This may be the end of the Wikipedia Signpost

[Dysklyver]

As for Kudpung's age and mental state; he's mentioned himself that he's in his 80s.

Entering his 8th decade, which would make him 70.

Too complicated for some. I'm reminded of those who insisted that the current millenium didn't start at midnight on 31 December 1999, but actually a year later. Nobody was buying that though.

The Royal Astronomical Society bought it. It's very simple. The first Millennium, the first thousand years, must have lasted from 1 to 1000. Thus the second one lasted from 1001 to 2000.

Hmmm. Why were all the celebrations a year early then?

They were celebrating the shift from years starting with 1 to years starting with 2.

Which means presumably that someone born in 2000 was actually born last millennium?

Does this apply only to millenniums, or also to centuries and decades?

[Mason]

Which means presumably that someone born in 2000 was actually born last millennium?

Does this apply only to millenniums, or also to centuries and decades?

It gets confusing: someone in their 8th decade would be aged 70-79, but THE 8th decade A.D. (or C.E. if you prefer) was 71-80 because ages are zero-based and dates are year-1 based.

Still, "Tonight we're going to party like it's 2000" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

[DexterPointy]

Does anyone happen to have a copy of the deleted postings?
- And, if yes, please do mail me a copy (e.g. a link to such a cache).

BTW: If anyone want to take a swing at the username "DexterPointy", please go ahead (I suspect it could be fun to read).

[Eric Corbett]

As for Kudpung's age and mental state; he's mentioned himself that he's in his 80s.

Entering his 8th decade, which would make him 70.

Too complicated for some. I'm reminded of those who insisted that the current millenium didn't start at midnight on 31 December 1999, but actually a year later. Nobody was buying that though.

The Royal Astronomical Society bought it. It's very simple. The first Millennium, the first thousand years, must have lasted from 1 to 1000. Thus the second one lasted from 1001 to 2000.

Hmmm. Why were all the celebrations a year early then?

They were celebrating the shift from years starting with 1 to years starting with 2.

Which means presumably that someone born in 2000 was actually born last millennium?

It depends. The common sense view is that the millenium changes every thousand years, so if the millenium had previously been celebrated on 31 December 999 then the next millenium would be celebrated one thousand years after that, on 31 December 1999. But who gives a shit really, it was just an excuse for a party.

[Poetlister]

The common sense view is that the millenium changes every thousand years, so if the millenium had previously been celebrated on 31 December 999 then the next millenium would be celebrated one thousand years after that, on 31 December 1999. But who gives a shit really, it was just an excuse for a party.

In those days, most people wouldn't have known what year it was. At best, they'd have known the regnal year of the local monarch.

[Midsize Jake]

Can't we just say "the guy is well over a thousand years old" and leave it at that? This obsessive need for specificity strikes me as completely unnecessary.

[Poetlister]

[Jim]

Can't we just say "the guy is well over a thousand years old" and leave it at that? This obsessive need for specificity strikes me as completely unnecessary.

Seems reasonable. The original quotes were "as I approach my 80th decade on this planet"[1] and "entering my 80th decade very soon"[2] so we've no way to ascertain precisely what length of time was previously spent elsewhere, prior to arrival on this planet, or what local time measurement conventions were in force - and, as we know, he forgets things anyway, which is quite understandable, really.

[Jans Hammer]

Can't we just say "the guy is well over a thousand years old" and leave it at that? This obsessive need for specificity strikes me as completely unnecessary.

Seems reasonable. The original quote was something like "as I approach my 80th decade on this planet", so we've no way to ascertain precisely what length of time was previously spent elsewhere, or what local time measurement conventions were in force - and, as we know, he forgets things anyway, which is quite understandable, really.

He was born in 1949 - so he is 68 or 69. Unless he is lying.

[Jim]

He was born in 1949 - so he is 68 or 69. Unless he is lying.

...seems to me like a fairly transparent attempt by him to throw us off the scent, as I explained here: linkviewtopic.php?f=38&t=9617&p=224382#p224382[/link]

[Bezdomni]

If anyone wants to take a swing at Dexter Pointy

ok. This thread clearly no longer has a point. Why not?

Pointy's haiku:
---
show us y-our bits
do shifterless deixis
and fumble well
---

[Jans Hammer]

He was born in 1949 - so he is 68 or 69. Unless he is lying.

...seems to me like a fairly transparent attempt by him to throw us off the scent, as I explained here: linkviewtopic.php?f=38&t=9617&p=224382#p224382[/link]

Some sort of Benjamin Button / Green Mile fusion here. Anyway, this was his first reference to 1949 - Christmas Day 2008. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =220114919[/link]

[Jim]

Some sort of Benjamin Button / Green Mile fusion here. Anyway, this was his first reference to 1949 - Christmas Day 2008. linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =220114919[/link]

...which some might even consider to be another "tell". I mean, what normal person spends Christmas Day cooking up a cover story on wikipedia?

[WhoReallyCares]

Can't we just say "the guy is well over a thousand years old" and leave it at that? This obsessive need for specificity strikes me as completely unnecessary.

