User talk:Kudpung

Archives

Pageviews graph for this page.

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 23:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


A kitten for you!Edit

for your no nonsense and polite interaction with a newish editor over Zachary Quack Minimonster, thankyou.

Coolabahapple (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


When should a historic school lose its article to a successor school on the same siteEdit

As you can see I have been working on Leigh Academy Rainham, and considering how to write articles on multi-academy trusts. The Leigh Academies Trust has some interesting features but has 'hoovered' up many of the schools I have governed or worked in. I have previously avoided editing those for COI reasons but yesterday I looked at Crown Woods School. The notable building (2600 pupil ILEA 1958 comp) has been flattened and rebuilt as three of possibly 4 separate schools with in schools. It is a former school. The new build are at the far end of the playing fields, the entrance is onm a different road. The intake has changed. It has had a totally management change, and has been renamed 3 times. It announces it was re-founded. Way back in 2014, the article became a redirect and most of the information in the article I remember has been lost. a. we need that article back, b. can it be right that a MAT can totally erase a school, with a proud successful history, and replace it with a stub. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Clem. There is no consensus anywhere to my knowledge that articles about schools that have ceased to exist should be redirected or deleted. As far as I understand, an article that is notable does not become unnotable because its subject is dead or defunct. The bigger headache is where, particularly in the UK, multi school trusts buy up many schools (as we have seen in recent years in the neighbouring counties of Worcesterhire and Warwickshire) and rename them. A solution there is to merge the entire content and leave redirects so that nothing gets lost. Classic examples are Malvern_Hills_College and WCG (college). The UK has an annoying propensity for renaming its schools. Nowadays practically the only ones that retain their names for years are the traditional independent schools, but even then as they merge with each other since many of them have become mixed or are saved from bankruptcy it's difficult to keep track as in Malvern St James and Malvern College and HCGS. Keep your eye on Leigh because there is a particular editor who scours the encyclopedia looking for schools to delete. If there is content from any deleted articles that you want, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. Retrieving erased material. Yes please- if you could find out anything about the site before 2014 that would be much appreciated. My memory is shot but I did 7 years their leaving in the mass resignation of 88 of us, on the imposition of Micheal Murphy as head. I am interested to see how it compared with Abraham Moss Centre where I worked before.
  2. I am minded tobe bold and add the advice you gave on the renaming of schools to WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. It coulds become before ==Structure==. It could look something like this:
==Title==
The title of the Wikipedia article will normally be the same as the current name of the school.
===Changing the title===
The UK has an annoying propensity for renaming its schools. Multi school trusts buy up many schools (as we have seen in recent years in the neighbouring counties of Worcesterhire and Warwickshire) and rename them. A solution there is to merge the entire content and leave redirects so that nothing gets lost. Classic examples are Malvern_Hills_College and WCG (college).
===Defunct schools===
There is no consensus anywhere whether articles about schools that have ceased to exist should be redirected or deleted. As far as we understand, an article that is notable does not become unnotable because its subject is dead or defunct.
  1. Multi-academy trust As these seem to come under our remit, I would like to have a guideline page so we don't ave to work from first principle every time. Talk:Northern Education Trust shows how I have being trying to Help. Tside90 has been very patient- and from a standing start has tried to understand our philosophy, I can see his point too. Any thoughts--ClemRutter (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Clem. I can't find any deletions for Crown Wood. It's been redirected several times following its creation in 2013 but nothing appears to have been deleted. However, You may whsh to check through the history for any significant text removals - many articles end up bearing little resemblance to their original cast. Go ahead and make your changes to WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG - you don't need to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that changes made on a guideline level will affect all schools, not just those in a British type system. This isn't a simple question with a one size fits all answer. In Clem's instant case, this appears to be a school that is being run as a for-profit corp trying to monetize the historic school's history and would fight hard to keep the article on the historical school separate just based on WP:NOT. John from Idegon (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
In many cases the school is so changed that absolutely nothing is inherited from the historic school- except the latitude and longitude of the playing field. In other cases nothing has changed except the conditions of service of the teaching staff. Multi-academy trusts are not-for-profit charitable trust funded directly by central govrnmment. The change from local authority school to the MAT is the result of political dogma- an attempt by central government to reduce the power of the LEAs (local government). This affects us as potentially this affects every UK school. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ReviewEdit

