most of you have my private mail anyway (only two people are decidedly unwelcome there unless they are coming with some genuine apologies rather than excuses for their health or genders, and if they are not completely stupid, they know who they are).

Maybe one of the days I'll even change sides completely, join the detractors of Wikipedia and and expose one or two home truths on Wikipediocracy, though the thought of rubbing shoulders with some of those cretins makes me shudder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, I'd say Wikipedia is actually quite a bit less of an Arbcom-run police state than it was in the supposed Golden Age in the 2000s. Back then the committee genuinely did act as a governing council; now, they're much more of a supreme court. They may be just as inclined to come up with bizarre interpretions of policy as ever, but there's a lot less of them actually making up policy out of whole cloth. They're also far less inclined to interfere than the committee of the old days; they tend now only to deal with one or two cases per month, rather than being ever-present in everyone's life as they were in the old days. (You had the misfortune to be one of the few cases this year they did accept, but most editors nowadays are barely aware of their existence, which certainly wasn't the case circa 2007 when they were constantly interfering in everything.)

The quality of the individuals on the committee may have declined between then and now. (Whatever one may think of Fred Bauder, FT2, Kelly Martin and all the other controversial arbitrators from the old days, it's hard to imagine them being caught fabricating checkuser evidence to try to frame editors they consider non-persons—anyone with any experience of the CU interface will know that this isn't something that can happen accidentally since either two editors share an IP and useragent or they don't.) However, we have only ourselves to blame for that, The Community are not only the ones who elect them, but are the ones who submit every Arbcom member to a bombardment of on- and off-wiki abuse and make it such an unpleasant experience that no sensible person would volunteer for it, which largely restricts its membership to the careerists and obsessives. ‑ Iridescent 05:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your work is not lost. Not the excellent writing and rewriting you did. Not the very accurate and helpful review. Not the very sensible work at AfD and Deletion Review. Not the magnificent effort in rescuing Wikipedia from the flood of spam by helping conceive AfC, and being mainly responsible for keeping it running. Not the start & assistance you gave to our attempts at repressing paid editors. Not the encouragement you gave so many of us during the years. None of this was admin work particularly, and all of it could still continue. We're about the same age, and have worked together (most of the time, at any rate) for the last 10 or 11 years. We both are facing the inevitable limitation and finally end of our activities, and need to decide what to do with it. Continuing at Wikipedia is only one option. For the time being I'm staying with it, despite the frustration of telling endless streams of unprepared or even bad-faith contributors the same things over and over, and the greater frustration of trying over and over to keep our colleagues here from the same errors.