Seems reasonable. The original quotes were "as I approach my 80th decade on this planet"[1] and "entering my 80th decade very soon"[2] so we've no way to ascertain precisely what length of time was previously spent elsewhere, prior to arrival on this planet, or what local time measurement conventions were in force - and, as we know, he forgets things anyway, which is quite understandable, really.

If Kuddy Babes has spent two decades in Thailand he'll probably be referring to the Buddhist calendar.

It's 2561 in Thailand, so by my reckoning he's now in his sixty second decade, aged about 612.

Claiming to be in his eightieth decade (as he did earlier) was a bit mischievous.

[Midsize Jake]

If anyone wants to take a swing at Dexter Pointy

ok. This thread clearly no longer has a point. Why not?

Actually, the name "DexterPointy" would easily pass Mr. Kudpung's username-seriousness criteria for RfA candidates - if anything, he should be commended for his foresight. And frankly, it's a shame that he squandered his opportunity to eventually join the WP leadership by going so far out of his way to get them to delete Wikipedia's List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair (T-H-L) - clearly a cornerstone of the entire Wikipedia project if there ever was one - but as they say over there, we all have to find our own hills to die on, unless of course we'd prefer to die in a valley or perhaps a tunnel or drainage ditch of some kind.

Anyhoo, if we really wanted to be strict about keeping things on-topic, we could (and maybe should) split this thread so that all the GW vs. Kudpung stuff is off on its own. Then we could keep this original thread more focused on date-calculation strategies, which is probably what most people visit the site for in the first place. (I know I do!)

[GorillaWarfare]

Kudpung has been around on Wikipedia since 2006—if he was bothered by the weird usernames that abound there, I feel like it might have come up by now. He may be older than I am, but he's not completely stuck in the stone age.

First, you're making a strawman argument. I'm not saying he's "stuck in the stone age" or that he's some sort of drooling geriatric disaster, I'm saying he probably has a traditionalist approach to social interaction that's at odds with the prevailing atmosphere on Wikipedia, and that this might help explain why he comes off as such an asshole all the time to so many people in that environment. Second, I'm not talking about "weird usernames" in general ferchrissakes, I'm talking about usernames chosen - quite innocently, I'm sure - by the leadership. And like it or not, you, GW, are part of the leadership. This is not about Wikipedia in general, it's about admins. (And it's also about too much use of italics.)

It's possible he's a traditionalist, I don't know. I just don't really see the "he's older, so he's [x,y,z]" speculation as productive. As for the username thing, we may have to agree to disagree on that one

Don't forget that Kudpung is the guy who took it upon himself to write the Advice for RfA candidates page, so if anyone has an opinion on this at all, you'd think it would be him, right? (emphasis mine.)

2. Your username should not be unusual or overly long (especially the code it generates) and should respect Wikipedia user name conventions. Some voters will oppose if they feel a name does not look serious enough for an editor of an encyclopedia, or if they find it confusing.

And as if that wasn't enough, there's this little nugget from September 2014 in which he proposed that you and at least two other women admins be co-opted into some sort of organized effort to oppose anti-administrator critics, and more importantly, deny that the WP gender gap promotes a hostile environment that prevents women from wanting to stick around and go through the RfA process.

What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against such groups that are determined to undermine the the already fragile fabric of what holds this project together. And if the community were prepared to look at their strategy and the pattern of tactics rather than just seeing and ignoring isolated issues, picking them off one-by-one wouldn't be all that difficult but it would need the support of the likes of admins such as, for example, {{U|Gorilla Warfare}}, {{U|Slim Virgin}}, and {{U|Bishonen}}.

I'm pretty sure you didn't allow yourself to be co-opted into this effort, and in fact I'm fairly certain nothing ever came of it at all - probably because everyone, and perhaps you especially, knew he was completely wrong in his conception of the problem(s) at hand. But the important thing here, in terms of this particular incident, is that his disappointment in not being allowed to organize some sort of critic-bashing brigade - with prominent women admins all saying "our problems are not due to there being too much toxic masculinity at work here, ohhh nooooo not at all" - might just have lowered his opinion of you somewhat, possibly enough to cause him to not refer to you by your username, as he did in this instance. (Though TBH I don't quite recall if you had disclosed your real name by then.)

I wonder sometimes how many discussions I miss because people try to ping "Gorilla Warfare" and not "GorillaWarfare". I just logged into the doppelganger account and was surprised and pleased to see only 25 notifications over the past five years or so, some of which were in discussions I was already a part of and so watching anyway. This wasn't one of them, though, it's the first I'm seeing it. What an odd proposal (both the initial lowering-the-bar one, and the follow-up comment by Kudpung on enlisting myself and some other women admins to "pick off" editors who are "undermining" the project).

Again, I'm just throwing out ideas here, I'm not trying to tell you how to deal with people like this. And Kudpung may very well be some sort of crypto-anti-feminist. That isn't the "vibe" I get from him, but (1) I'm a guy, so how would I know and (2) maybe it's because my standards are lower from having to deal with all the stark-raving anti-feminists who show up here after they've been banned from WP (in nearly all cases, deservedly so) for being stark-raving anti-feminists. So yeah, I could always be wrong... but maybe you could be, too.