General comment: ClemRutter, it's still the same school, the DfE Get information about schools page lists a former school's name that has become an academy as a "predecessor". So the predecessor should redirect or page moved to the new name, that redirect should then be tagged with R from former name, R from historic name and R printworthy. For an academy that had already changed its name but changed its name again which has happened for some due to a change of trust, that redirect should be tagged with just R from former name.
Guidelines page text you added: I think that needs to be rephrased. Do trusts "buy up" schools? Some join trusts and if it's rated 'inadequate' by Ofsted, then it has to become an academy. UK should be changed to England to be specific, the mass renaming of schools is mainly due to academies which is in England only. I've not seen many schools being renamed in the other constituent countries.
This whole academy programme is completely useless; state-funded schools operated by private trusts as a way of improving standards is not any different to the community/foundation schools which are operated/funded by the local authority (some voluntary aided have also become academies, some schools however have improved) - it pretty much like a slow phasing out of these school types. Let's not forget the overpaid trust CEO's (e.g. the collapsed Wakefield City Academies Trust where its CEO was paid £82,000 for 3 months work and £440,000 to companies owned by the CEO and his daughter), the re-brokering (transfer) of failing academies to another trust and ones which voluntarily transfer, and if a trust closes they have to become part of another trust — this all leads to schools being renamed (some don't).
At the end of the day, because they are state funded, the unnecessary high salaries, transfers, rebranding because of renaming, is costing the taxpayer a lot. 12 have been warned over high CEO pay revealed last month! I hope the government gets rid of the trusts, keep the academies but hand the schools back to local authority but that probs won't happen. My suggested improvements above and ending rant is concluded haha. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I think when the dfe number changes the school is then different. Blackheath Bluecoat 203/4715 lent its site to St Mary Magdalene Academy dfe (n/a) before they moved to Hendon Street and then gave it to Leigh Academy Blackheath 203/4008 . If it's still the same school.. :: Please go ahead and rephrase it; I may get there first.
I came across this nice publication West, Anne; Wolfe, David (2018). Academies, the School System in England and a Vision for the Future (PDF). LSE Matrix Chambers: LSE Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-1-909890-42-8. Retrieved 2 November 2019.. Interesting in that it is suscint and also because

This document is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Does that mean you will allow me to cut and paste? Multi-academy trusts is going to get a work over tonight. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Does that help?ClemRutter (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi John, yeah ClemRutter ended up replying under each of my paragraphs which then made two of mine appear unsigned and one of ClemRutter's unsigned. I've moved ClemRutter's comments to the bottom and minor tidy. Also added a Review heading to simplify editing Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Two new primary school articlesEdit

Hi Kudpung, came across these two newly created primary school articles: De Bohun Primary School & Children's Centre and Danegrove School - both seem to mention grade II listed but I'm not sure if this is notable enough to have its own article and can be covered in locality? I'm not sure, what do you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven (Editor), What constitutes a school has always been a controversial topic. Is a school a building or is it an institution? Both listed buildings and schools need to demonstrate some basic form of notability, but neither of them if just short stubs, really contribute much to knowledge, nor are they likely to be found and expanded upon. Primary schools are not generally considered notable, while listed buildings are if they are in a country's national register. Check out who the creator is, and take it up with him if you feel so inclined. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung and exactly what I was thinking, I was just unsure on this with it mentioning listed building. I can see links in both articles to a listing on Historic England but I don't think this can be expanded much. I think it is best to have the text incorporated into the locality article and with the article becoming redirects with the R from school template which is what we normally do. If someone or the creator can expand it with reliable independent sources in line with WP:SCH/AG, then the redirect can simply be converted back to an article. Pinging the creator for comment. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:GEOFEAT, listed buildings are deemed notable. It is irrelevant that they are primary schools, the notability is in the architecture and that was why Historic England listed them. Both are certainly capable of expansion and one has started to be expanded. You can help by reading the sources and contributing. When it stops raining here I will be photographing both which will make a big difference to the articles. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, that was all I needed to hear, as mentioned above "I was just unsure on this with it mentioning listed building" but primary schools are normally deemed non-notable and are redirected to their locality. The expansion concern/short stub is why I was thinking it would fit better in the locality with the article becoming a redirect, and can always be converted back to an article. Anyway, in terms of contributing, this is a collaborative encyclopedia but I must note that even though they are listed buildings, they are still schools in operation, so per the guidelines: "Avoid stubs. Only add schools that you are willing to do significant research on, and complete most of the generally required page sections. Don't automatically assume that someone else is interested enough in your school to finish it for you." I've contributed to thousands of school articles, but for the two you made, I will be doing the following: Adding infoboxes, rephrasing/adding to intro text and doing any cleanup that may be required. I'm also currently working on a new school article which I will be publishing on here soon. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I look forward to your contributions. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

MentoringEdit

Hey, Kudz - do you think I’m qualified to help with this? Atsme Talk 📧 13:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Atsme Huh? You know you are 👍 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Just checking - so now I will volunteer for it...and blame you.   Atsme Talk 📧 14:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nigel Coates (architect) article editsEdit

Dear Kudpung.

Thanks for your message.

Can I work with you to improve this article? You seem well placed to do this.