As you know, I've spent some years at arb com. (I of course did not participate in your case, but nothing I could have done would have stopped it.) Most of the arbs are there with good intent to attempt to do justice (though a few have indeed been downright nasty about it) ; I have tried to find the solutions that would help the basic values of the encyclopedia, which is not quite the same thing, though there have been occasional overlaps. I would not judge the others too harshly, by and large the recent work has dealt with insoluble dilemmas. In general the work I've done there that I consider important has not been public cases. I've stayed on while I could in order to show that the general committee approach of trying tp judge degree of guilt is not the only one, even though on most issues it's been a minority of one. Still, I have gotten the committee to recognize at. least a theoretical responsibility for dealign with paid editing, and am perhaps beginning to have some effect on their views of Discretionary sanctions. There have been a few others from time to time who have agreed somewhat with me: they've generally converted to the law and order ethos or resigned in despair. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about ArbCom, the less I think it is suited to what we need. There are some excellent people on ArbCom, I have to say that. And the current ArbCom has done some good things - the open letter to the board in response to the Fram affair was probably what kept me from walking away altogether (well, and that I'm hopelessly weak when it comes to resolving to leave). But, in this session, ArbCom cases have produced some seriously wrong results. I've seen suggestions, and it's my opinion too, that some current members of the committee have been driven by a desire to flex their muscles and prove they're not inffective in cases against admins - and there are a lot of folk who do regularly accuse them of protecting others in power. I'm also disturbed by ArbCom judging cases where one of the protagonists is one of their own members. So I could put it down to the individuals who voted for harsh remedies, and just suggest voting them out. But I think the problem is deeper than that. Somehow, ArbCom as an institution does not work well, in my view. I've been through quite a few ArbCom elections now, and no matter who we vote for, we end up with the same fundamental problems. But what frustrates me most of all is that I have no idea what the solution might be. All I can think to do myself is to vote against the existence of ArbCom as whole by opposing all candidates who stand in ArbCom elections, and that is what I intend to do this time. And I'll just hope that at least some of the efforts of our best contributors (who are increasingly becoming ex-contributors) survive the inevitable descent into mediocrity from the ever decreasing academic ability of the average newcomer taking their place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things about spending way too much time on Quora, is that it does give me an appreciation that there are worse ways of doing things than Wikipedia. But I'm also conscious that there have been times when the WMF has shown more than a whiff of contempt towards the volunteers of this community. I haven't followed arbcom for a while, but there did seem to be a pattern a few months back in their losing us admins who weren't US males. My early years on Wikipedia overlapped with the eight years I spent as a trustee of a Housing Association, and I remember the consternation among certain staffers there when I sat on a third stage complaint, ruled in favour of the tenant, but required her to let us install a sound absorbing rubber mat under her washing machine. Many at the WMF, some of our fellow editors and I suspect some Arbs are still young enough to think of the world in black and white rather than shades of grey. I suspect there is a link to the Foundation and its T&S team with their idea of a cross cultural code of conduct that seeks to impose a certain subset of US values on the world, and probably won't consider it as harassment to criticise an admin for enforcing a policy that you disagree with but can't be bothered to try and change. It just so happens that I share more of those values than the vast majority of people do, so I could just lay in some popcorn or alternatively play Cassandra. That said I'd rather have the current situation where the WMF wants to raise standards of behaviour without always being open as to what they want to raise, than the situation of about a decade ago when the WMF had much lower standards of behaviour than the community, and we had a CEO who stood by a staffer who had "joked" about murdering or raping community members. You will remember the months that it took us and ScottyWong to convince the WMF that their figure of 30% of longterm community members were former vandals was incorrect (30% of all accounts and 30% of the editors who then had the highest edit counts had at some point been blocked, but the true lesson from that is that if you stay here long enough the possibility that you will accidentally block someone, probably yourself, passes 25% - we also found some edit warrers and copyright violation blocks, but none of those thousand had been vandals). If we had gone straight to Wikipediocracy or similar it would have saved months in getting the WMF to drop that stat, but the true lesson was that stat evidenced the attitude that many in the WMF had to the community, and organisations don't respond well when you show evidence that contradicts their core beliefs. Kudpung, you are at your best when you choose your battles wisely and your allies from among the least obvious. I'm delighted to hear that you are out of hospital, I hope in time you can return to considering this project from a glass half full perspective rather than a glass half empty one. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have much to add to the voices above - I've read through their comments with interest and largely found myself agreeing with them. Like DGG, I kept out of your case, but I have seen the committee from the other side and I don't see it as a terrible thing. The members are trying to do their best under the circumstances, they take their time and deliberate on their decisions, based upon the information they have. There certainly are worse ways of doing things than the way Wikipedia does, even if there are better ones - and given the volunteer style system and the vast size of the project, I personally cannot envisage a better system than the one we have. That said, I am a bear of very little brain, and am certainly willing to be proven wrong on that. In the mean time though, we have a system where the community largely polices itself and the Arbcom acts as a buffer between those issues that the community cannot handle and the external forces. I know the longer I remain on the committee, the more toll it takes on me personally, from the mud slung to the difficult decisions made - one day I'll walk away, and I've got to say, I do think my last day will come before yours, Kudpung. Worm^TT(talk) 12:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On average, the committee is not worse than it was 15 years ago, and maybe better. On average. That doesn't mean they always get it right. To be honest, my concern is with the Foundation, not Arb. We can at least vote Arb out if we don't like the members, but the recent power grab by the Foundation, and the weak follow up, demonstrate there are political elements at play at Wikipedia. I still hold my nose when I log in, and only do so because I believe in the mission, but not the "rulers" of the place. By decades end, I would expect Arb to be gone and those functions being taken over by the paid employees, who have no accountability to the greater community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, those of you, who have commented here. In all honesty I didn't really expect anyone to bother responding to the pings and I'm overwhelmed by so many kind words and suggestions. We have all had our moments as admins and when baited relentlessly for years by the same people, can occasionally fall slightly short of the mock politeness and pseudo tolerance that is expected around here. Some relatively new users are indeed totally disruptive and deliberately try our patience and fake their indignation all the way to ANI. Many regular users, however, sadly including even admins, Arbcom members, and (former) stewards truly contribute to the disharmony of Wikipedia's back office with their personal attacks, and gaslighting, and overly severe use of the blocking tool, and are quite ostensibly allowed to get away with it. Unfortunately, when push comes to shove, the ensuing loss of truly knowledgeable and industrious volunteers due to the peanut gallery at ANI or the reluctance of Arbcom to fully examine the claims before declaring them as facts, sometimes leaves a gap that is hard to fill. I'm not thinking so much about myself, but about other leaders of some essential Wikiprojects, pioneers of some processes, CUs, admins and other functionaries or people with invaluable institutional memories, who have either been forced out by process, or retired or handed in their tools in disgust.

@DGG: (actually the nicest, kindest, wisest, and most hospitable Wikipedian it's been a privilege and great honour to work with); Iridescent, who maintains Wikipedia's best blog, (and who like me, doesn't beat round the the bush), and whose writings incidentally also provide some seriously and badly needed comic relief; WSC, a personal friend and mentor from my very earliest days; WTT whose sagacity is often unparalleled; Boing, another great personal friend who always hits every nail squarely on the head; Blade whose determination and encouragement greatly contributed to the introduction of ACTRIAL and reforms of AfC and NPP; Bri whose indefatigable efforts avoid The Signpost from going completely out of print; Tony, who while Arbcom still exists should be on it but I would respect his desire for not wanting to have anything to do with it; Dennis who created WER but ironically ended up taking Wikbreaks himself out of disgust; and let's not forget Scottywong's immaculate data mining either, nor Bluerasberry, envoy extraordinaire, whose regular contributions to The Signpost, outreach, heath projects, and support of minority groups are far more important than even he realises himself (from me he gets a big hug every time we meet). And finally a word for dear Atsme whom I hadn't pinged (my apologies): Keep making trouble - of the right kind - but for heaven's sake, watch your back.

If I were privileged and important enough to create a team to lead Wikpedia into a better place, you would all be be on it, and if you were once a friend or someone I successfully nominated for Admin and I haven't mentioned you, don't take offence. The work of the WMF would be reduced to collecting the donations our work generates, and maintaining the servers. There would be no need for junkets on a trip that would fill an A320 or need for a mobile office at 36,000ft, there would be no WMF employees allowed anywhere near a Board of Trustees, there would be compensation for the volunteers who write most of the scripts and routines that make our policing of the project somewhat easier; and there would be food and drink enough to go round at Wikimania beyond the privileged celebrity guests and WMF employees, and attendees would be able to sleep in proper beds rather than bunks in a ten-man/woman backpackers' dorm, and the event would be run and managed by properly experienced event organisation graduates rather than every year by an ad hoc group of friends who have voted each other into a conference 'committee'. Wikipedia would get a new, modern page design, and Mr Wales would abdicate or be retired and can take a walk in the Internet Hall of Fame and his talk page archived and FP'd.

I still remain adamant therefore that Arbcom and its ridiculous layers of bureaucracy that would even baffle a British barrister needs totally rethinking from the ground up, 'We take ourselves too seriously, We're just an encyclopedia.'–DGG, and that the Community should keep ideas like BARC coming even if they don't immediately bear fruit. There are indeed a few good people in Arbcom, some of whom do in fact have the RL experience and maturity to fit the role and are, or have been, stalwarts of the process such as Risker and NYB. Arbitration Committee Elections however, are nowadays a total farce as some of us would be forced to admit. An election where tens of thousands of disinterested content editors and not-yet-blocked miscreants are expressly invited to vote anonymously at the click of a mouse after reading (or even writing) 'Candidate Guides' that are often vicious vindictive lies and blockable PA anywhere else. The blatant gaslighting, provocation, and PA in the so-called questions sections (also often by sitting Arbitrators), is less serious than some of the games played at a 7-year-old's birthday party in someone's living room. The whole thing is about as honest, reflected, and reliable as a British BREXIT referendum - or nowadays a US presidential election.