Kudpung is definitely not one of the stark-raving anti-feminists you mention, I'll agree there. I actually don't necessarily think he's anti-feminist, despite what some of his recent actions have suggested.

[Midsize Jake]

It's possible he's a traditionalist, I don't know. I just don't really see the "he's older, so he's [x,y,z]" speculation as productive.

I was a traditionalist in my mid-30s, if that helps...? What I mean is, being older makes traditionalism (or "conventionalism," if you prefer) more likely, but it's not a requirement.

The thing is, if you put aside all these considerations of age, gender, nationality, etc., you're left with the question of whether or not Mr. Kudpung deserved to be given a face-saving option by you when confronted with his (minor) transgression. I don't know if he did or not from your perspective (he wouldn't from mine, obviously), but he probably thinks he deserved one, if only because both of you are admins. Unfortunately, I suspect both of you are no longer in a position to say, one way or the other - that's his fault for overreacting and Wikipedia's for piling the drama on top of it, but regardless, he might have felt that he had to overreact to save face, because you didn't give him the "out" he needed to avoid loss of face.

Still, hindsight is always 20-20, and in that particular moment you probably didn't have the time to consider the complexities of face-saving/face-giving strategies in dealing with someone like that. (And the Wikipedia article on Face negotiation theory (T-H-L) wouldn't have been much help either, because it's just not very good. Someone should probably rewrite it from the ground up.)

[Jim]

I don't know if he did or not from your perspective (he wouldn't from mine, obviously), but he probably thinks he deserved one, if only because both of you are admins.

This is a large part of it. In Kudpung's odd little world there are [a] 'respected' admins, 'underminers', trolls and the 'anti-admin-brigade'TM, [c] clueless newbies and [d] other people. He feels like he has stalwartly "defended" the [a]s from the insidious and Machiavellian s at great personal sacrifice, over a long period (other people will think he's behaved like a ludicrous, paranoid jerk in this area, but we're talking about what he thinks...) Therefore when a fellow member of his cherished [a] 'club' disagrees with him, especially in a place where the s, [c]s and [d]s can witness it, he feels deeply hurt, confused, and probably personally betrayed.

[GorillaWarfare]

It's possible he's a traditionalist, I don't know. I just don't really see the "he's older, so he's [x,y,z]" speculation as productive.

I was a traditionalist in my mid-30s, if that helps...? What I mean is, being older makes traditionalism (or "conventionalism," if you prefer) more likely, but it's not a requirement.

The thing is, if you put aside all these considerations of age, gender, nationality, etc., you're left with the question of whether or not Mr. Kudpung deserved to be given a face-saving option by you when confronted with his (minor) transgression. I don't know if he did or not from your perspective (he wouldn't from mine, obviously), but he probably thinks he deserved one, if only because both of you are admins. Unfortunately, I suspect both of you are no longer in a position to say, one way or the other - that's his fault for overreacting and Wikipedia's for piling the drama on top of it, but regardless, he might have felt that he had to overreact to save face, because you didn't give him the "out" he needed to avoid loss of face.

Still, hindsight is always 20-20, and in that particular moment you probably didn't have the time to consider the complexities of face-saving/face-giving strategies in dealing with someone like that. (And the Wikipedia article on Face negotiation theory (T-H-L) wouldn't have been much help either, because it's just not very good. Someone should probably rewrite it from the ground up.)

I would think tweaking his comment to remove my real name was the face-saving option, but what would you have suggested?

[Midsize Jake]

I would think tweaking his comment to remove my real name was the face-saving option, but what would you have suggested?

Did you consider that? That might have prevented the ensuing drama (which, to be fair, you wouldn't have necessarily predicted at the time). But it's Wikipedia, so you have the edit summary to worry about... anything you put there could be (mis-)interpreted in any number of ways, and if you leave it blank, it looks like you're doing something sneaky, or maybe the male admins don't even understand why you did it at all, assuming they (and Kudpung) even notice. Still, you might have gotten lucky.

As for what I might have suggested, I guess it depends on your objective, i.e., whether or not you want it clear to him that regardless of his intent, or lack thereof, you viewed what he did as a transgression (however minor) which therefore called for a response (which, being a man, he clearly didn't expect). This idea of his being a "traditionalist" who thinks your username is silly isn't the only possibility, but if you wanted to use that, you could go with something like "Hey Kudpung, I realize a name like 'GorillaWarfare' probably seems inappropriate in the context of a list of 'respectable' admins, but I'm sure everyone's okay with it, and in fact I'd actually prefer it if you referred to me by my username (instead of my real name) since it would prevent others from thinking you were singling me out because I'm female. After all, that might cause a lot of needless drama, and nobody wants that!"