Firstly though, I want to hold my hands up and say that some of the edits done under my username were inappropriate any many reflect a lack of experience editing Wikipedia. Basically, I accept that I haven't gone about editing this article in the best way, for which I apologise.

Regarding the COI: I declared this as soon as I became aware of the requirement to do so. For full disclosure, I worked at the subject's design studio full time until 2015. Since then I have been a freelancer and he has, from time to time, been one of my clients. However, Wikipedia contributions have been done in my (highly valued!) spare time.

Regarding the 'stalemate' reached with another editor over this article: I have read - and done my best to fully understand the implications of - lots of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nevertheless, some of my edits were amended very clumsily (thus creating further problems) while others were reverted for reasons I can only surmise as to. The overall result has been detrimental to the accuracy of the article and it is this that I stated I do not have time for, ie the feeling of pedaling hard to move backwards.

So, a collaborative approach seems like the obvious way forward. For my part, I have a lot of knowledge of the subject matter plus - if it's appropriate - the use of material such as original photos which could improve the article. Moreover, although I have very limited time to do this, I cannot stand leaving a task unfinished!

With kind regards,

Ace Morgan 16:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemorgan (talkcontribs)

Acemorgan, FWIW I have a COI too. I was in the same class as Nigel at grammar school in the 1960s (but he won't remember me). I have followed his career closely ever since, but there's not much I can do to help this article apart from perhaps copyediting it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Question re RfAsEdit