The fact that there are often barely enough candidates to fill the vacant seats means that some of them (possibly the 'careerists and obsessives') will be elected however unsuited they may be for such a task. The high rate of absence and/or drop out (or even kick-out) must surely be indicative that something is rotten in the state of Arbcom, and it's not possible to simply just vote them out of their one or two year terms.

Among the 620 other users who watch my talk page, to those who skulk around whether with advanced privileges or not, making other dedicated volunteers feel miserable and inadequate, and among the 2,743 users who have edited this page, the six or seven (that's all it was) sly trolls and/or high-privilege abusers (including even a former steward) whom I respectfully asked to piss off and not come back (though some of them didn't even have the decency to respect that request), and which the 'wise' Arbcom used as a FoF for my desysoping, the sooner the community exposes you for what you are and gets rid of you, so much the bloody better, including those who have joined Wikipedia with the sole purpose of climbing up its greasy pole and sport that silly 'I wanna be an admin' userbox on their page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, you didn't ping me, but you gave me a nice kitten, and I just came to give you some apples in return. I believe that the importance of arbcom is overestimated, and I hope you'll be given seven more years to see that what seemed a problem may simply disappear. Enjoy life, and do on Wikipedia only what helps you doing so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudz...I have always appreciated your brilliance, the outstanding contributions you've made to WP, and the opportunity I was afforded to work with you at NPP. If ever I find myself in your part of the world - at WikiMania, perhaps - it would be an honor to finally meet you in person. You are forever in my thoughts. Atsme 💬 📧 11:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we see you editing merrily on the 15th anniversary I hope you stick around, and that your edits here are increased. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning me, Kudpung. I took quite a long break from WP (several years) and have started to slowly come back to doing some tasks here and there. I was at least fastidious enough to make enough edits to not lose my admin status during my long break. The things that pushed me away from WP were numerous: the disappointing failure of ACTRIAL thanks to the WMF, being outed and threatened by trolls on Wikipediocracy, and just generally having less free time due to a growing career and other real-life events. But I still look back fondly on the times when I spent a lot of time here. There was a large phase of my time here when I was learning a lot about coding. I was coding tools in Python on Toolserver, learning the basics of HTML/Javascript/CSS, and fumbling around with SQL to explore data mining of the WP databases. I did these things mostly because I found them interesting and fun, but you played a large part in harnessing my newfound skills and turning them into something useful, in the form of asking me to find various stats and proposing new tools to be created. So, thanks for that. If you ever find a way to return to WP in a way that is enjoyable rather than stressful, I'm sure you'll be welcomed back by everyone. If WP remains a sore spot that you don't like to touch, then take my advice: don't come back. Life is short, and you should spend your time on the things that make you happiest. Hope you're well, take care. ‑Scottywong | [speak] || 16:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user ...
... has thoughts that make him a force to be reckoned with!