Obviously this is "mansplaining" on my part and besides, there may be lots of reasons why this would also have failed, not least of which is that Kudpung is irascible and unreasonable most of the time. I'm just saying that if the objective is to make it clear that a transgression occurred and not force the transgressor into a defensive posture, you have to be willing to give the transgressor a face-saving "out," and even though you might take great pride in your username, that could have been his out. At which point it's up to him as to whether or not he wants to take the out, but if he doesn't, you come out ahead simply because you were seen giving it to him. And on the off-chance that he comes back with "no rational person would think I was singling you out," you still come out ahead because whatever his intent, that is exactly what he did.

[Kingsindian]

I would think tweaking his comment to remove my real name was the face-saving option, but what would you have suggested?

I already did, but just to repeat:

I suppose it falls to me to point out the other side. The whole thing is ridiculous, of course, but we do ridiculous here all the time, right? Anyway:

Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men.

The non-passive-aggressive way of saying this would be:

Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to on-wiki by my username rather than my real name.

[I have been told IRL that I'm passive-aggressive myself, and Kudpung himself is no saint in this department. I suppose it takes one to know one.]

Also, you could have sent him an email (using whatever sentence construction you want).

I can think of three other ways too. On Wikipedia, it is a good rule that people will choose the option which will maximize expected value of drama.

[Midsize Jake]

The non-passive-aggressive way of saying this would be:

Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to on-wiki by my username rather than my real name.

[I have been told IRL that I'm passive-aggressive myself, and Kudpung himself is no saint in this department. I suppose it takes one to know one.]

Personally I don't believe either approach is "passive-aggressive," but to each his own on that score, I suppose.

More importantly though, that approach doesn't make it clear to Kudpung that what he did was interpretable as a (gender-related) transgression, and worse, it begs the question of why she would prefer this - since it's Wikipedia, I strongly suspect most people would jump to the conclusion that she's just concerned for her own safety IRL and is trying to put the real-name genie back in the bottle, both of which (IMO) amount to sending the wrong message.

So I'm not saying you're wrong, but FWIW I am saying that neither of us are women. If that's the primary factor here, then we have to respect it even if it seems counter-intuitive to our testosterone-clouded brains.

[Eric Corbett]

I don't know if he did or not from your perspective (he wouldn't from mine, obviously), but he probably thinks he deserved one, if only because both of you are admins.

This is a large part of it. In Kudpung's odd little world there are [a] 'respected' admins, 'underminers', trolls and the 'anti-admin-brigade'TM, [c] clueless newbies and [d] other people. He feels like he has stalwartly "defended" the [a]s from the insidious and Machiavellian s at great personal sacrifice, over a long period (other people will think he's behaved like a ludicrous, paranoid jerk in this area, but we're talking about what he thinks...) Therefore when a fellow member of his cherished [a] 'club' disagrees with him, especially in a place where the s, [c]s and [d]s can witness it, he feels deeply hurt, confused, and probably personally betrayed.

I think that just about sums it up.

[Randy from Boise]

Some questions for GW:

Proxying for CrowsNest from the Wikipedia Sucks! message board, posted there 9/1:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how pissed are you at your recent experiences?

2. What are you going to do about it?

3. Do you regret standing down from ArbCom, given it seems unlikely your replacement as one of the token women on the Committee (Opabina Regalia), hasn't exactly shown she has the same kind of outlook on policy and indeed what is morally right in general, as you did in your time on the bench?

4. You said you chose not to seek reelection due to the pressures of real life, and it had nothing to do with the apparent futility of trying to achieve meaningful standards via that mechanism. If so, how are you finding the time to do what you do currently on Wikipedia, and do you think it is helping in any way, either to change the culture or improve the encyclopedia?

Sorry for the delay, I read there irregularly.

Snowflake RfB

[LargelyRecyclable]

I'm totally disinterested in the melodramatic GW/Kudpung navel-gazing but I did note that MILHIST coordinator and former Signpost E-I-C The ed17 (T-C-L) recently dropped his former association with the Signpost, saying that "It hurts to see how far it has sunk." He didn't provide specifics but my guess is that it's related to several recent additions.

[Kumioko]

I'm totally disinterested in the melodramatic GW/Kudpung navel-gazing but I did note that MILHIST coordinator and former Signpost E-I-C The ed17 (T-C-L) recently dropped his former association with the Signpost, saying that "It hurts to see how far it has sunk." He didn't provide specifics but my guess is that it's related to several recent additions.

Honestly, the same could be said about WikiProject military history and Wikipedia as well.

[LargelyRecyclable]

I'm totally disinterested in the melodramatic GW/Kudpung navel-gazing but I did note that MILHIST coordinator and former Signpost E-I-C The ed17 (T-C-L) recently dropped his former association with the Signpost, saying that "It hurts to see how far it has sunk." He didn't provide specifics but my guess is that it's related to several recent additions.

Honestly, the same could be said about WikiProject military history and Wikipedia as well.

What signals the decline of MILHIST in your opinion? Not disagreeing, just curious.

[GorillaWarfare]

I would think tweaking his comment to remove my real name was the face-saving option, but what would you have suggested?