Hi Kudpung. I have seen in the past that you have been heavily involved in the RfA process. I notice in some RfAs (the current GRuban one being an example), that the act of people simultaneously !voting while issues are being surfaced/thrashed-out is not always a good way to conduct an RfA. I also noticed that sometimes we never really get a full statement from the Candidate on who they are (although, we expect the noms to do it for them, but even that can fail as per the Rexx RfA). However, I was struck when I went to the ArbCom elections page that the environment corrects these issues. Questions are asked on one page, Candidates are discussed on another page, and the Candidate makes a statement on a third page - and all done in advance before !voting. My understanding is that there is also a "higher-bar" around checking of eligibility to !vote at ArbCom. My question is whether this ArbCom structure would be a better structure for RfAs? Britishfinance (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Britishfinance, I've been involved in attempts to analyse and reform RfA for a decade. At one time even Founder Jimbo Wales called it "a horrible and broken process". The Arbcom election is actually not much better because a lot of harassement goes on there too and candidates are not expected to defend themselves (been there, done that, and came out with a torn T-shirt). The only thing that's different is that the voters are not tearing each other's throats out. RfA will never be improved because the community does not want it to change - it's the only venue on Wikipedia where they can be as nasty as they like with total impunity. George has ironically done himself a disservice by naïvely trying to put things right by doing it the wrong way and the community is rejoicing at being able to pile on like crows over carrion. RexxS is completely different. Rex is heavily engaged in outreach and is known personally by hundreds of Wikipedians. He's also a very mature person almost my age. He's one of the nicest people you could wish to meet and that's precisely why the trolls tried to make mincemeat of him at his RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Yikes, that is unfortunate, and I have seen you register your exasperation on RfAs before. Do you think there would be any benefit to running an RfA like the ArbCom elections (or is the issue that the community wouldn’t agree to such a change, or both)? Anyway, thanks for your reply Kudpung. Britishfinance (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Britishfinance: if you mean a question and discussion period before the opening of the public polling, then you might be able to get people to agree to a trial, which I think would be an interesting trial. If you mean securePoll private voting, probably not. –xenotalk 18:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
xeno, I think any of the ArbCom !voting structures would be an improvement, but if some are a bridge too far, I understand.
I think the first issue - having a 7-14 day structured and bureaucrat moderated discussion & question period (and a summary declaration by the candidate which they can amend/update during this period), would be a great benefit. Maybe to help bureaucrats time-wise, we could restrict RfAs to say 4 times a year (E.g. do several in in bulk)
I would push for 14-days to ensure any “emotion” dissipates (I have seen many tense/angry AFDs that subside into orderly closures by the 3rd listing, although not all). In a way, an RfA is like a one-listing AfD, which from my experience of AFDs, is a really bad constraint for anything but obvious cases?
Thanks for your consideration, Britishfinance (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Britishfinance and Xeno: I don't want to dampen anyone's enthusiasm, but over the last ten years or so every possible solution has been discussed to death many times over at WT:RfA where you will see from the talkpage stats that I am the major contributor to the discussions (after long since blocked/topicbanned Eric Corbett). I started and led the largest research into RfA at WP:RFA2011 which is still valid today, but some parts of it, particularly the data mining done by Scottywong, could do with being updated. Xeno's suggestion makes sense, but the venomous voters would very much miss the feature of being able to victimise the candidate and each other by contesting the votes. And that's why no one really wants the situation to change. The only changes that have ever been made were in late December 2015 when Biblioworm, who retired shortly afterwards, made what I basically consider to be cosmetic changes because they did not address the core issues. They lowered the pass mark, but by permitting much broader publicity, the quality dropped, the number of participants doubled, and along with it the drama doubled. The number of candidates did not increase. I would welcome anyone coming up with a suggestion for a well crafted RfC proposing some changes, and I would help, but it's not something I will be doing nowadays myself - I'm too old and too tired of it all. Maybe if I were a Bureaucrat I would be happy to just abstain from voting and clerk the RfAs instead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
We could surely use a few more hands, and no one could reasonably claim you don’t know the subject matter! I’m worried about what Iridescent wrote, on the barrier to RfB having been raised with the new discretionary veto powers. –xenotalk 04:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
xeno, Link? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/925191409xenotalk 04:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