K thanks for the ping. You have enough barnstars already but do you have your own Vulcan? Well, here's one of those for you. Use it wisely. Bri.public (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Count me among those who hope you feel more inspired at some point. At least I'll keep on trying to make it the best place it can be, sometimes I like to step back and just do the simple things; keeping out of the center of the latest hubbub helps a lot, since said theatrics rarely intersect with what I'm working on here. The WMF I'm sure still has no great love for me either, but then that's not very different from my rather solitary existence in real life. But for a good fight that does matter, I'd want to be on your side of things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found out about this from something I saw on someone else's talk page, and I want to stop by to offer my best wishes as well. As you know, I too am in a... well, somewhat alienated state. And I clearly remember you taking notice of it in a very kind comment that did not go unnoticed. I could go on and on about this, but I won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have much to add to what's already been said here. In my case, there have been changes in my life and I've had to re-evaluate a few things. I know there are a lot of alienated people who I don't think will ever be on Wikipedia again much, in some cases if at all, and that's a shame. There's a lot less "meta" discussion on my talk page these days, I don't tend to get involved in major RfCs anymore, and to be honest I'm content now to just sit at the back and write a bit of content most of the time. I think we've made some significant improvements with WP:ACPERM which has helped things a bit, to the state where certain CSD criteria just don't seem to be as important as they once were. I think the team that you mention upthread would be good, I haven't got any solutions to Arbcom other than I wouldn't want to be anywhere near it. I still think we need to do something about the user interface, tools like Reply-Link help, but to be honest I've got no confidence the WMF will deliver what the community actually need, and it'll be left to enterprising (pun intended) third-party developers to plug the gap. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply crazy busy in real life currently. Of late I’ve come to think more like Boing! said Zebedee’s response here. I was discussing with Risker a few nights ago that I think the community/committee learned the wrong lesson from the Fram drama: namely that the people who work difficult areas and get burnt out doing good work are held to a significantly higher standard than those who are the cause of the burnout. The whole situation isn’t good, and you can make an argument that pre-Fram the community didn’t hold those who did the grunt work needed to make the place run accountable, but I feel that we’ve over corrected after and have to an extent the opposite problem now. At some point I might write an essay about it, but my thoughts aren’t that refined right now. I’ll say this, though, the solution to people being grumpy because they’ve put up with years of crazy people on the internet is not to side with the nice crazy people and tell the grumpy ones not to let the door hit them on the way out. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, please ping me if you ever write that essay. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped this thread would peter out, but since it hasn't, I'm going to take a second bite at the cherry, and be a little more clear about my thoughts. Kudpung, Wikipedia is not a police state. Arbcom is not judge, jury and executioner. Honestly, Arbcom does very little on-wiki these days, but instead acts as a breakwater, holding back the cruel ocean, the harassment, the stupidity, the worst of the worst. I have done my damnedest to not read the case regarding you, because I consider you a friend and I really don't want to taint that. There are few I consider friends on Wikipedia, because I was burned so badly by trusting another early in my wiki-career. So understand that it pains me to say this - having now looked at the case, I think the decision to desysop you was the correct one. Some of the actions you have taken over the past few years, and the manner in which you have expressed them shown that you have become jaded, and acting as an admin in that manner does more harm to the project than good. That does not diminish the hard work that you have put in over the years, the importance of the systems you've put in at NPP, the research and shepherding at RfA, the articles you've written or the many other contributions to the project.
What needs to stop, though, is sowing the seeds of discontent. Increasing the us vs them mentality. The arbitrators I am working with on the 2020 committee are amongst the best I've worked with, each clearly has the project at their heart. I believe this is the first year where I can honestly say I would vote every single one back in. Sure, I disagree with some outcomes - it would be madness if I didn't. I'm sure I've pissed off a majority of them with my BHG RfA nomination, but none have treated me any worse for doing so. So when I see people in this section criticising the people who I'm working with, day in, day out - who are giving their all to help wikipedia, who are consistently berated for doing so, it saddens me greatly.
Some specifics. Iridescent, Bradv did not fabricate CU data, nor do I believe he would. I have worked with Brad as a clerk and an arbitrator, he is keen, forthright in his views and appears to be fundamentally honest. He has my respect, and my trust. I find it stunning that you would talk about the "bombardment of abuse" Arbcom members take while throwing shade in the same paragraph. DGG That "downright nasty" comment was out of line. If you believe someone is being downright nasty on the committee, you are in a relatively unique position to be able do something about it. Throwing it around on a users talk page just increases the us and them attitude and does nothing for project cohesion. I've read through the case, and while I have no doubt it was a horrible experience for Kudpung, I see nothing that was downright nasty. TonyBallioni if a person is no longer fulfilling a role due to putting up with crazy people of years, then they need to stop sitting in that role. It's the reason I left Arbcom in 2014, and I look back at my comments during the year afterwards and see how jaded I had become. Call it grumpy if you like but the fact stays the same, the grumpiness causes more discontent around the project.