Did you consider that? That might have prevented the ensuing drama (which, to be fair, you wouldn't have necessarily predicted at the time). But it's Wikipedia, so you have the edit summary to worry about... anything you put there could be (mis-)interpreted in any number of ways, and if you leave it blank, it looks like you're doing something sneaky, or maybe the male admins don't even understand why you did it at all, assuming they (and Kudpung) even notice. Still, you might have gotten lucky.

I meant that to read "I would think [him] tweaking his comment..." Tweaking the comment myself is against policy (although loosely enforced) and a lot of people get really angry if someone does that.

As for what I might have suggested, I guess it depends on your objective, i.e., whether or not you want it clear to him that regardless of his intent, or lack thereof, you viewed what he did as a transgression (however minor) which therefore called for a response (which, being a man, he clearly didn't expect). This idea of his being a "traditionalist" who thinks your username is silly isn't the only possibility, but if you wanted to use that, you could go with something like "Hey Kudpung, I realize a name like 'GorillaWarfare' probably seems inappropriate in the context of a list of 'respectable' admins, but I'm sure everyone's okay with it, and in fact I'd actually prefer it if you referred to me by my username (instead of my real name) since it would prevent others from thinking you were singling me out because I'm female. After all, that might cause a lot of needless drama, and nobody wants that!"

Obviously this is "mansplaining" on my part and besides, there may be lots of reasons why this would also have failed, not least of which is that Kudpung is irascible and unreasonable most of the time. I'm just saying that if the objective is to make it clear that a transgression occurred and not force the transgressor into a defensive posture, you have to be willing to give the transgressor a face-saving "out," and even though you might take great pride in your username, that could have been his out. At which point it's up to him as to whether or not he wants to take the out, but if he doesn't, you come out ahead simply because you were seen giving it to him. And on the off-chance that he comes back with "no rational person would think I was singling you out," you still come out ahead because whatever his intent, that is exactly what he did.

I hear your point, and you're right that that probably would have been taken a little bit more nicely. I didn't think my quick note would spur such a reaction (which I realize some people here see as naive), so I didn't spend a ton of time crafting the message. I think if I had to spend that much time tiptoeing around conversations on-wiki I'd probably get a lot less done.

I wanted to address your suggestion before addressing the actual quote you've suggested, because I don't want you to think I've missed your point and instead focused only on your wording: While I've certainly used language like that before (usually in real life, career-related cases with men I don't know well—some men interpret women using more blunt language as "aggressive", and are less taken aback by emails that say things like "Sorry to bother you!" or "just wondering if you've had a chance to..."), I really hate it. I know I can be blunt with how I speak sometimes, and my communication style on Wikipedia has even been called "cold" in the past, but couching everything I say in exclamation points and "I'm sure everyone's okay with it", and "After all, nobody wants that!" is exhausting and unpleasant. I did a little bit of it in the original post ("Very minor point, but" and "I'd prefer"), but more than that and it feels like I'm having to sound like a weird saccharine, submissive anime character to avoid men getting irritated that I'd request something.

[GorillaWarfare]

Some questions for GW:

Proxying for CrowsNest from the Wikipedia Sucks! message board, posted there 9/1:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how pissed are you at your recent experiences?

2. What are you going to do about it?

3. Do you regret standing down from ArbCom, given it seems unlikely your replacement as one of the token women on the Committee (Opabina Regalia), hasn't exactly shown she has the same kind of outlook on policy and indeed what is morally right in general, as you did in your time on the bench?

4. You said you chose not to seek reelection due to the pressures of real life, and it had nothing to do with the apparent futility of trying to achieve meaningful standards via that mechanism. If so, how are you finding the time to do what you do currently on Wikipedia, and do you think it is helping in any way, either to change the culture or improve the encyclopedia?

Sorry for the delay, I read there irregularly.

Snowflake RfB

I'm bad enough about checking Wikipediocracy, I don't know how you folks juggle the various Wikipedia-related discussion boards. I don't think I even knew this one existed. Quite a name, very to-the-point.

1. I assume by "recent experiences" they mean this conflict with Kudpung. Kind of hard to define the scale, but if we say 0 is "normal day, not annoyed at all", 5 is "decidedly pissed off", and 10 is "ranting to everyone I can find and rage-quitting the website", I don't know, maybe a 3? I don't anger easily, and this isn't exactly the first time someone was rude to me on the internet.

2. Nothing, at this point. Kudpung seems to have dropped any issue with me, and I have no urge to go poke at him if he doesn't want to discuss it further. If I wander across him posting misogynist comments, I'll point it out like I would with anyone else, but I'm not on some sort of campaign to get him booted from the site or something if that's what you're asking.

3. Not so much "standing down" as it was "deciding not to run again", but that's nitpicking. Also I don't particularly appreciate being described as a "token woman" as if I was just sitting around being a woman and not actually working hard at what I was doing on the Committee. But no, I don't regret choosing to sit out in the 2017 election. I needed to focus on my new role at work, and at the time I was finding it difficult to spend as much time as I needed/wanted to on my job, devote what I felt was the responsible amount of time as an arbitrator, and maintain some semblance of a personal life/sleep schedule. I don't regret putting my career and my personal life before the Arbitration Committee or before Wikipedia in general.