xeno, I have phases of following Iridescent's tp. It's so interesting it can become a time sink if one joins in - as I have done on several occasions. However, it's uncanny how well she has her finger on the Wikipedia pulse - she certainly seems to echo my every thought on most things which spares me the need to express my own 2¢. I've been hounding Risker for months about getting back on Arbcom but she's a very resolute person and when here mind's made up that's it - but wherever she might be one can be sure she's working her shoes off for Wikipedia. If I were to run for Bureaucrat, people would say I'm not boring enough, and they'd be right. Adversaries would also use it as a kind of resyoping process. For the exact same reasons as Iridescent, at the Arbcom election I would probably run afoul of the king makers who write those awful 'user guides' , and questions from users who sometimes are simply borderline trolling. One way or the other however, next year I'm either going to be working a lot more for Wikipedia or a lot less - there is still Wikimania approaching in Bangkok for which the WMF cannot stifle my presence this time by not giving me a scholarship. If it were possible to apply for only one year at Arbcom, I'd probably give it a shot, but from what I hear, it takes a year there to learn the ropes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
A two-phase approach for requests for administrative privileges was discussed in 2015. (I proposed one a few weeks before the discussion I linked to.) It garnered some interest but not enough to proceed further at that time. There are many editors who are wary of making the process longer than it is now, and given that community interest in any discussion often trails off rapidly after an initial surge, it is a reasonable concern. isaacl (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I think a week is long enough, Isaacl. You haven't gone through it, but I can assure your it's worse than any Army promotion board, and waiting for the outcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
But per above, would we enforce a rule that all AfDs only last one week? Of course not, because it would be chaos for non-standard cases (like what RfA sometimes becomes). Maybe another simple variation is to allow the bureaucrats to re-list an RfA for another week, as long as the % is above 50% (i.e. not a clear consensus to fail)? For example, Iridescent has just made a very interesting, and insightful, !vote on the GRuban RfA. However, I am sure that there are many Opposes/Neutrals/DidnotVotes who will not have read it by the time this RfA closes. In a good % of AfD cases, the quality/clarity of the arguments in contentious cases, usually (but always) improves materially with re-listings. By the third re-list, most of the "emotion" is gone (fatigue sets in), and focus is back on the actual factbase. Given the community is familiar with re-lists at AfD, why would they consider it unacceptable at RfA? thanks; it would also materially help the supporting information in any final cratchat? Britishfinance (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Seeing as you're pinging me, I feel entitled to comment—this would be an awful idea and would be the final nail in the coffin of the already-tottering RFA system. What you're doing is insisting that instead of submitting to a process that is unpleasant, time-consuming and intrusive for a week, that prospective candidates consent beforehand to being subjected to this hazing ritual for an unspecified period, complete with ensuring their availability to answer questions for up to a month.
RFA isn't a vote, and every RFA closure is already at crat discretion; the handful of extra participants keeping them open for two weeks, three weeks, four weeks would draw would have no impact whatsoever on any result since the pertinent arguments would already have been made in the first week. (If someone was too lazy to research the candidate themselves and just relying on what other people say, then they're not someone in whose opinions we're interested anyway; the crats all-but-discount "oppose per" comments without rationales when deciding whether consensus exists to promote.)
That one week period isn't random; it was carefully chosen as the shortest possible period in which we can ensure that the majority of interested parties are likely to see the RFA, as we don't want these things kept open any longer than we absolutely have to. An open-ended RFA process would effectively restrict candidacies to a mix of those people either arrogant enough or bland enough to feel certain that they'd draw near-unanimous support in the first week so it wouldn't be extended, and the hardcore obsessives who feel certain they'll be active on Wikipedia every day for up to a month, and none of those three groups are people we particularly want as admins.
The closest existing "open-ended until we have a clear consensus" process—WP:FAC—has almost none of the rancour and backbiting since virtually every participant is there with a genuine desire to help, not to settle old scores, and even that is hellish and stressful for participants and regularly sees people withdrawing candidacies because they've dragged on for a long time and the nominator is no longer able or willing to devote time to responding to comments day-after-day. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Iridescent, thank you for your input at GR’s RfA. I must admit, my disappointment in the entire process is beyond words, but on a positive note, I will add with sincerity that I have not experienced a better, more fun and helpful collaboration with any editor as I have with GRuban. Based on my editing experiences with him (and many other editors have acknowledged similar) I see an editor who was honest to a fault. What I see as the reason for the giant snowball effect is a general misunderstanding when defining the term; GRuban understood it to mean harmless WP (talk page stalker), and the subject saw it is as unwelcome hounding. The description of the activity presented from the subject’s perspective triggered a great deal of mistrust in the candidate, and that is sad. The few who were involved apparently had their minds made up to not accept his apology.

