Case clerks: CodeLyoko (Talk) & Miniapolis (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (Talk) & Casliber (Talk) & SoWhy (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 03:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Case closed on 22:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.
|
Kudpung has seemed to be taking a liking to leaving vaguely threatening messages on people's talk pages that he is in a dispute with. There is also this weirdness from 2018. I get that NYB would like to resolve this in some sort of informal way, but actions like this are beyond the pale of conduct that I expect from administrators. There is no amount of informal i-bans that solve the problem that Kudpung is still an administrator.
People have mentioned other conduct on ANI surrounding new page patrolling and other problems. I am not involved enough with Kudpung to be able to speak to any other issues. I hope that other editors are able to fill in more information about.
To further what SandyGeorgia is saying, if this was purely an anti-admin vendetta, then why are there several functionaries and stewards urging this case be accepted? The shoe doesn't fit. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that this is ostensibly a vendetta, I trust that for once the Arbitration Committee will do a thorough - and by that I mean thorough - investigation of all the facts, and of the motivations of those who will come here to comment, and not be influenced by negative comments that will come from those who have no axe to grind other than a general antipathy towards adminship as an institution. I also expect that any sitting Arbitrators who have piled on in the past two years will have the decency to recuse themselves. By that, I also mean that the background and behaviour of those who have instigated, or caused this case to be instigated should also be thoroughly examined. I have not been accorded the time to react upon the exchange of email with NewyorkBrad and decide how I would answer to ANI - it is midnight here where I live and I will not be at the beck and call of a pitchfork-wielding mob. That's all I have to say and if the committee votes to take the case, so be it and it can take its course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Cassianto:, at no time did I accuse Eric Corbett of being a troll. It was unfortunate that that account later turned out to be Corbett himself and it . ewas certainly by coincidence and not by design. Let this Committee examine the veracity of your claims. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Xxanthippe:, there was nothing ' devastating and demoralizing' about any encounter you had with me. The unsigned post on my talk page by Ritchie333 which you mention: I think it's off-topic for Jbh's RfA, but if somebody dragged Xxanthippe to ANI and proposed a one-way interaction ban with Megalibrarygirl, I would support it...
was a sequel to the behavior you displayed on that RfA. If you were to be more forthcoming about the issue, you would have mentioned the long thread two years ago where a great many admins (I believe over 18) and established editors voiced their opinion on your vote on the talk page of Wikipedia's most successful run for adminship, and which turned out to be one of the longest RfA behaviour discussions in history. There is no way you can claim you were not aware of the discussion about it. Let the Committee examine the thread and the veracity of your claims. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:, you offered the thread, [-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikipedia_Signpost%2F2019-12-27%2FFrom_the_editors&type=revision&diff=932787067&oldid=932740609 here it is again}. I expect the Committee will be gracious enough to examine it in its full context before passing judgement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock:, I understand that you are feeling victimised here, and that others have chosen the issue to escalate some of the comments I have made around Wikipedia out of context and out of all propportion. The fact is, that having been very successful in the past at identifying sockpuppets and undisclosed paid editors (some of whom were carrying out the most distressing blackmail and extortion of families and their children off-Wiki) that I have a naturally inquiring mind - some may say a nasty suspicious one. You won't be aware of the reason why I started the thread at [New Page review talk page],but it should have been clearly evident why I had thought that the account had possibly been compromised (the PRODed creations were so much out of character for such an experienced editor and admin - over 700 articles created), but at the same time not wanting to dance on the grave of that user's previous history. Your intervention came as a surprise especially from an account that had been dormant for literally years.
I therefore quite naturally began to be inquisitive. It was not until it was pointed out to me privately in the last 24 hours or so, that there was a consensus to unblock you, albeit under an account other than the one that it still logged as indeff blocked. I will not go into the full details of the successful unblock request , but the final support vote and comment by Bishonen carries an important councel. We should be grateful for some of the important work you have done in your time for Wikipedia, and history in both your case and that of Missvain has shown that the community can be very forgiving. Any reason for my having examined your accounts and editing history have been resolved and I see no need or reason to engage with you further. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock:, thank you for your response. I largely wrote WP:NPP, created the WP:NPR user right, collaborated on the development of Page Curation 7 years ago and its overhall last year, and finally (with the help of others) got ACTRIAL rolled out and the ACPERM implemented. After a decade of such work, (without self-agrandising), it's clear that I had become somewhat obsessive with it, especially as during the course of that work I had discovered some very unpleasant people, some in fact whom I had met in person and trusted, but who are now firmly blocked and banned.
I therefore decided a year ago to step back from NPP and as soon as it was possible, I encouraged others to take over the initiatitive which they are doing very well. Although NPP still has a huge backlog and we have not even scratched the surface of the number of people abusing the encyclopedia to their own ends, they don't need my help now and I will no longer be taking an interest in New Page Patrol or the quality of new content - it's a thankless task and not worth getting in trouble over. Not being the youngest Wikipedian, (but probably not the oldest) I also have my health to consider. Thank you for your kind comprehension and let's let this be an end to the issue - at least as far as it concerns the two of us. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Statement by SandyGeorgiaWith admins and non-admins, arbs and non-arbs alike expressing disgust and repulsion at the comments made by Kudpung towards another editor, who has been through enough, we see no remorse in any response from Kudpung, rather continued attack. This raises a character issue-- one of basic decency wrt how we treat fellow human beings, and whether we should have admins who may be lacking in that. I first saw evidence of this problem in this extract of a talk page conversation at the Signpost. This incident does not relate to use of admin tools, but it points to an underlying failure to respect other human beings, dead or alive, from Kudpung. In discussing the recent death of a beloved editor, User:Brianboulton, who authored almost 200 Featured articles and dug in to help others wherever he could-- Kudpung responded with:It's a shame in a way that not all FA writers are so gentlemanly in their approach to other members of the community as Brian was.Whatever the reader may guess about what or whom Kudpung was referring to, he was apparently not able to hold himself to basic decency, rather dragged other unrelated issues into discussion at The Signpost about the recent death of a beloved editor. This is the kind of person I would cross the street to avoid in real life, and I hope he is not given the chance to treat another editor as he has treated Chris, or as he disrespected the memory of Brian. If all of the arbs are so deep into sync with the admin corps that a large number of them must recuse from a case which is precisely the kind of problem the community expects the arbs to deal with, what's next? This is your job; deal with it. And not via allowing Kudpung to engage in friendly email exchanges amongst yourselves, while expressing zero remorse for what he has done. NYB, remember your words from 2006: Last month, a situation arose that should have been addressed discreetly by senior administrators and with a minimum of public discussion. Instead, it became the topic of extensive discussion on-Wiki that caused egregious harm to vulnerable editors.)This is another case of that: end it quickly, without Chris having to be further exposed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Update per further evidence and statements on this page. There are numerous insinuations on this page that people are bringing old baggage to this case in attempts to exact revenge on an admin with whom they have been in conflict. To the best of my memory, Kudpung is not an editor who ever figured on my radar until he made an extremely distasteful post regarding the death of a respected editor on 28 Dec 2019-- two weeks ago. I have never had anything to do with Women in Red and eschew all gender-based issues and claims on Wikipedia (my gender-based experience is that women ran FAC for all the years it was well functioning). Now, having read through the evidence on this page, what is emerging is the greater likelihood that Kudpung is the one who was bringing baggage to his Signpost post, and it is becoming more clear to me what that baggage was. So, Kudpung, if there exists