What this all comes down to is remembering that every person here and on Arbcom, is a person. A person who had dedicated years of their life to making this encyclopedia what it is today. You may disagree with decisions made, but that doesn't mean the person isn't acting in what they believe is the best interests of the encyclopedia. Right now, I have a lot going on off-wiki (all good) - and I am distinctly upset by a decision made by WMF - and have been for a good many months. So I don't have a lot of inclination to remain as a member of this encyclopedia and were there a hill for me to die on, I expect I'd be making a last stand. Instead, I'm sitting on a fence that shouldn't exist - with excellent people on both sides. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 278: / Line 278: @@
 *Apologies for the late reply crazy busy in real life currently. Of late I’ve come to think more like {{u|Boing! said Zebedee}}’s response here. I was discussing with Risker a few nights ago that I think the community/committee learned the wrong lesson from the Fram drama: namely that the people who work difficult areas and get burnt out doing good work are held to a significantly higher standard than those who are the cause of the burnout. The whole situation isn’t good, and you can make an argument that pre-Fram the community didn’t hold those who did the grunt work needed to make the place run accountable, but I feel that we’ve over corrected after and have to an extent the opposite problem now. At some point I might write an essay about it, but my thoughts aren’t that refined right now. I’ll say this, though, the solution to people being grumpy because they’ve put up with years of crazy people on the internet is not to side with the nice crazy people and tell the grumpy ones not to let the door hit them on the way out. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 *:Well said, please ping me if you ever write that essay. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers</span>'' 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
+I had hoped this thread would peter out, but since it hasn't, I'm going to take a second bite at the cherry, and be a little more clear about my thoughts. {{u|Kudpung}}, Wikipedia is not a police state. Arbcom is not judge, jury and executioner. Honestly, Arbcom does very little on-wiki these days, but instead acts as a [[breakwater (structure)|breakwater]], holding back the cruel ocean, the harassment, the stupidity, the worst of the worst. I have done my damnedest to not read the case regarding you, because I consider you a friend and I really don't want to taint that. There are few I consider friends on Wikipedia, because I was burned so badly by trusting another early in my wiki-career. So understand that it pains me to say this - having now looked at the case, I think the decision to desysop you was the correct one. Some of the actions you have taken over the past few years, and the manner in which you have expressed them shown that you have become jaded, and acting as an admin in that manner does more harm to the project than good. That ''does not diminish'' the hard work that you have put in over the years, the importance of the systems you've put in at NPP, the research and shepherding at RfA, the articles you've written or the many other contributions to the project. {{br}} What needs to stop, though, is sowing the seeds of discontent. Increasing the us vs them mentality. The arbitrators I am working with on the 2020 committee are amongst the best I've worked with, each clearly has the project at their heart. I believe this is the first year where I can honestly say I would vote every single one back in. Sure, I disagree with some outcomes - it would be madness if I didn't. I'm sure I've pissed off a majority of them with my BHG RfA nomination, but none have treated me any worse for doing so. So when I see people in this section criticising the people who I'm working with, day in, day out - who are giving their all to help wikipedia, who are consistently berated for doing so, it saddens me greatly. {{br}}Some specifics. {{u|Iridescent}}, Bradv did not fabricate CU data, nor do I believe he would. I have worked with Brad as a clerk and an arbitrator, he is keen, forthright in his views and appears to be fundamentally honest. He has my respect, and my trust. I find it stunning that you would talk about the "bombardment of abuse" Arbcom members take while throwing shade in the same paragraph. {{u|DGG}} That "downright nasty" comment was out of line. If you believe someone is being downright nasty on the committee, you are in a relatively unique position to be able do something about it. Throwing it around on a users talk page just increases the us and them attitude and does nothing for project cohesion. I've read through the case, and while I have no doubt it was a horrible experience for Kudpung, I see nothing that was downright nasty. {{u|TonyBallioni}} if a person is no longer fulfilling a role due to putting up with crazy people of years, then they need to stop sitting in that role. It's the reason I left Arbcom in 2014, and I look back at my comments during the year afterwards and see how jaded I had become. Call it grumpy if you like but the fact stays the same, the grumpiness causes more discontent around the project. {{br}} What this all comes down to is remembering that ''every'' person here and on Arbcom, is a person. A person who had dedicated years of their life to making this encyclopedia what it is today. You may disagree with decisions made, but that doesn't mean the person isn't acting in what they believe is the best interests of the encyclopedia. Right now, I have a lot going on off-wiki <small>(all good)</small> - and I am distinctly upset by a decision made by WMF - and have been for a good many months. So I don't have a lot of inclination to remain as a member of this encyclopedia and were there a hill for me to die on, I expect I'd be making a last stand. Instead, I'm sitting on a fence that shouldn't exist - with excellent people on both sides. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 10:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

October

harvest