For me, the first thing that came to mind when I saw the first oppose was “uh oh, a sock”, and then after digging deeper into the edits came Wikipedia:Tarage's Law because of the articles that were involved, but with one exception: it began rather than ended with that type of article/editors in this instance. GRuban inadvertently walked into quicksand, and the more he struggled to be free, the deeper he sank. What I find most disappointing is how quickly some in the community dismissed his 14 yrs. of excellent contributions because of a rare mistake, and how quickly so many chose to believe the oppose comment by the sock who changed the direction of that RfA and started the snowball rolling downhill.

To say I’m sad and disappointed over what happened would be an understatement, especially considering how easy it is for editors to do a quick editor interaction check and see the actual exchanges rather than immediately accepting the opposes at face value. I’m not saying the editor did not feel what they felt - sometimes our past experiences can create bigger than life perceptions when, in this case, it was not much more than an annoyance like what we all have experienced (and will continue to experience) in WP’s open editing, collaborative environment - and I’m referring to an editor showing up to revert our edit(s) or make a correction that introduces a mistake in an article we worked hard to get right. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Iridescent, thanks for the response. I agree that an open-ended process would not be appropriate. However, a process which is as you say unpleasant, time-consuming and intrusive, is also, because of the artificially compressed time-scale, very unfair. Even in my short time here, I have seen characters appear at RfAs who are clearly socks, and who are there to game-the-system, and spread an allegation that can take root. Obviously, if a candidate has "skeletons in the closet", then even it is via a sock, it is still an issue. However, in the compressed time-frame, these issues are sometimes not properly investigated before closure? Put another way, if a candidate has spent 10-years on WP and put themselves forward at RfA where some controversial/complex issue emerges – are we saying that candidate would rather stick with the 7 days as opposed to having another re-list, or the benefit of a prior 7-days or Q&A before !voting? We don't enforce such a compressed timescale in any other deletion process in WP (that I know of), and yet, to my understanding, RfA is accepted(?) to be the most broken decision-making process in WP? Why are we so unwilling to take any learnings from other less-broken WP decision-making processes (e.g. the re-list at AfD, or the pre-list at ArbCom elections), and assume that the RfA process is in some way "optimal", but yet also most broken? That seems contradictory? However, I accept that I don't have your experience in area, so perhaps what I am saying is just wrong, and I appreciate you and Kudpung/Xeno (above) responding on it. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I join those above saying that 7 days should be enough - a longer process would be truly awful. However there might be something for no !votes being cast in the first three days. I'm not saying there aren't circumstances where longer might be warranted, but RfAs very rarely have significant recoveries. I suspect if we tweaked the timetable to be longer, the average support share would probably drop slightly, notwithstanding any other factors. That's why I'd be most interested in a variation that kept the time but considered a format change. It would need a few trials, and I'd suggest letting candidates pick whether they be part of it or not (while a trial). Regardless of method, we'd need to keep going until we had a non clearcut candidate or two Nosebagbear (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • But the process is already truly awful. unlike any other major decision making process in WP - all of which either have (1) a pre-vote discussion period (ArbCom, even ANI informally), or (2) a re-list feature. There is a contradiction between the idea that changes to RFA to make it more like other major WP decision making processes (that are considered fine), would make RFA awful, when it already is awful, imho? Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Britishfinance: - that's assuming that it's only the timing and structure of RfA that makes it unpleasant (or arbcom elections and AfD not so bad). AfDs and RfCs aren't really comparable, since they're about articles, ideas or so-on, and so don't cause so much unpleasantness to be directed at one individual. Not so many people participate in questioning about an Arb's prior performance, though I feel that their length is too long. I instead say that the negatives of a current RfA would be inflamed were it to be lengthened. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • If a two-phase format were adopted, I suggest having a fixed day of the week on which the process would start. This would help allow contributors who usually only participate once a week to plan for their best opportunity to comment on a request for administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ironically whether RfA is a nice place or not (and it most certainly isn't) it does its job quite well - until you get a contentious one that stands out by being a mega shitstorm. We've managed to reduce the troll and newbie transclusions to almost zero leaving most of today's RfA as respectful passes. The George Ruban RfA is an example of an RfA that went horribly wrong. I'm not saying this because I was the nominator - neither I nor Lourdes could possibly have foreseen what Sagaciousphil was going to dish up - but maybe a valid vote notwithstanding, or that the once star editor of FA, banned from RfA and now turned troll was going to add to the drama. What concerns me is that RfA passes plenty of aspirants with barely 18 months tenure and not being round long enough do anything wrong, while people with a three or four year old dusty skeleton in a forgotten cupboard get hung out to dry. The pile ons that followed were totally disproportionate to the 'crime' as some have called it, and it's not as if it were a revelation of a particularly nasty regular pattern of behaviour.
Any suggested reforms of RfA must take into account the trolling and piling on, but how to do that leaves any ideas of mine long exhausted since WP:RFA2011 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Kudpung, and a good observation re 18 month editors. Almost every editor in WP (even the 18 month ones) have issues in the closet. The problem with RfA is that when it comes under any form of stress by the raising of such issues, the process almost spontaneously collapses. We are in a strange position where editors with long terms of service, who WP should want to be admins, have a tougher time as people they have rubbed against over their longer terms, raise such issues in a time-compressed format that implodes in such a manner. Again, I don’t think that any other decision making process in WP is considered so broken, and yet someone with your long experience of RfAs (and shared by effectively all others above), feel that none of their mechanisms (eg pre-vote discussions, re-lists etc) are of any use? Ultimately, I can only conclude that my understanding of RFA is as broken as the process itself. I think I have taken enough of your time, however, I have enjoyed the discussion. Britishfinance (talk)
Your understanding of RfA is probably not broken, Britishfinance, but what you don't have is the institutional memory. But you are not alone in that - many of the suggestions that are brought to the table here or at WT:RfA have already been made, not once, but many times over. Unfortunately people do not have the courage, the time, or the ambition to put those ideas to test by the community. Biblioworm made a brave show in December 2015 with his complex catalogue of changes and I supported him on several of them. Some of them were adopted by the community, none of the ideas addressed the core issues. If anything, as I mentioned above, the RfA that do fail nowadays, instead of just simply failing, are turned into a monstrous mess of mud-slinging - often even a worse cesspit than Wikipediocracy where all the tawdry trash that is beneath contempt hang out.The occasional good guys there like Beeblbrox try to make some soothing comments, but most of them there just ignore him him. Atsme makes some good points above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Kudpung. On a wider point, sometimes I think WP as a decision making entity works well in “defence” - E.g. protecting itself from harm/attack (take ArbCom’s excellent open letter to WMF over Fram), however, it seems to struggle in “offense” - E.g. taking bold decisions to make itself better. I can never get the image out of my mind of WP being almost Ent-like in its approach, and yet it’s creation/development is so radical. I guess again, there is much to understand in the institutional memory of how WP works. Again, thanks for your time and consideration. Britishfinance (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
That inertia is a feature, not a bug. One of the formative experiences—arguably the formative experience—of the current Wikipedia community is the disastrous consequences of the WMF trying to impose a series of "bold decisions to make Wikipedia better" a few years ago, which pushed both Wikipedia and the WMF more generally to the point where it was a genuine possibility that it would end up collapsing altogether as we haemorrhaged editors and the WMF haemorrhaged staff. As a result we're very, very wary of implementing any well-intentioned proposal to "make life easier" unless and until all the potential negative consequences have been thoroughly considered. Wikipedia exists under a permanent death sentence—Google could wipe us out tomorrow if they restarted Knol with a content-fork snapshot and removed all Wikipedia links from search results—so anything that has even the slightest potential to trigger a mass resignation or a steep drop in participation needs very careful consideration. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Iridescent, extremely interesting and thought provoking. Is there an Iridescent-essay on something like “what has worked, what has not worked” on WP so far? Britishfinance (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The WMF is determined to widen the gap between themselves and the communities. Bcause it is a non-profit, and like all non prifts, the funds they have at their disposal are easy-come-easy-go because unlike a company, they are not driven by sales to survive. And for that reason the WMF isn't populated by people who are professionals at making a profit - they are a bunch of modern 68ers just playing at running a business. For all the good they do they would be better off sitting on the floor, smoking a joint, drinking cheap wine, eating their eco burgers, and playing Monopoly. In Iridescent's own words, :

Pretty much every significant setback in Wikipedia's history can be traced directly to someone at the WMF who thinks they're being helpful trying to force their preferred change rather than just suggesting a broad direction and allowing the cats to herd themselves. The traditional ineptness of the WMF's senior management isn't a flaw, it's a feature.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and before I archive it, this is what I replied to Buster7, two months ago:

I followed the FRAMBAN issue quite closely (and still do) but hold back as much as I can from commenting. I'm more vociferous here (and got some results), but not based on the editor herself but rather on the description and actual function (or lack of it) of the top job. Reminds me a bit of how her Maj had to be badgered by Blair to come to London following Diana's death (nobody normally dares to tell the monarch what to do). The richer these celebs get, the less they appear to be inclined to care about the minions whose unpaid work generates the funds. See also Ryan Merkley joins WMF as Chief of Staff and the comments section.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

 
Hello, Kudpung. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

FlooredEdit

Your statement at GRuban's talk page should be a benchmark of how to give support to an RfA candidate. Much to learn from you. Like the heading says, am floored. Warmly, Lourdes 03:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacksEdit

I'm surprised that I find myself here writing this, being an admin and all, but you are not above the rules, so you can stick this in your pipe and smoke it: do not make personal attacks, especially towards people who are no longer her to defend themselves, "by referring to someone as a troll". You may have had crossed words here, and you may have come away a little bruised, but that now does not give you the damned right to start attacking someone who can't answer back. Like him or not, Eric was one of our best writers, and in Horncastle's short time here, he did more for article improvement than most ever will, and in that I include the blocking admin. Thank you. CassiantoTalk 07:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. I like and respect Eric and would be the first to agree that he regularly received harsher treatment than he should because of the personal grudges of a small clique of editors with a grudge. However, in this case he had only himself to blame; quite separately from his current block he's under a topic ban barring him from "engaging in any threaded discussions relating to RFA", so Eric was knowingly and intentionally being disruptive the moment he started discussing the RFA, and the moment it became obvious that he was Dr H (something I assume nobody is disputing—Eric has a very distinctive writing style), whichever admin became aware of it would have had no alternative but to throw the book at him. If Eric wants to come back to Wikipedia I'd in general be completely willing to turn a blind eye to him sneaking back under the wire—either Eric himself, or anyone who was on the 2011 Arbitration Committee, can testify that I pushed for a general and formal right for blocked editors in general and him in particular to make a clean start provided they stay completely away from whichever topic got them in trouble before—but if he comes back (either as Eric or as a sock) he needs to restrict himself to writing and let go of all his previous disputes.
TL;DR: Whatever Eric may be he's neither stupid nor unaware of Wikipedia's rules, and since he was intentionally breaking them "troll" in this case might be harsh but isn't wrong. ‑ Iridescent 08:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Iridescent I'm afraid this is one area where you and I are going to have to agree to disagree - at least partly. If you were aware of the extent of Corbett's harsh treatment for years of other editors - often unprovoked and for no reason whatsoever, on and off Wiki, you too would not be saying this. I'm fortunate that I have a (fairly) thick skin, but other's don't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not defending the socking, I'm challenging the unnecessary name calling. If this had've been me, I'd have been served with the appropriate talk page paperwork within seconds. I don't see why, because Kudpung is an admin, this is in any way different. CassiantoTalk 08:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Cassianto Don't use PA yourself to justify your complaints of perceived PA by others. You are not above the rules even if you are another prolific FA builder and 'unblockable'. If you knew the extent of the totally unprovoked PA and harrassment I suffered for years at the hands of Eric Corbett, you wouldn't be saying this. But because he had become one of the FA 'unblockables' I had to keep my trap shut. Horncastle was deliberately breaking every rule - tough for you if he turned out to be someone you like. Wales made a speech about it at a Wikimania and there was no prize for guessing whom he war referring to. I find it extremely odd that you can so vehemently defend one of the rudest users Wikipedia ever had, and his pathetic socking. If you grace this page with your comments again, please have the courtesy to remain polite rather than behave like Corbett. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rehashing my words to try to make them fit for me, doesn't wash. You may've had a problem with him, but I didn't. And I'm sorry you have had problems with him, but that doesn't mean that for that reason, I have to have a problem with him too. This is subjective nonsense; I get you have an axe to grind, but if you want others to follow the rules, you cannot be seen to break them yourself. Secondly, I don't consider myself "unblockable", never have done; in fact, if you care to check my log you'll see that I've been blocked more times than a public convenience. In short, call him a sock, because strictly speaking, that's what he's done. But troll? No. That is used for someone with a primary objective to abuse, ruin, vandalise and cause distress. If you check his contributions, Horncastle did none of that. CassiantoTalk 08:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Cassianto, I didn't have a problem with Corbett - he had a problem with every admin and harrased them and goaded them persistently. That's why he still has the record number of posts to WT:RfA even if he's not been active there for years. You don't like me simply because I'm an admin. Period. You are clearly defending every aspect of Corbett's work on Wikipedia, whether good or bad and under whatever sock he chooses to use. There must be some reason why he has the longest block log on the project - note, I'm one of the few front-line admins who have never blocked him. No one is calling any names at anyone who is a genuine member of this community. I never take people's words out of context or rehash them, that's a typical disingenuous tactic I let others use. I'll repeat again, don't use PA to complain about PA, and if you defend those who game the system by playing the innocent victim, and who like you, have a monumental block log for making personal attacks, I have no inclination to receive your further comments on this page, Thank you and good day. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Where on earth did you get the idea I didn't like you, and where is the PA I used against you? Oh dear, you're losing the argument and now you've no platformed me on this page. How very disappointing. CassiantoTalk 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not losing the argument, because I just won it: I asked you politely to stay off this page. Please do so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Kudpung, please, please don't use Jimbo's out-of-touch, divisive, and brutally rude attack on Eric to justify anything. Depending on one's view of his role, that either cemented the impression that he has forgotten what we do here (I like this) or damaged our community by conveying the message that we should be playing wiki-politics to the extent of cold-shouldering or even seeking to ban some editors just because the boss-man doesn't like the cut of their jib. Whatever you think on the issues raised, that's a support for your position that makes me cringe. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
That's not what I said Yngvadottir, so please don't come here like Cassianto and make a big issue of something that is not. That is also disingenuous and I have an aversion to it. It's not compatible with my view of a person with your academic standing and excellent content contributions to Wikipedia, and that makes me cringe. Now try and make a PA out of that. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to hear it; of course I won't. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ACE GuideEdit

