Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/Arbitration report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discuss this story

You might also mention that Kudpung was previously editor-in-chief of the Signpost, not simply a contributor. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks @Liz:. Yes, he was editor-in-chief at a time when The Signpost really needed him and Bri. I definitely have mixed feelings on Kudpung's desysopping. I once got on his bad side for something I didn't do. It was terrible for a week. Only one other time on enWiki was I more offended. I stayed a long, long way away from him for 6 months. But I actually have the feeling that he forgot about the whole thing after a week. After 6 months we worked together wonderfully. We had some disagreements after that but everything still worked ok. There's a great deal of respect between us. So I certainly know why he was desysopped, but I don't think it was necessary. I don't like it when folks who are down get kicked in the teeth.
  • Short version. Bri was writing a news story and was likely trying to avoid anything that looked POV. I should have written something in From the editor, I still may next month, but given my rambling above, maybe it's best to wait a month. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way traditional news media (and other media formats) handles a potential COI, is by placing a small note of disclosure in italics at the end of the piece, noting that the subject was once an editor-in-chief of the publication. There are some media outlets who will place the disclosure at the top, but that’s less common. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the work Kudpung has done for Wikipedia has been invisible, the stuff we see is to 10% of the iceberg. Similarly Roger has been a very prolific contributor, which could perhaps have been noted above. Maybe they have both been at fault, but the need to desysop does not seem to have been present. I have a sincere dislike of the way we treat long-standing prolific contributors, not on a personal level, where we are usually reasonably well behaved, but on a systems level, where we chew them up and spit them out. There is no statute of limitations, or time served, in fact rather the reverse. In 10 years time these two editors will be characterised not for what they have achieved before or after today, but as "Problem editors for over a decade."
All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Without any knowledge of this specific case, and without any desire to personalize the issue: There is nothing more destructive to a community than to announce that long-term members are exempt from the rules. If an administrator is actually "innocent", fine, but litigate that point, then. If they are performing inappropriate actions, the fact that they are a "prolific contributor" or did a lot in the past should not be anything more than a minor mitigating factor. It's a genuine shame if we lose a long-term member who did amazing invisible work, but the standards of community conduct come first. "But they're a prolific contributor" is always a weak defense. SnowFire (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forget when and where it was, but User:BrownHairedGirl was recently desysopped. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-03-01/Arbitration_report&oldid=943812876"