WP Admin Kudpung in a wiki fight

View previous topic View next topic Go down

WP Admin Kudpung in a wiki fight

Post by Soham321 on Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:53 pm

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Akatombo can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Kudpung, you wrote "Ethanbas maybe you as creator could do that yourself rather than ordering us to do it for you. The volunteers are not here to complete your lazy creations and unsourced stubs. Especially as you are paid for a lot of what you do here." I'm not sure why you have a vendetta against me; regardless, I didn't order anyone to do anything, and please, don't describe my creations as "lazy". I don't create just any article, and for that article, I even nominated my own page for deletion. As for paid editing, you can go to my user page and see that the last time I got paid to create an article was November 2016, for the "Vote pairing in the United States presidential election, 2016" article. And, as I state on my user page, almost all the work I do on Wikipedia is of my own accord, not funded by anyone. Ethanbas (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ethanbas You need to very careful about your attitude and the comments about telling people to 'shut up'. Let me advise you, my friend, that while Wikipedia is generally inclusionist and supportive of of editors, we as volunteers are not expected to be insulted and Wikilawyered at and certainly not by people who make money at the expense of our volunteer time; you are within a whisker of being blocked and if not by me, by anyone of our other admins. Read my talk page header and you'll understand. There is a limit to the good faith we are expected to assume.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Not sure how I've ever Wikilawyered at anyone; and I don't make money at the expense of volunteer time. Feel free to take a look at my paid articles; they are all complete and have never required additional work by anyone. Keep in mind, you never told me why you placed a double warning on my talk page after I started a discussion on whether I be allowed to put myself in the AfC participants page, like you suggested. Ethanbas (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

You will probably understand (or would if you were aware of Orangemoody (which only scratches the surface), and from reading the thread above this one why we exercise exceptional caution. We admins especially, as other editors do not recognise the signs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Typical of someone who is Wikilawyering, you neglect to mention that you re-added your name to the list of reviewers prior to starting that discussion, in direct violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Additionally, no matter how you try to spin it, nominating your own article for deletion is at least on some level disruptive. As far as your stellar work on your paid articles, you may wish to consider this: Even tho a prostitute may have a domestic partner does not change the fact that their domestic partner is at a much higher risk of STD than if their domestic partner was a florist. John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Ethanbas, nothing that Kudpung said in that AfD comment is false. "[Y]ou are paid for a lot of what you do here" is true. The characterization "lazy creations and unsourced stubs" is exemplified by the article in question: [3]; [4]; [5]; [6] (that edit is a complete mess); [7] (that edit even added a completely incorrect wikilink). All five of those edits are completely unacceptable. And ordering other people to do the translations you had already figured out (it's clear on the article's talkpage that you had already translated the content of the article because you quoted the information about Schumann directly from it) is absurd. In terms of the other matters, John and Kudpung have covered that above. WP:DROPTHESTICK here, stop templating, admonishing, and arguing with admins, and read WP:HOLES before you get blocked for disruptiveness. Softlavender (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


(talk page stalker) Typical of someone who is Wikilawyering, you neglect to mention that you re-added your name to the list of reviewers prior to starting that discussion, in direct violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Additionally, no matter how you try to spin it, nominating your own article for deletion is at least on some level disruptive. As far as your stellar work on your paid articles, you may wish to consider this: Even tho a prostitute may have a domestic partner does not change the fact that their domestic partner is at a much higher risk of STD than if their domestic partner was a florist. John from Idegon (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kudpung#February_2017
----
this is a somewhat atypical wiki fight in which both the Admin and editor accept that the editor has taken money for writing WP content in the past. Regardless, this sentence of Kudpung was inappropriate: Ethanbas maybe you as creator could do that yourself rather than ordering us to do it for you. The volunteers are not here to complete your lazy creations and unsourced stubs. Especially as you are paid for a lot of what you do here.

If Ethanbas was being paid for the writing the article why would he leave it at an unsourced stub? Kudpung calling Ethanbas's work on WP "lazy" is just another instance of rude behavior by a WP Admin.

Soham321

Posts : 36
Join date : 2017-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum