This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of March 2020,.
Some serious quotes really worth reading - ACE is once more on the horizon)

This is not to be confused with polemic, it's just a collection of people's thoughts on and/or about Arbcom and its cases. Most of the quotations are from Admins. The list does not attempt to conceal my or other editors' embitteredness at the way Arbcom operates. The list could be a lot longer but these cherry-picked gems from the last 5 years should be enough to be thought-provoking. In the best case scenario even some ideas for Arbcom reform or for something to replace it entirely.

  • I've never warmed up to the reconfirmation idea. [...] RfRC would be a judgment in relation to the current wikipolitical winds by an unstable group of mostly reasonable people unpredictably mixed in with varying numbers of petty grudge-bearers, RfA obsessives, and ANI shitposters. 85% of the time it would go fine, because most admins do mostly boring things and one or two bad calls or unfortunate troll encounters wouldn't cause much fuss. But it'd probably cause more harm in the form of hurt feelings, frustration, and disengagement on the part of perfectly good admins than benefit in the form of removing bad admins. Everybody who thinks that the problem with RfA, or with the existing admin corps, is insufficient desysopping of bad admins knows where the case requests page is. If terrible adminning is really so widespread, we should be drowning in cases.Opabinia regalis (2019)
  • ...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. Iridescent (2020)
  • The ArbCom was not required to desysop Yngvadottir; it simply chose to do so. – Everyking [1] (2015)
  • ArbCom is above the community and does not respond to community pressure except in extreme cases. I have tried in vain for years to get ArbCom to reform. There have been small, subtle shifts in handling of cases but overall it's the same muddy quagmire that it has always been. It's true; ArbCom is not a court of law. People are dismissive of anyone who indicates the similarity, and treat not being like a court of law as some badge of honor. It's rather the opposite. I could go on for a while about the abuses ArbCom heaps upon the community, and the community's inability to do anything about it. [...] They [Arbcom] are abusive, willfully dismissive of policy, and generally incapable of assisting the community. Any case they generate about someone is guaranteed to result in sanctions (and usually heavy ones). The outcome is predetermined, and nobody can defend themselves. The structure of ArbCom and its processes make defense impossible. Using ArbCom as a means of dispute resolution is an exercise in utter futility, unless your goal is to get someone kicked off the project.Hammersoft[2] (2021)
  • It [Arbcom] is not a fair process though since the outcome is mostly predetermined before the evidence is submitted.Banedon [3] (2021)
  • Under the guise of being a dispute resolution body which one would assume would examine all sides and enact an appropriate remedy, in fact Arbcom does neither. Arbcom members have claimed they are neither here to examine the merits of the case nor to examine the veracity of the plaintifs and their 'evidence'. Apparently, so it would seem, the function of Arbcom is to simply count the votes in favour of opening a case. It's then followed by a long drawn out token process of so-called 'workshopping' to state their 'findings of fact' which in fact are merely a log of the claims of those clambering for sanctions. If one were to label some Arbcom cases as a show trial, it would not be wholly inaccurate. – Kudpung[4]. (2021)
  • For all practical purposes, desysopping acts as a permanent bar to an editor ever becoming an admin again.Iridescent [5] (2021)
  • '...the New Puritan tendency looking for pretexts to block people for imagined incivility and feigned offence.Iridescent, (2020).
  • (RfA): Of course it's a poor predictor, just as it was in the case of Pastor Theo, Wifione, and some other prominent ones whose names I can't mention because they are still with us and for some reason are still allowed to participate at all. Those who loudly insist that all admins are bad are doing more harm than good and most of their complaints are just righteous indignation and they don't have long block logs for no reason; that's why although there needs to be a fast track system for making admins more accountable, it doesn't always need to end in a removal of the tools and I'm very much averse to the notion that an easier desysoping process should be used as a witch hunt to whittle out more admins under the flimsiest of accusations. I thought that kind of thing went out with McCarthy. – Kudpung, April 30, 2018
  • AN/I, a dreadful gauntlet where reporting editors are likely to be set upon and censured, or alternatively the complaint languishes unnoticed until it's archived, with or without first generating long discussions between the editors involved in the dispute and/or more or less hasty and sarcastic commentary from gadflies and more or less clueful admin wannabees. There's a regrettable amount of failure to read the complaint carefully, or the diffs. [6]Yngvadottir
  • This current ArbCom seems determined to rid us of our best admins. So far they are succeeding admirably, and very few people seem to care or to realize what a ridiculous and insidious form of authoritarianism this is, that a mere handful of people can peremptorily drive the best, hardest working, and most trusted admins off the project with complete impunity. And apparently there's nothing we can do about it, and too few people that care or realize the danger to put a stop to itSoftlavender [7] (2020)
  • ArbCom is charged with disciplining and judging all of us, and has the power to destroy people's on-wiki reputations, but those reputations are the product of years of work here, and those with higher permissions have them because they are trusted and have the responsibility of exercising judgement in difficult situations. ArbCom telling a trusted editor they are unworthy of that level of trust is not a small thing, [8]Yngvadottir(2020) See also: Yngvadottir's 2015 5,300 word leaving statement (another ridiculous desysoping by Arbcom 2015) - and they still can't stay away
  • ...this ArbCom has proven itself to be the most unfair and overactive that we have seen in recent memory. [9]TonyBallioni (2020)
  • ...this is crazy, only a couple months into a new arbcom and 4 great admins are gone. [10]Puddleglum2.0 (2020)
  • We have Arbs and admins who play to the audience, including on IRC and Wikipedia Review, because they want to be liked, or are scared of being disliked. We're hundreds of years behind the rest of the world's institutions when it comes to understanding what fairness entails.SlimVirgin [11] (2009)
  • There is an anti-admin platoon. It isn't large enough to be a brigade. Its members, who are also "excellent content creators", get away with incivility toward both admins and new editors.Robert McClenon
  • Adminship has become a big deal and everyone knows it even if they offer aphorisms to the contrary.SMcCandlish[12]
  • Please remove my admin rights, have already asked for other perms removed at meta. For the same reasons as everybody else, but in particular Katherine Maher's utter lack of care or concern for the community she is supposed to be serving. – Beeblebrox [13] (2019)
    Good that he was already requesting a voluntary desysop. The very rationale, however poignantly accurate, would ironically be a desysopable offense for misogyny in t the eyes of some of his Arbcom colleagues. (Beeblebrox is one of the good guys)
  • I still believe there are serious systemic issues with the way ArbCom is run.Hammersoft [14] (2020)
  • The real joke is this ArbCom. Yngvadottir got desysopped for far less than the laundry list of bad behavior on display by a sitting Arb here.Capeo [15]]
  • Isn't it amazing how quickly the Arbcom can act when its own pomposity is pricked.Giano [16] (2015)
  • Gamaliel, you know better than this. You are better than this. Get your shit together, and lead by example.Kelapstick [17] (2016)
  • This isn't the first instance I've seen, it is just the most public. [...] That is both bias and hypocrisy. If you can't grasp this and understand and suppress your own bias, you do not need to be serving as Arb.Dennis Brown [18]
  • Power does corrupt [...] really should step down from AC, not that you're the first or most blatant person to shame the holy grail ... but it would be nice to pretend that there's a modicum of honor in our leadership.Ched [19] (2016)
  • Members of arbcom volunteered for a specific role in dispute resolution. It shouldn't come with diplomatic immunity.Opabinia regalis [20] (2016)
  • ...the delusion that being an arb should be seen by themselves or others as an immunity from criticism or a permission for irresponsibility.DGG [21] (2016)
  • [This] weaponization of dispute resolution has happened several times over the years, and it's a very ugly thing. It damages the committee, and it has a horrible (and lasting) effect on the person at the centre of it.SlimVirgin [22] (2016)
  • Gamaliel resigns from the arbitration committee Arbitration report The Signpost 28 May 2016
  • ArbCom case Gamaliel and others concludes Arbitration report The Signpost 5 June 2016
  • The Internet has been around for 25 years. Too many Wikipedia users don't know a world without it. The Internet has changed the ways society thinks, studies, and works. The Internet has done a lot of good and a lot of not so good. Wikipedia is a brilliant project. Ironically it depends on the Internet. – Kudpung (2020)
  • For a quick explanation, I'll just say that the enwiki community is like the world's largest dysfunctional family, and I no longer wish to hold a position of responsibility here.DoRD On handing their admin tools and retiring 2019
  • A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity. Jehochman[23]
  • Please leave my talk page. You are too unpleasant. It's not worth my time to speak with you. comment by an admin to an established user.
  • 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.Iridescent And this is a classic example how, as outlined by Iridescent, our volunteer work is used, abused, and appropriated by the WMF to their own ends. It took a further 7 years to resolve the issue.
  • Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money.DGG (see also: WP:BOGOF)
  • I'm totally dismayed by the lack of reaction on Wikipedia to Tim riley being bullied away. I can't think of one single other editor of his calibre and I would gladly give up my own hobby and its tools to have him back. The people who caused it have not a fraction of his tact, talent, and skills and they should fall on their swords whatever their gender. Instead, they innocently shrug and say 'What? me?' and continue to trample round the site with mud on their shoes. The place to make known how horrible the environment at Wikipedia is of course The Signpost but sadly I don't have time time to do a write up - and if I did, I'd probably also find myself running for shelter. Wikipedia behind the scenes is turning into a farce. Perhaps it should be renamed Fawltypedia. – Kudpung [24] (2016)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Been a while since I expressed appreciation to you for helping me be a better person