4. There is a lot of unseen work involved when it comes to being an arbitrator, because a lot of it happens via email. Although I am more active on Wikipedia where it is visible, I would say that overall I am devoting less time to it than I was when I was on the Committee. My on-wiki activity was substantially less while I was an arbitrator, because I put those responsibilities ahead of editing. I am also able to edit much more sporadically than when I was on the Committee. As an arbitrator, especially if you are drafting a case, you have to commit to being fairly available. A poorly-timed several-day trip could mean holding up an entire case. Now I can just wander in and edit whichever articles I want, or do antivandalism, or argue with people in the Signpost comments when I please, and I can get away with not checking Wikipedia for days at a time if I need.

I also had just been promoted into a very new role a month or two before the 2017 elections, and I was spending a lot of time learning how to do my new job well. Now, almost a year later, I'm much more familiar and comfortable with it and am not spending nearly as much additional time learning about how to lead a team or triple-checking what I'm doing.

[Bezdomni]

I'm totally disinterested in the melodramatic GW/Kudpung navel-gazing but I did note that MILHIST coordinator and former Signpost E-I-C The ed17 (T-C-L) recently dropped his former association with the Signpost, saying that "It hurts to see how far it has sunk." He didn't provide specifics but my guess is that it's related to several recent additions.

Interesting. I'd never clicked through to learn that the WS Post had been chiefly edited by a WMF employee. (or perhaps more likely, wasn't particularly surprised at the time, so didn't remember it...)

On wikimedia-l, as on Jimbo talk, there have been calls for independent (i.e. non-WMF) funding for journalists for the in-skool zine.

Oddly, former Guardian Media Group (GMG) board member "Jimmy D." hasn't volunteered to donate his image for that project, as he did on the "Comment is free" blog for the corporation he's still on the board of (WMF).

(The "be" is in gra|ey since I gather there are some questions on the Left as to whether that particular use of "be" should be negated or not... )

[GorillaWarfare]

Interesting. I'd never clicked through to learn that the WS Post had been chiefly edited by a WMF employee. (or perhaps more likely, wasn't particularly surprised at the time, so didn't remember it...)

I believe he stepped down as editor-in-chief before he began working for the WMF.

[Kumioko]

Interesting. I'd never clicked through to learn that the WS Post had been chiefly edited by a WMF employee. (or perhaps more likely, wasn't particularly surprised at the time, so didn't remember it...)

I believe he stepped down as editor-in-chief before he began working for the WMF.

I think you're right but it's worth noting that I believe that was a big reason why he got the job at the WMF.

[Poetlister]

I believe he stepped down as editor-in-chief before he began working for the WMF.

I think you're right but it's worth noting that I believe that was a big reason why he got the job at the WMF.

Very possibly. Far too many jobs at the WMF go to Wikipedia insiders. Do these jobs get adequately advertised outside Wikipedia circles?

[Dysklyver]

I believe he stepped down as editor-in-chief before he began working for the WMF.

I think you're right but it's worth noting that I believe that was a big reason why he got the job at the WMF.

Very possibly. Far too many jobs at the WMF go to Wikipedia insiders. Do these jobs get adequately advertised outside Wikipedia circles?

Yes of course, but consider the following job ads:

Wanted: Systems operator to work for Google! An exciting technology company with great offices. Amazing career opportunities and job satisfaction guaranteed.

Wanted: Systems operator to work for the WMF. A boring little known company with offices in the asscrack of San Fransisco. No real career, and endless complaints from the world's most morose trolls guaranteed.

Really, think about it...

To give a more concrete example, here's a job I could vaguely apply for.

[Poetlister]

Top requirement: High energy for and commitment to the Wikimedia Foundation's free knowledge mission.

Second requirement: A very good sense of humor.

Are you sure you feel qualified? Could you cope with American spelling?

[Dysklyver]

I concluded I don't really meet the requirements. The ideal candidate is:

A young multilingual American Wikipedia administrator studying internet law, who uses LinkedIn and social media regularly, and is good with both legal and creative writing. Blog post.

[Kumioko]

It used to be in order to get a job at the WMF you had to be qualified but now it has become a jobs program for unqualified and out of work admins. The WMF has become a disgrace and a laughing stock. The Executive director is an air head that cares more about pandering to donors than about what happens within the WMF or the projects and due to that and her excessive traveling on the donors dimes, the WMF has fallen victim to bullies and egotists like James Alexander who only care about pushing their own POV and helping out his friends through nepotistic tendencies.

[The Garbage Scow]

New Signpost out, and Kudpung doesn't seem to be a fan...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... the_editor

[Eric Corbett]

New Signpost out, and Kudpung doesn't seem to be a fan...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... the_editor

That Kudpung doesn't like it is a point in its favour as far as I'm concerned.

[Kumioko]

New Signpost out, and Kudpung doesn't seem to be a fan...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... the_editor

That Kudpung doesn't like it is a point in its favour as far as I'm concerned.

