Wikipediocracy

Jans Hammer wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:28 am

Kudpung (T-C-L) has now just deleted some old drafts relating to BARC and then, in the polemic he is building, adds his WO put-down from 2015.

Kudpung wrote:I've ''never'' felt the need to follow blogs or that vile place they call ''Wikipediocracy (T-H-L)'' for which I find the advert here, however critical of it, totally unnecesary (having never been there, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the main hangout for the leaders of the anti-admin brigade and their coat-tail snatchers).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kudpung/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=935387311 diff

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:19 pm

He's never been here nor read anything from here, yet we're a vile place of anti-admin opposition...

Snowflake culture at its finest.

I had (perhaps naively) hoped this might be resolvable as a declined case request, one that delivered structured feedback that Kudpung would take on board and self-moderate, but since they have chosen not to engage further at the request stage, I would accept the case. There do not exist community processes to adequately or effectively address the concerns raised. –xenotalk 12:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Jans Hammer wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:28 am

Re BARC, a strange coincidence today. BARC was mentioned here last night - long forgotten actually sensible idea.

Kudpung has now just deleted some old drafts relating to BARC and then, in the polemic he is building, adds his WO put down from 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =935387311

Herr Dumbelschitzen wrote:So you want to get your message out. Where do you turn?: If we were to read everything this article suggests we would have no time to get on with our other work let alone what we do on Wikipedia. I'm a very busy admin (sometimes) and I've never felt the need to follow blogs or that vile place they call ''Wikipediocracy'' for which I find the advert here, however critical of it, totally unnecessary (having never been there, I wouldn't be surprised if it's the main hangout for the leaders of the anti-admin brigade and their coat-tail snatchers). [July 11, 2015]

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2020 5:24 pm

Can somebody point me to the magical tool that marks common pages of editor interactions? I'd very much like to locate the exchange between Kudpung and me in which he went after me as a "paid editor"...

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 12, 2020 2:34 pm

It would be a quick way to short circuit all of the sturm und drang of a full blown case.

If ARBCOM accepts a case concerning admin behavior, the defendant must pass a new RfA within 30 days or lose the tools.

I strongly suspect a wave of admin attitude improvement would occur.

Jans Hammer wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:10 pm

Wikizero

What do we know? This looks like all girls together discussing the ACE2019, including our hero, Kudpung....

https://www.wikizero.com/en/User_talk:B ... id_Zebedee

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2020 9:08 pm

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:55 pm

Back in the summer of 2015, Kudpung teamed up with his friend Worm That Turned (T-C-L) to propose formation of a Bureaucrats' Administrative Review Committee (BARC), which would have established a mechanism outside of Arbcom for the discipline of rogue administrators. The RFC failed of passage by a vote of 115 (for) to 77 (opposed), thanks to Wikipedia's idiotic Minority Rules pseudo-consensus vote-counting system, which makes the American electoral college look like an exercise in democracy...

link

The numbnuts who ruled that a 60-40 landslide was a victory for the minority was MDann52 (T-C-L) .

RfB

P.S. I get WTT's recusal now. Good move, Dave.

To be fair, to do something as major as setting up a new disciplinary committee would require much more than a simple majority. It's effectively a constitutional amendment.

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:00 am

Look at the stats-table at top in "BARC only has support among non-admins"
: The BARC proposal got support from 77% (rounded from 0.7653...) of Editors.
Hence it's Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Arbitrators - causing the majority to be "only" 62-38.
Therefore, the actual support, when ignoring groups apt for recusal, is 77-23 NOT 62-38.
Well, 77-23, is a qualified majority, regardless of whether you pick a qualified majority to mean 2/3 or 3/4.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:24 am

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:00 am

Therefore, the actual support, when ignoring groups apt for recusal, is 77-23 NOT 62-38.

That's an excellent point. However, I doubt that many of the Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Arbitrators could be persuaded that they should recuse. Anyway, if the crats all oppose the idea, who would run this process?

Osborne wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. The policy-making and policy-executing roles are separated in democracies, but not in Wikipedia.
Iron law of oligarchy (T-H-L) applies instead, resulting in that outcome.

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:24 am

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:00 am

Look at the stats-table at top in "BARC only has support among non-admins"
: The BARC proposal got support from 77% (rounded from 0.7653...) of Editors.
Hence it's Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Arbitrators - causing the majority to be "only" 62-38.
Therefore, the actual support, when ignoring groups apt for recusal, is 77-23 NOT 62-38.
Well, 77-23, is a qualified majority, regardless of whether you pick a qualified majority to mean 2/3 or 3/4.

That's an excellent point. However, I doubt that many of the Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Arbitrators could be persuaded that they should recuse. Anyway, if the crats all oppose the idea, who would run this process?

Osborne wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:24 am

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:00 am

Therefore, the actual support, when ignoring groups apt for recusal, is 77-23 NOT 62-38.

That's an excellent point. However, I doubt that many of the Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Arbitrators could be persuaded that they should recuse. Anyway, if the crats all oppose the idea, who would run this process?