Hi Kudpung, Regarding Template:ACE2019 - unless there was an election commissioner public ruling that said you must withdraw your guide you should not have to (please link to where this was declared because there was no prohibition on it in the RFC). Notably, at least one other candidate has a guide there now. If you want to not link it for any reason, that is certainly fine though. — xaosflux Talk 12:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser, Xaosflux, and thanks indeed for the heads up. I was admonished [1] by a user who is both a Bureaucrat and sitting arb that I should not, as a candidate, be writing a guide. You are however correct that several candidates are maintaining voter guides. The template itself states: All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. . Now of course I don't know what to do. My first reaction now is to throw my toys out of the pram and withdraw my candidacy. But you know me, I'm likely to raise a big stink about it if I do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
So it is completely up to you, no official election challenge has been risen (would really would be to move to disqualify you from the election if you made that page - which I see a 0% chance of passing). We have added questions about voter guides to next year's RfC. The way it sits right now there are a few points to consider (these are my opinions take them for what they are):
  1. May you maintain User:Kudpung/ACE2019 (draft)?
    Yes
  2. May you transclude the guide to Template:ACE2019
    Only if you want to
  3. Should other people add your guide to that template?
    No, unless you are fine with it
  4. Is it wise to list your guide on the public template?
    Only you can make that decision :)
Hope that helps? — xaosflux Talk 12:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My comment was meant as a personal request, as I subsequently clarified. Clearly I misjudged the tone. I have no authority here, as a sitting arb, as a 'crat, as a candidate - zero authority from any of these roles. I also don't do "arguments from authority", and I'm disappointed that you think that I do - I am not more important than anyone else on this encyclopedia, and I get very annoyed when people make out that I am - I've already pointed this out on my questions page as a role I'm not comfortable with. Personally, I think all three candidates who have voter guides are going to lose votes by doing so and I felt it was worth commenting. You are free to ignore my opinion. WormTT(talk) 12:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    Certainly will lose votes now a very popular sitting Arb has weighed in in a number of locations with a very negative personal opinion about his competitors in the election. Curious, eh? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

My paperEdit

AFAIK Library Genesis does not require any registration. You should be able to download it following one of the links here: [2]. The most you may have to do is a captcha. Let me know if this still doesn't work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting paper. Is there a follow-up? –xenotalk 02:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Extremely interesting, xeno. Piotrus' paper should be compulsory reading for prospective Arbcom candidates. In fact perhaps there shouod be an advice page on the lines of WP:RFAADVICE - but I won't be the one to write it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Ha, I appreciate the idea. Feel free to suggest it on talk of that page. I don't want to add it myself due to, well, the obvious COI :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There is however this by Risker which is very good, but not well enough known. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Georges P. Vanier Secondary SchoolEdit

Thank you. Can you rev/delete the personal attacks there? It's loathsome stuff. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Patience, that isn't the only one. I'm working my way through. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

For attentionEdit

Worth a look. User:John.Jones12345678901. I just caught this by accident. scope_creepTalk 12:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

scope_creep, thanks. Blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting timesEdit

Remember Wikimania 2013? I've just realised that the HK Polytechnic U. which is currently in the news is the same place. A remarkable change of fortune, eh? Andrew D. (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

What I remember about the HK conference is that it was the most disorganised Wikimania I ever attended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Kudpung".