  The Purple Barnstar
For correctly opposing my first RfA, I award you this peculiarly purplish barnstar. Your insightful choice in that process prevented me from making many more mistakes of immaturity at the time and set me on the course which even now allows me to contribute to a higher level. Your oppose painted you as my mentor then, and such has turned out to be the case even still. Whatever storms your user account might have suffered know there are wikipedians who you have set on stronger paths because of your personal dedication and candor. BusterD (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, BusterD, though it was a very long time ago. 😀 18:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)


Someone remembered something I said?[25]   Like — Ched (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Original Barnstar
I'd like to thank you for being a teacher to me - hard to believe we started talking 10 years ago - I'm glad to be who I am today and you played no small role in it. Cheers! Σσς(Sigma) 22:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ched, BusterD, and Σ: it's nice - and reassuring - to know that my years on Wikipedia were not entirely wasted. Thank you for the kind words 🙂 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


I hardly doubt almost any contribution you have made to Wikipedia would be considered a waste, including your thoughtful reflections. Just a comment from a passerby who might have reviewed your contributions and found interest in many of them.   I hope my words find you well. --ARoseWolf 21:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Kudpung,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Nice seeing you around Kudpung

Greetings Kudpung, it is good seeing you around; I hope you are and have been well. I recently returned from a prolonged wiki absence and of the many unexpected disappointments I sadly did see, I was sorry to see that misfortune had befallen you. I don't know the circumstances and I'm certain that I don't want to know. I only know that I miss seeing you at discussions where your insight is badly needed. In particular, considering all that you did in the past for RfA reform, I lament the thought of reforms we'll likely not see, that may have been, If you were actively involved. It's probably not even right of me to ask, and I hope you will take this with the sentiments of respect that I mean to attach, but if you will, please consider joining the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues. Either way, if I don't see you there, I am glad that I saw you here. And I wish you the best.--John Cline (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, John. I see you've been away a lot longer than I have. I have no designs on making a come-back. I throw in the occasional comments now and again but after the character assassination that Arbcom's own members were party to and what they are doing to other admns, no one really takes me seriously these days. I might still write an article, a GA, or a DYK, but I really regret the thousands of hours I spent over the years doing any maintenance tasks or encouraging new users. People say I'm embittered - of course I am. The more I come back and do the odd tweak here and there, the more it shows too. RfA is still a horrible and broken process, and not much will change with the real nastiness that abounds on Wikipedia.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous RfA questions