+1

[Jim]

New Signpost out, and Kudpung doesn't seem to be a fan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... the_editor

Well that's quite the petulant foot-stomp isn't it?

Quite long, too:

If this is 'the new normal' then I'm very disappointed with this month's thin publication which seems to be all at sea with no one at the helm. Wikipedia may be 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit', but The Signpost is not an encyclopedia and needs to be of even better quality than the web site (or more accurately: knowledge base) whose official organ it is, or has become, and not adopt the petty (and sometimes not so nickel-and-dime) controversies so typical of talk pages.

Translation: Without my glorious leadership and without my tired old hobby-horses and vitriol shoehorned into each edition it's just no good. You're all lost without me...

Creating content for a magazine however, is a challenge of a very different nature. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia would be better off without The Signpost in its latest offering, than it becoming basically a technology and research newsletter copied from somewhere else, no compelling reading, and just tidbits of scandal à la Bild and The Sun making broadsides at creative and/or prolific individual volunteers for want of more important content; and long lists for fillers, of links to internal US politics of which the media is already saturated and of little or no interest to the rest of the English speaking world. Trump is international news but his judges are not. 'News and Notes' which seems to have become a 'red top' commentary, should not be a forum for veiled attacks at volunteers either (whether I am involved or not as a former Signpost editor, and there's plenty I could be saying and naming about some of its former editors).

Translation: It's crap without me. And you shouldn't slag off your comrades.
P.S. The former editors were wankers for reasons I'm too spineless to specify. I, on the other hand, was Saviour of The Signpost, and without me it'll sink without trace..

Criticism, especially objective, of named people is fine when aimed at those who enjoy gross salaries without the approval of a community which ultimately creates the content that provides their employment, but even the most unruly of prolific volunteer content contributors, admins, and former arbitrators are generally doing something constructive with their work. I never stooped to slighting any Wikipedia volunteers through The Signpost's columns or its comment sections.

Translation: I never did that, not once. And even if I did I was right. And I'm not doing it now. I'm not. And I never named names, so you can't get me. So there.

The Signpost needs a regular dedicated editorial team, and someone who, without great debate, can be entrusted to make final decisions as to appropriateness, language, and format - even if they are not held responsible for creating a lot of the content - but it looks as if there is as much interest there as becoming an admin, a bureaucrat, or a regular New Page Patroller, without being a hat collector. My style of journalism may have been controversial in the eyes of some, but it got The Signpost back on its feet and increased its circulation, and whether the readers liked it or not, it still required a lot of time as any former Editors-in-Chief can evince. Thanks to everyone for trying with this month's issue, but no, just no - it's the buzzer from me.

Translation: Did I mention that I was Saviour of The Signpost, and without me it'll sink without trace..? Well I was, and it will. And you're all hopeless. And 'all' isn't a name, so you can't get me - ner, ner...

So, welcome back Methuselah, I guess...

[Midsize Jake]

That's interesting that he wrote "Trump is international news but his judges are not" - if anything, a right-wing US Supreme Court will have a much greater long-term negative international impact than an incompetent, narcissistic (and non-popularly elected) President will probably have, especially since the latter will be voted out in two years (assuming the Democrats manage to nominate something at least slightly more intelligent than a cockroach to run against him).

Part of the "extended" Republican agenda involves both the imposition of government controls on media properties (mostly in the name of "national security") and the elimination of the "truth defense" in libel cases, both of which could easily impact Wikipedia, its users, and the WMF (possibly making it difficult for them to even operate within the US). Both of these are also things Trump is personally interested in, but it's the Supreme Court that will make the final decision(s) as to Constitutionality, not Trump.

[Jim]

That's interesting that he wrote "Trump is international news but his judges are not" - if anything, a right-wing US Supreme Court will have a much greater long-term negative international impact than an incompetent, narcissistic (and non-popularly elected) President will probably have, especially since the latter will be voted out in two years (assuming the Democrats manage to nominate something at least slightly more intelligent than a cockroach to run against him).

Part of the "extended" Republican agenda involves both the imposition of government controls on media properties (mostly in the name of "national security") and the elimination of the "truth defense" in libel cases, both of which could easily impact Wikipedia, its users, and the WMF (possibly making it difficult for them to even operate within the US). Both of these are also things Trump is personally interested in, but it's the Supreme Court that will make the final decision(s) as to Constitutionality, not Trump.

All true, I'm sure, but, using my Australian wife who has no interest in US politics but does listen to the "news" as an example, she'd instantly tell you that Trump is "a creep", but have little to no knowledge of any of the other stuff, except maybe that he's trying to get other "creeps" appointed. Like it or not, he's the hideously cartoonish figurehead most people are actually aware of. It's not a comprehensive view with full perspective, but then neither is the pervading recollection of Bush Jr as just a bumbling buffoon who couldn't string coherent sentences together, rather than a dangerous, willing puppet of folks who wanted lots of evil things to happen, and managed partially to achieve that. It's a shallow, soundbite world, when it comes to the "news" for most people.

[Jans Hammer]

New Signpost out, and Kudpung doesn't seem to be a fan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... the_editor

Well that's quite the petulant foot-stomp isn't it?