There's no need for a crat to make policy changes. It's a "self-governing community", isn't it? At least in theory.
However, it would be a smoother transition if a crat would take matters in hand. A reminder that the community gave them elevated rights for the reason to serve the community should be helpful. If not, WP:COI also applies.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. The policy-making and policy-executing roles are separated in democracies, but not in Wikipedia.
Iron law of oligarchy (T-H-L) applies instead, resulting in that outcome.

curprev 19:05, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 8,375 bytes -8,434‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Move to userspace for shortening undo
curprev 18:30, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 16,809 bytes +2,096‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": A year later... undo
curprev 17:07, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ m 14,713 bytes +1‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": * undo
curprev 17:06, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ m 14,712 bytes +16‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": "sisterhood" undo
curprev 17:03, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ m 14,696 bytes +1‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Atkinson undo
curprev 17:02, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 14,695 bytes +118‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Ti-Grace Atkison undo
curprev 17:00, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 14,577 bytes +4,957‎ →‎Evidence presented by GRuban: Note, Kudpung and GorillaWarfare are '''on the same side'''. Strongly so. undo
curprev 16:26, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 9,620 bytes +1,227‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl undo
curprev 16:13, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 8,393 bytes -10‎ →‎Evidence presented by GRuban: Mostly sisters undo
curprev 15:58, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 8,403 bytes +727‎ →‎Evidence presented by {your user name}: Reserving some space undo

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 7:13 pm

Some performance art on the evidence page.

curprev 19:05, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 8,375 bytes -8,434‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Move to userspace for shortening undo
curprev 18:30, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 16,809 bytes +2,096‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": A year later... undo
curprev 17:07, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ m 14,713 bytes +1‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": * undo
curprev 17:06, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ m 14,712 bytes +16‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": "sisterhood" undo
curprev 17:03, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ m 14,696 bytes +1‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Atkinson undo
curprev 17:02, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 14,695 bytes +118‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Ti-Grace Atkison undo
curprev 17:00, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 14,577 bytes +4,957‎ →‎Evidence presented by GRuban: Note, Kudpung and GorillaWarfare are '''on the same side'''. Strongly so. undo
curprev 16:26, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 9,620 bytes +1,227‎ →‎"Sisterhood," Atkinson famously said, "is powerful. It kills. Mostly sisters.": Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl undo
curprev 16:13, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 8,393 bytes -10‎ →‎Evidence presented by GRuban: Mostly sisters undo
curprev 15:58, 15 January 2020‎ GRuban talk contribs‎ 8,403 bytes +727‎ →‎Evidence presented by {your user name}: Reserving some space undo

Is the final product going to be some form of interpretive dance?

Jans Hammer wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:45 pm

Now he's took the whole lot down. Have to say I'm disappointed....

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:19 pm

Osborne wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 4:25 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 11:24 am

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 12:00 am

Therefore, the actual support, when ignoring groups apt for recusal, is 77-23 NOT 62-38.

That's an excellent point. However, I doubt that many of the Administrators, Bureaucrats, and Arbitrators could be persuaded that they should recuse. Anyway, if the crats all oppose the idea, who would run this process?

There's no need for a crat to make policy changes. It's a "self-governing community", isn't it? At least in theory.
However, it would be a smoother transition if a crat would take matters in hand. A reminder that the community gave them elevated rights for the reason to serve the community should be helpful. If not, WP:COI also applies.

Unfortunately, that's not what happened. The policy-making and policy-executing roles are separated in democracies, but not in Wikipedia.
Iron law of oligarchy (T-H-L) applies instead, resulting in that outcome.

Remember the case of Fred Bauder, who went berserk and was blocked, but then unblocked himself and carried on. A crat rightly desysopped him, there was a great hooha and it had to go to Arbcom.

el84 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:14 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:19 pm

Remember the case of Fred Bauder, who went berserk and was blocked, but then unblocked himself and carried on. A crat rightly desysopped him, there was a great hooha and it had to go to Arbcom.

A 'crat who is now a member of ArbCon, no less.

Beeblebrox wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:42 pm

el84 wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:14 pm

Poetlister wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 14, 2020 9:19 pm

Remember the case of Fred Bauder, who went berserk and was blocked, but then unblocked himself and carried on. A crat rightly desysopped him, there was a great hooha and it had to go to Arbcom.

A 'crat who is now a member of ArbCon, no less.

That never should've been a full case, the whole thing was an exercise in process for process' sake. A simple motion upholding Maxim's desysop of Fred was all that was needed.

But then I wouldn't have had the fun experience of Fred trying to turn around and literally blame the entire affair on me, that was special.

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:01 pm

I'm not sure this is a big enough matter to be accepted and get him, but it's definitely gonna put him on Arbcom's radar.

Kudpung is an unstable person who has lost the trust of the community. That's pretty widely accepted. But getting to a case that will pull his tools is a tricky matter — I don't think he has shit on enough of The Right People yet. But the fact that it's Guerillero filing the complaint at Arbcom hints that he's really close to getting squished by a truck.