You mentioned you have compiled a list of "200 of the most ridiculous and/or inappropriate questions". I'd like to read that! Maybe even include it in the writeup I'm doing for The Signpost. Could you tell me where?

Found them. Just please let me know if you don't want this mentioned in the news[letter|paper]. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Bri The research is here. The questions, all sorted by types, are here. Bear in mind that the research was 10 years ago and hence the participation stats are based on pre-reform RfA, i.e. before December 2015 which doubled the number of voters. It surprises me that despite the renewed interest in RFA issues, no one is willing to provide more recent data. Wikipedians are a stats-hungry community, they won't believe anything or do anything until they are given proof, so if Barkeep49 wants to take his monster 2-hour RFC to the next step, he's going to need to provide them, and it's not only about the RFA questions. Our 2011 research covered many aspects of RFA including profiles of the voters.
You are of course welcome to quote or use anything. Everything on Wikipedia is public. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I put together one piece of data, on support percentages, and am not opposed to putting together more but also I think the solutions which get consensus will touch on different areas than last time so the data which was useful then wouldn't be as useful now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49, There is a huge number of very different sections on your 'survey', and some of the are mildly ambiguous and overlap with each other. Biblioworm (whose efforts I largely supported) made the same mistakes, and the RFCs became so convoluted that many of the initial particiants tailed off. That said, I certainly do not under estimate the amount of work and effort that went into it - been there, done that, and I've spent time supporting your mission - not that anyone listens to me these days. However, I know I keep banging my drum about WP:RFA2011 but there is a vast amount of info there that is still relevant today and I don't understand why people are so reluctant to consult it first. Anyone who knows how to do regex for a Quarry, can provide up-to-date profiles of the voters and voting trends using the same information targets. For the rest, since 2016 the sample size for RFA might even be to small now to draw any intelligent conclusions beyond the fact that it's still a horrible place and something needs to be done about it if more new admins are to be brought on board. Despite what people say about me these days, I'm not wrong about everything you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Life would be so much easier... we could just wait for you to say something and do the opposite! WormTT(talk) 06:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
If I remember rightly WTT, you and Swarm whose comment in 2011 summed it up nicely, were even coordinators and had plenty to say. In fact it's also something WereSpielChequers said to me once, too. Scottywong did the physical data mining. The research is all here and should be of some considerable use to Barkeep49:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  • One of the problems of inappropriate questions is that they can be hard to differentiate from appropriate ones that should have had a diff supporting them. Take "How has your opinion of Wikipedia changed since you started editing?" If you look at someone's early edits or an old version of their userpage you will probably see signs of change between them as a newbie and them as a someone ready for RFA. Sometimes the arc is obvious, one of my supports in one of my RFAs pointed out that some of my earliest edits lacked neutral point of View - (I remember learning about the neutral point of view policy by discovering the Bad King John was King John of England on Wikipedia). So "How has your opinion of Wikipedia changed since you started editing?" could be an appropriate question if you are uncertain whether someone has changed or just gone quiet about some views that they have expressed in the past. Equally the editing whilst intoxicated question, if you look at someone's talkpage history a bunch of trout slapping incidents, warnings etc then the question might be relevant and even be linked to some past blocks. Asking either of those questions without good reason to ask them of that specific candidate is very wrong. There are also questions, and indeed opposes that try to change policy in an underhand manner such as "this policy may have consensus behind it, but if I catch people following it I will oppose at RFA". I consider that tactic a form of harassment. ϢereSpielChequers 08:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)