an "anti-admin brigade" on Wikipedia, perhaps it is because of behaviors like those in evidence on this page. The aspect of "friendly admins supporting each other" is very concerning, and corrosive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by CassiantoI've, fortunately, only engaged with Kudpung the once, but it was a deeply unpleasant experience. Firstly, as a result of my challenge to him about a personal attack he made (below), Kudpung made this thinly veiled threat of him being aware of a "very serious breach". Such a claim would be worthy of a diff, I hear you say; but oh no, Kudpung decided not to provide one, or take any action as a result of the "very serious breach", which to me, suggests there wasn't a "very serious breach" at all. If this wasn't an attempt to intimidate someone intentionally in order to silence them, I don't know what is. Secondly, he made a personal attack to a blocked editor by calling them "a troll", knowing full well that they were unable to answer back or defend themselves. The blocked editor in question was Eric Corbett who, like him or loath him, was a productive editor who played a part in bettering this project. Although Eric, on this occasion, may've lacked judgement, by creating a secondary account in order to oppose a flawed RFA, this doesn't give anyone the bloody right to engage in behaviour that anyone else who doesn't have the tools would've been blocked for. CassiantoTalk 18:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Black KiteHaving read Kudpung's statement I believe that ArbCom does really have to take this case on. The attitude displayed in that comment ("pitchfork-wielding mob", ordering Arbs to recuse) and for that matter this, is not befitting of an administrator when there are genuine concerns being raised by good faith editors. I don't have an axe to grind here and my only contribution to the ANI thread was to express my concern at Kudpung's spamming of PROD tags on Missvain's articles when none of them were actually valid PRODs, but there's clearly other major issues there as well. Kudpung's comments are also clearly disingenuous - it has been 36 hours since the ANI thread was opened and apart from an initial comment just after it was posted (which certainly didn't allay any concerns, the opposite if anything) - his only response to the comments made has been "I will be emailling Newyorkbrad on this issue.". Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Rschen7754These are not the only sort of threats that Kudpung has made.
I believe ArbCom should accept this case under "conduct unbecoming of an administrator" and review Kudpung's administrative permissions. --Rschen7754 19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ritchie333I wanted to stay out of this, as I hoped it would be a storm in a teacup, but Kudpung's reply to Rschen7754's perfectly civil and polite response is beyond the pale, especially when a case request is active. I have got on very well with Kudpung and we have done good things together such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cullen328, but I would expect at least an admonishment for that remark. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by GamalielKudpung's behavior has become increasingly problematic, from his bizarre meltdown in response to a minor, polite request from Gorilla Warfare to his creepy borderline threats directed at multiple parties. Worse, he completely lacks any awareness that his behavior is in any way problematic. If he - bare minimum - said at some point "I'll try to modify my approach because my intent was unclear", that would display some willingness to act appropriately, but instead he has doubled down at every opportunity. A global encylopedia is going to have many differnent approaches to personal interaction, and they will inevitably clash, but the one approach we cannot have is "I am always right and you are always wrong". This is not a something we should allow when interacting with new editors from a position of authority on this project. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Chris troutmanThis matter was brought to ANI less than 48hrs ago so it's not appropriate to start a case here. If anything, this looks like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This is a political effort to railroad Kudpung because he dared expect admins to not abuse their autoreviewed quality by creating a bunch of questionable stubs. Disagreements about editing shouldn't trigger tribalist persecutions. We expect admins to be civil; it does not require them to be compliant or likable. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MrXThis sure escalated quickly. One ANI discussion does not seem to establish sufficient grounds for bringing this to Arbcom. Remember DangerousPanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the dozen or so ANI discussions and talk page discussions, and an aborted RFCU, that were required before a case could be heard by Arbcom? This recent trend of admins bringing admins to Arbcom on such a flimsy basis is a bit concerning. There is no emergency or egregious behavior that justifies this being raised to our forum of last resort. I doubt that there is a pervasive pattern of conduct inconsistent with the standards of WP:ADMIN, and if there is, it should be detailed in the complaint. Arbcom, please decline this like you usually do when an editor initiates a case against an admin, and everyone try to find another way to salvage the situation. Please take a step back and treat each other with respect (you too Kudpung). - MrX 🖋 23:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenonAbout two weeks ago, I wrote, about another case request: Self-Quoted StatementThis is a case involving administrative conduct. At present, ArbCom and the WMF are the only means by which administrative conduct can be reviewed, because the community has not set up a mechanism for community or other review of administrative conduct. The community has the power to ban an administrator, and has recently used this power in the case of Edgar181 for sockpuppetry, but the community has not set up a mechanism for withdrawing administrative responsibility. Since the community has not provided such a mechanism, complaints about administrators can go either to ArbCom, or to the WMF. Most English Wikipedians agree that the WMF is not likely to improve anything, but can make things worse, so the ArbCom should review administrative conduct if there is a reasonable concern, that is, a concern based on reason rather than on idle suspicion or nonsense. Complaints about administrators mostly fall into two classes, those that have no real value, typically made by combative editors, and those that are serious concerns, made by experienced editors, usually other administrators. This is a case presented by another administrator. In my opinion, there is enough merit in this case, filed by another administrator, so that ArbCom should review the case. It is not necessary for ArbCom to pre-decide the case. If ArbCom dismisses concerns about administrative conduct that should be heard, the WMF might decide that it needs to review such cases, and that will probably make things worse. ArbCom should accept this case, both because it may have merit, which can be assessed after opening the case, and to minimize meddling by the WMF. About This CaseUnfortunately, what I said about RHaworth is also true about Kudpung, although the details are very different. If it is not possible for this dispute to be heard by uninvolved arbitrators, it is less bad for the recused arbitrators to unrecuse and hear the case than to allow the WMF to try the case. ArbCom should hear the case somehow. Another alternative would be to ask User:Jimbo Wales, who is more trusted by the community than WMF staff is, to hear the case, but it is better for the ArbCom to find a way to try the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by AjraddatzBefore his resysop request, I don't think I had ever been in conflict with Kudpung. I had noticed an ongoing trend of behaviour that I thought was problematic: that he labels any criticism as bullying/personal attack/harassment and seems to maintain that the only way anyone could disagree with him is if they are completely ignorant of the facts at hand. That's not how things should work here. We all collaborate on the various encyclopedic and technical aspects of the project, and part of working with other people means being open to other perspectives and willing to admit when you are wrong and de-escalate. I have also witnessed a whole lot of self-aggrandizing behaviour (such as his "wrote the book on it" comment here), random dismissive comments (like calling me a "rogue steward" here), and of course the strange, vaguely threatening messages that have been discussed above. Kudpung maintains that because he has never misused his admin tools, they can't be removed. But I think we should hold admins to a higher standard than not actively abusing their tools. A track record of poor interpersonal interactions can often tank an RfA, so it seems somewhat relevant to consider when looking at whether an administrator should retain their access. Now, all of this said, I think that 99% of what Kudpung does here is valuable work. I think that overall his access to the sysop tools is a net positive. But this is a trend of poor behaviour going back years, and it would be really nice to see some acknowledgement on his part that this isn't up to the standard that we expect of administrators. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by BanedonSeems to me like an obvious accept. There've been several people who said they're troubled, but Kudpung appears to think his/her behavior is fine, which means Kudpung is not changing their behavior and the people will remain troubled, which means the problems are not going away, which means Arbcom should do something (especially since the community has been historically poor at solving civility issues). If I were on Arbcom, I'd accept the request with a view to reaching one of these two results:
Actual sanctions, if any, are almost a sideshow here: reaching one of the two conclusions above is going to be the most important. Banedon (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by JehochmanGiven the current position of the statements and arbitrator votes, it seems like accepting the case will more efficient than allowing this controversy to linger. I hope the arbitrators will keep an open mind, especially because the sampling of people who comment here do not necessarily represent the community. With a highly active admin, there will be a small percentage of editors who are dissatisfied, but those are the ones who are more likely to comment here. I'm also disappointed that Kudpung hasn't shown more self-awareness or made stronger attempts to diffuse this. While I think this would be the best result, it may take time. Hopefully they will figure it out during the pendancy of the case. Jehochman Talk 17:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC) It seems like recent statements show good evidence that there is a real problem here. To be clear, I had a different statement before,[1] but that's been overtaken by events. Jehochman Talk 22:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by WugapodesA major point that came out of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure is that some editors desire a community desysop procedure because the perceived difficulty of getting an administrator conduct case heard by the Committee. To quote my summary, Statement by Chris.sherlock (talk)I was told repeatedly that I was being researched. In fact, Kudpung states they had spent two hours doing so. Kudpung had already left me a message that he "tried to keep the profile low on the request for feedback I made, but some of you seem determined to open cans of worms - Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." I am actually a Christian, and am aware of the context of this passage. It occurred when a woman was going to be stoned for some percieved sin. John states that Jesus responded with this statement because he knew those doing the stoning would have to recognise their own sin. What this means is that Kudpung believes I sinned in some way. I do not consider that this was an attempt to “end the animosity with a quotation from the bible””. It it was then it was very poor judgement, but as I don’t believe this I feel it was deliberate. His next message to me was that “your comments at WT:NPR rather surprised me because your past, 'might' not be quite as illustrious as others may be led to believe”. I let this go with as neutral response as I could, hoping he would disengage. I then was messaged a final time with what I took to be an ominous and threatening response: “You certainly have an unusual manner of expressing yourself for someone with your history. There's a lot 2 hours of research turns up.” I felt that an attempt to WP:OUT me was occurring. It is not so much that he would uncover something, but rather that I wasn’t sure if some sort of scurrilous rumour would be circulated. I believe it was a reaction to my criticism of him in that I believe he has not tagged articles with WP:PROD correctly a number of times (for the record, he accused me of “wikilawyering”). He had demanded I disclose who I am so I advised him on his talk page. I believe this is an attempt at stopping valid but civil criticism. I would like to know what he “found”, and a recognition that stating you have researched someone for two hours is highly intimidating. I would like some reassurance from him that he will not do this again. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by XxanthippeI had a devastating and demoralizing encounter with User:Kudpung in 2018. Here[2] User:Kudpung described me as a misogynist. This was done behind my back without informing me. A remonstrance by me led to the usual doubling down and vague threats.[3]. Here[4] User:Kudpung implied that a member of the Women in Red editing community was a man-hater. Here[5], in following the issue, User:Kudpung tells User:Xxanthippe to "Pipe down". After this incident my talk page[6] was visited by a tag team of stand-over thugs who told me to keep my mouth shut, which I have done until now. Kudpung's behavior needs to be addressed by Arbcom as I do not think he has the stability of temperament need by an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC). After reading contributions by others I note: a) In a persistent pattern of behavior Kudpung has made attacks against contributors to the Women in Red community, causing some of them distress. In one case Kudpung started to make speculations in public about the personal preferences of a woman editor. Thus should have led to a site ban. Kudpung's friends among the administrator corps, who should have reined him in, chose to turn a blind eye (or a deaf ear). His professed friends have done him and Wikipedia poor service. b) Commentators have asked why Kudpung's transgressions have not attracted attention earlier in Wikipedia forums such as ANI/I before coming here. The answer is that Kudpung is good at covering his tracks. He does this by his frequent issuance of vague threats, an abuse of his admin tools that freezes further debate. Then he bans complainants from his talk page. Then his colleagues visit the talk page of complainants and intimidate them into shutting up. All these actions can be found here[7]. c) I have been concerned that some commentators are implying that Kudpung's sins should be passed over in view of of their personal friendship with him and his long work as an administrator. This is reminiscent of the Captain Queeg defense that a rogue operator should be protected to preserve the prestige of the system. A mistake. The administrator corps should be jealous of its reputation. One bad apple will ruin the repute of the rest of the barrel. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2020 (UTC). Statement by CarriteWe need to get past the idea that only flagrant tool abuse or wheel-warring are sufficient reasons for investigating the behavior of an administrator, who is assigned the tools without time limitation or mechanism for recertification. "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator" and "loss of confidence of the community" are fully sufficient reasons for the removal of administrative privileges and this seems to be exactly the situation facing us here. Please do accept this case. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Leaky caldronArbcom should accept the case on the terms set out by Carrite, Sandy Georgia and several others. The situation here does not involve a single episode and the other venues encouraged by some others are plainly unsuitable to examine the chronic behavior of this Administrator over many years. Anyone who has encountered Kudpung in the last decade at venues such as RfA will have seen the ritual description of editors who challenge his opinions as a cabal or, more usually, the "anti-Admin brigade". An unrefined sample is attached here for starters. [8]. Then there is the often used response when challenged, typically implying that the words used by an editor might actually constitute a form of personal attack against Kudpung. Another frequently used tactic when their opinion is challenged is to invoke a talk page ban so that any meaningful opportunity to resolve differences locally, out of the glare of the drama boards, is lost. These behaviors collectively and repeated over time create a chilling effect. These tactics should not be used routinely by anyone, far less by an Administrator.
Driveby comment by IridescentI get on fine with Kudpung and think this complaint is way overblown and all it needs is a "both of you calm down, you're supposed to be on the same side", but Leaky caldron isn't wrong that Kudpung's constant repetition of his conspiracy theory that those who disagree with him are members of a secretive "anti-admin brigade" working to undermine Wikipedia's administration (and those are only the instances that use the specific wording
Statement by ChessI think what this case request boils down to is whether or not admins should be held to a different standard of civility than that of the average person. Yeah, some of Kudpung's messages in the last few years sounds "vaguely threatening" and could very easily be taken the wrong way to put it mildly, but is that really grounds for desysopping? This request is essentially "Kudpung is a bad person who acts problematically and that's why he should be desysopped". This logic assumes that the criteria for admin/deadmin is a symmetrical standard i.e. that there's a line in the sand for behavior of an admin and users above that line can get the bit while users below that line can lose it. Kudpung is being accused of falling below that line as "conduct unbecoming of an admin" and should be desysopped. Simple. This isn't how Wikipedia works though. For whatever reason, it's much harder to become an admin than it is to lose the admin permission. Kudpung might not meet the standards of RfA nowadays but that doesn't matter. There's only a limited set of circumstances you can desysop someone and this isn't one of them. His abrasiveness is not bannable and right now you can't desysop someone for being a dick to the point of not violating policy. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 09:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by Paul AugustFortunately the inciting event seems to have been resolved amicably—to the credit of both parties. However I think there is cause to be concerned about Kudpung's behaviour as an admin, something that, as an admin (and a functionary and former Arb), I take very seriously, as should we all. Paul August ☎ 16:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The motives of those urging acceptance here have been repeatedly attacked. I think such comments are offensive and violate WP:NPA. For the record—since this appears to need stating—I've never had any past interactions with Kudpung, good or bad (that I can recall). I have no "antipathy towards adminship as an institution". On the contrary, it is an institution that I very much admire, respect, and cherish. Paul August ☎ 17:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by NewyorkbradUpon seeing the ANI thread and then this case request, I realized it was in everyone's interest that Chris.sherlock's concerns be addressed by Kudpung quickly, rather than become the subject of a protracted debate or arbitration case. That this has now happened is in the best interests of everyone concerned. @Xeno: Historically, "administrators willing to make difficult blocks" referred to blocks of malicious users who engaged in off-wiki retaliation against the admins who blocked them. It did not relate to blocks of legitimate editors that might merely be controversial or politically