RfB

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:31 am

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:01 pm

I'm not sure this is a big enough matter to be accepted and get him, but it's definitely gonna put him on Arbcom's radar.

Kudpung is an unstable person who has lost the trust of the community. That's pretty widely accepted. But getting to a case that will pull his tools is a tricky matter — I don't think he has shit on enough of The Right People yet. But the fact that it's Guerillero filing the complaint at Arbcom hints that he's really close to getting squished by a truck.

RfB

BUMP.

This is right on target. Clip and save.

tim

P.S. Outcome is going to be an admonishment, and a mealy-mouthed one at that.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:41 am

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:31 am

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:01 pm

I'm not sure this is a big enough matter to be accepted and get him, but it's definitely gonna put him on Arbcom's radar.

Kudpung is an unstable person who has lost the trust of the community. That's pretty widely accepted. But getting to a case that will pull his tools is a tricky matter — I don't think he has shit on enough of The Right People yet. But the fact that it's Guerillero filing the complaint at Arbcom hints that he's really close to getting squished by a truck.

RfB

BUMP.

This is right on target. Clip and save.

tim

P.S. Outcome is going to be an admonishment, and a mealy-mouthed one at that.

I dunno.

WP:FRAM is a thing.

Vigilant wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 1:49 am

Let the whining commence

I think I have better things to do with my time then get involved in something as blatantly "verdict first, trial later" as this one. I've semi-joked before that it's possible to predict the outcome of arbcom cases before they even take place just by looking at the personal grudges of the participants and calculating how far they each think they'll be able to push their preferred outcome and still call it a compromise, but I'm not sure I can recall an example this blatant before. Why not just save everyone the time and jump straight to "Kudpung admonished" now?'' ‑ Iridescent 15 January 2020

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:12 pm

Jans Hammer wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:45 pm

Now he's took the whole lot down. Have to say I'm disappointed....

I suspect Mr. Ruban ran into the same problem others have run into when trying to defend Mr. Kudpung: If you quote him in order to convince others of his non-malicious intent, you necessarily have to include the quotes themselves, which act as strong prima facie evidence of someone who is arrogant, imperious, narcissistic, and increasingly erratic, not to mention a little weird.

He's not the only Wikipedian for whom that applies, but he's probably the most prominent over the course of the past decade or so.

Young padawans', diligence train you must.
Assumptions from nothing, replace facts, they can not.

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:07 am

George Ruban moved it to his own userspace, because the 1000 word limit suddenly struck him,
- and I assume he did so, because he clearly said so, when he also did so.

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:12 am

This case was one incident premature.

RfB

Silent Editor wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:33 am

I'm not so sure: If Kudpung is merely admonished, then an appeal to Trust and Safety from one of his high profile victims might be effective - and Arbcom might be overruled... which would not be a good look for Arbcom.

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:57 am

Whatever 1500 word stew Molly is cooking on Chris, it's probably not without bite, or overly sweet.

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 2:12 am

This case was one incident premature.

RfB

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:19 am

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:57 am

Whatever 1500 word stew Molly is cooking on Chris, it's probably not without bite, or overly sweet.

She's already at 1,510, so I guess she'll need a bigger extension.

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:28 pm

Her prose needs a severe editor.

Is there still a bulletin board at which she could offer to pay, e.g., Eric or a friendly English-educated barrister commited to the empowerment of women and queerfolk in tech and the internet?

Randy from Boise wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:48 pm

Moral Hazard wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:28 pm

Her prose needs a severe editor.

Is there still a bulletin board at which she could offer to pay, e.g., Eric or a friendly English-educated barrister commited to the empowerment of women and queerfolk in tech and the internet?

I hear that all you have to do is run an ad on ODesk and the applicants come rushing out of the woodwork from all sides...

RfB

P.S. The ghost of Greg Kohs would insist that I remind you that it is spelled c-o-m-m-i-t-t-e-d.

Icewhiz wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 4:56 pm

Midsize Jake wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:19 am

DexterPointy wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:57 am

Whatever 1500 word stew Molly is cooking on Chris, it's probably not without bite, or overly sweet.

She's already at 1,510, so I guess she'll need a bigger extension.

It's too rambling (said the guy who posts his own rambling posts) - she would do good to tighten it, and she probably can. Chopping off 10 words from 1,500 is usually easy anyhow.

In a discussion on Kudpung's talk page (link to full discussion), Kudpung wrote a comment pinging me that stated in part, Let's see what {{U|Ritchie333}}, {{U|Joe Roe}}, {{U|Boing! said Zebedee }}, {{U|Ad Orientem}}, and {{U|GorillaWarfare|Molly White}} from among our most experienced and respected admins say, and the many other admins who commented there. As you can see, he added a second parameter to the {{U}} template specifically so that my username would display my real name, something he did not do with the other administrators mentioned.