It all sounds like a metaphor for throwing beer and food at people! "There are some people here who if I ever came across them them at a meet up or a conference I would feel like throwing my food or beer in their faces - "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... e_Oct_2012

I have a long memory

[Poetlister]

That's interesting that he wrote "Trump is international news but his judges are not" - if anything, a right-wing US Supreme Court will have a much greater long-term negative international impact than an incompetent, narcissistic (and non-popularly elected) President will probably have, especially since the latter will be voted out in two years (assuming the Democrats manage to nominate something at least slightly more intelligent than a cockroach to run against him).

Just because someone is important doesn't mean that he or she is well-known. Who knows (without looking) who is the chairman of the Federal Reserve or the World Bank? How many other Supreme Court justices can you name?

[Midsize Jake]

How many other Supreme Court justices can you name?

Are you asking me specifically? I can name all the Supreme Court Justices, though sometimes I leave out Stephen Breyer because he's named after a brand of ice cream and I'm lactose-intolerant.

The point is, we're not concerned about people in general here, this is a newsletter for Wikipedians. Say what you want about their average intelligence or their awareness of current events - their newsletter should be making them aware of the ramifications of a clear right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court, full stop. Admittedly it isn't, but the solution there isn't to forego mention of the situation at all (as Mr. Kudpung suggests), the solution is to analyze the situation and write about it.

[Jim]

...the solution there isn't to forego mention of the situation at all (as Mr. Kudpung suggests), the solution is to analyze the situation and write about it.

A fair point. What would be ideal is that the situation would be written about in a way that engaged, and maybe even educated, their international audience about the wider significance of the issues.

I somehow doubt, though, that Mr. K would be remotely capable of facilitating such an undertaking - unless he could wedge in several lame and tired 'RFA' analogies, or came into possession of evidence (or even a rumour) that the Supreme Court Justices/nominees were all cunning, secret 'trolls' in league with the dastardly and ever present Anti-Admin BrigadeTM, feverishly plotting on 'hate-sites' and lurking ominously in the Capitol Hill hedgerows, always ready to pounce on poor, selfless defenders of the realm such as him. Perhaps his successor will pleasantly surprise us.

[Poetlister]

How many other Supreme Court justices can you name?

Are you asking me specifically? I can name all the Supreme Court Justices, though sometimes I leave out Stephen Breyer because he's named after a brand of ice cream and I'm lactose-intolerant.

The point is, we're not concerned about people in general here, this is a newsletter for Wikipedians. Say what you want about their average intelligence or their awareness of current events - their newsletter should be making them aware of the ramifications of a clear right-wing majority on the US Supreme Court, full stop. Admittedly it isn't, but the solution there isn't to forego mention of the situation at all (as Mr. Kudpung suggests), the solution is to analyze the situation and write about it.

Wikipedians are all over the world. Of course, events in the USA might affect other countries. But Wikipedians in Britain might be more interested in the ramifications of Brexit and the possibility of a neo-Marxist Labour government. Those in Sweden might want discussion of the results of their last general election and the prospects of another one. And so on. Can the Signpost cover every item likely to interest some Wikipedians?

[Midsize Jake]

...Wikipedians in Britain might be more interested in the ramifications of Brexit and the possibility of a neo-Marxist Labour government. Those in Sweden might want discussion of the results of their last general election and the prospects of another one. And so on. Can the Signpost cover every item likely to interest some Wikipedians?

I thought the issue here was about Mr. Kudpung criticizing the latest "edition" of the Wikipedia Signpost for covering the Kavanaugh hearings, not the fact that they covered them at all...? But as far as any other political situation or event is concerned, IMO it depends on how much it affects, or potentially could affect, Wikipedia and the WMF's ability to operate. Brexit and a possible UK Labour government don't strike me as being particularly threatening to them, and as far as the rise of the (nationalist) Sweden Democrats is concerned, they're not actually in power... and they'd probably be well to the left of the Trump Administration even if they were. I don't really see them as the sort of people who'd want to block WP throughout their country and set up their own version like the Iranians and Chinese have been doing. (Would they?)

I'm not trying to argue that the United States is somehow more important than the rest of the world in general, but the fact remains that (for good or ill) the WMF primarily operates out of the USA. If the US government quashes the truth defense, rewrites/repeals Section 230, and/or imposes some sort of securitarian censorship regime, that's going to mean some big changes in Wikiland. And all of those things will go through the Supreme Court.

[Beeblebrox]

I’m pretty sure every person with a pulse in the US is well aware of the Kavanaugh hearings at this point. It’s everywhere. One our own senators from up here in Alaska is in the news because she showed some dignity and critical thinking and voted against moving forward instead of toeing the party line and now the state GOP is darkly hinting about some type of punishment for her. The intolerance of independent thought amongst the GOP is startling, They used to say “it’s a big tent” but those days seem to be in the past. (the funny thing is, they’ve pulled the rug out from under her before and ran a Tea Party guy in 2010, and she showed them up by becoming the first woman in American history to gain a Senate seat with a write-in campaign)