View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 11:03 am




Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Kupdung 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am
Posts: 372
Reply with quote
A rather controversial edit to make with ones sockpuppet. :?

_________________
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wikipediocracy Discord.


Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:15 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Kudpung has won another friend in the ranks of the female Administrators......
Quote:
.......BrownHairedGirl is perfectly aware of the use of the vernacular, and will surely admit that there was nothing misogynous in LP's comment. Imagine he had simply told her to 'bugger off'... Part of all this is the ingrained attitude of many editors to deliberately look for any excuse to claim being insulted and embark on a character assasination campaign. ..... Life is a bitch; so is being a Wikipedia editor who works hard and in good faith. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Quote:
For the record, @Kudpung, I reckon the meaning of the vernacular usage depends on the context. Some uses are much less charged than other uses.

However, when a hostile man who has been hurling insults at me for weeks says shut up (snip) bitch (snip) shut up, then I have learnt from long experience that it's a significant escalation to hardcore misogyny and a silencing-threat which in meatspace comes with a significant risk of immediate violence.

In real life, that sort of comment requires a rapid escape, and radical restructuring of relationships. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)


Wed May 01, 2019 10:53 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Quote:
The enigma is why every time the Community needs the software improving or repairing, the high-ups in charge tell us that there is not enough money and not enough staff. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Would you prefer they told you the truth? Nobody wants to work for a bunch of ungrateful assholes, and it's pretty darn hard to write software without a clear specification.

So sure, they don't tell you they don't want to do it. But as Guy Macon is crying into his cornflakes about, these days, there's plenty more on the to do list that they can justify giving priority too.

The fuck does an idiot like you even need software for? I can see the benefits of getting a bot to post your regular whinges, since they are basically copypasta, but am get the sense you live for the thrill of being able to write each one out, over and over. Yeah, I'd work for you. Not.


Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:16 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4178
Reply with quote
Interesting to see Kudpung claim he spent "around 3 hours" to "research" and "prepare" this RfA vote.......
Quote:
Oppose. I have reviewed every single one of the candidate's 347 creations. The danger of mass creating stubs is what is clearly demonstrated by their large number of articles tagged for attention, including unsourced or poorly sourced BLP that do not meet notability criteria, and some articles which I have had to PROD. Despite the large number of pages created, they do not pass my criteria for according WP:Autopatrolled which require all created articles to be of clean format and free of tags or taggable issues that would raise he attention of New Page Patrollers. The candidate's creations are rarely complete even as stubs - in the majority of cases even the stub tag is missing - the very item that might just attract the attention of someone who might be disposed to expand the article. That being said, if a stub is capable of expansion, why cant the creator not do that expansion? My mantra has always been: 'If one wants to police Wikipedia pages, one should also prove they know how to produce them,' nevertheless unlike some RfA voters, I don't go so far as to demand a FA or two and a raft of GA. Some of the earlier articles might just scrape through a request for Autopatrolled, but the rest and any future creations clearly require the scrutiny of New Page Reviewers. I also concur with others that there is insufficient work in maintenance areas including AIV, ANI, AfD, etc which does not inspire confidence in sufficient knowledge of policies and guidelines, and no work at all at NPP which though not required, is one of the best learning and starting tasks for aspiring admin candidates. There is a clear lack of use of Edit Summaries, which are important for an admin or maintenance worker. I am concerned about the COI issue - as I understand the rules, it is not only about specifically being paid to edit, but being a salaried employee of the subject of the article is a very strong Conflict of Interest. I am not doubting for a moment that the candidate can be trusted not to abuse the tools, but he required experience is just not there. My own RfA criteria, which are far from being the most severe, and on which I often allow a lot of leeway, are unforunately not met. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think three hours is enough to even justify that first line.

Even if he did nothing else, that means he spent just under 2 minutes looking at each article. Barely enough time to Google the subject and review the first few results. And he obviously did other stuff in that time to research and prepare that vote.

It has to be assumed therefore this is a complete and total lie, and therefore all the conclusions based on this alleged review, are open to question.

Taking just one claim, we can see Kupdung has "had to" PROD just six of this user's creations, which is a paltry 1.7% of his output.

And at time of writing, three of those six have already been detagged, for reasons that Kupdung really should have found if he was doing a proper review, mindful of the fact WP:PROD is not a charter for the lazy or ignorant, it's for highlighting pages whose lack of merit should be completely obvious, as in if you make a mistake and place a tag in error, you better have a damn good reason. Lack of time to fulfill WP:BEFORE not being one of them. Lack of skill/knowledge would also not be a valid excuse, but Kudpung himself seems to suggest he thinks it would be unpossible for him to make a mistake for lack of skill or policy knowledge.

Tony Eprile
Quote:
removing PROD as I have found multiple reviews in NYT, WaPo and LA Times.
Karen Press
Quote:
+ info and refs

removing prod, I think we are fine here
Willie Marais
Quote:
cite a source showing a pass of WP:POLITICIAN and contest deletion


Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:42 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.