unpopular. With the availability of newer tools such as global bans and (in extreme cases) Office bans of the most problematic users, the category has become less necessary, and I would not infer anything from the number of admins who are currently in it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by UsedtobecoolI am just not seeing anything here justifying the huge timesink that an ArbCom case is likely to be. There are a few complaints of unwelcome behaviour by an admin who otherwise has apparently done valuable work through the years (a couple controversies a year at most, it seems, and no abuse of tools). I see that editors on the other side of such unpleasantness are not newbs but editors with good wiki-sociopolitical capital, enough to garner support from other admins quickly in each such case. Even granting all observations/accusations as presented, unless there's evidence of the user having taken such an approach in dealing with newbies as well, I think the case is a bit too premature at this time, as the most that's likely to come off it is "Be nice". All editors, arbs included, can just say that without the case and be done with it. The impact won't be much different. The resolution of the immediate dispute also suggests that editor/s concerned has/ve already started taking the concerns raised by the community seriously and seeking to address them. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by WBGSoWhy, there was a comment by an ex-crat (WBJScribe) over a re-sysop request by Kudpung that went:-
Statement by CabayiKudpung has an unfortunate habit of playing the man and not the ball. In discussions I've seen it expressed as hatcollector (with the implicit hint that, as an admin, he's able to remove the "hat"), who are you (to a prolific contributor who had recently changed name), the wrong people were grandfathered the right (of NPR), and on this page as "a pitchfork-wielding mob". Kudpung deflects the criticism as the product of "a general antipathy towards adminship as an institution". A more self-aware person would take on board the results of the recent Arbcom election and realise it's not about admins in general. It's not a small group, it's a widespread impression about him, about his conduct in which the chilling effects of his comments too frequently fall in breach of WP:ADMINCOND, and a dissatisfaction with that behaviour. His attack on Missvain, abandoning all pretence of WP:AGF, at WT:NPR#Autopatrolled without the courtesy of pinging her, is merely the latest example of conduct unbecoming, and the one which provoked this case. Kudpung's denial that there is any problem (and his insistence that any problem lies with the mob) means that proceeding with this case is the only way to achieve any resolution. Cabayi (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree again with TonyBallioni. Of the possible outcomes (from best to worst), enlightenment and reform, reproach and reform, and in a far distant last place, desysop. Far better this ends with an improved admin than an ex-admin. Cabayi (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by MissvainLike SandyGeorgia shared earlier - they would cross the street to avoid someone like Kudpung. I have been doing just that for a decade. I don't remember past interactions, even though I'm sure there were some. Suffice to say, I've been avoiding Kudpung like the plague due to their nature.
Take from this statement what you wish, but, I can only imagine how my experience would feel to a new editor or someone less resilient, or someone who doesn't edit as often as I do to know this is "part of the unfortunate experience" of editing Wikipedia. And as a woman who has been editing Wikipedia for 13 years, and has experienced the worst, and has also prevailed to retain my adminship, save numerous articles from the AfD dredges, and try to ensure notable subjects have their rightful place on Wikipedia, this situation with Kudpung must get resolved to ensure there are more Missvain's in the future. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by GorillaWarfareI had planned to recuse without providing a statement when this case was originally filed, but I see that the request has shifted away from a case focusing on the specific interaction between Kudpung and Chris.sherlock, and towards one focused more broadly on Kudpung's suitability as an administrator. For what it's worth, I think that's a wise move—the specific incident between Kudpung and Chris.sherlock was adequately handled without ArbCom intervention, but in my opinion the community has not been able to coax Kudpung into meeting the expectations of an administrator, a fact that he has demonstrated several times over. I would urge the ArbCom to accept this case and review Kudpung's suitability as an admin. I see Missvain has just now provided a statement, which I'm glad to see—I realized she has been mentioned here several times over but not actually notified via talk page message or ping that this request was open, despite the recent issue of Kudpung's PROD taggings of her articles being a precipitating factor. Unfortunately I see Kudpung's behavior towards her as a part of a larger pattern of unacceptable interactions with minority editors—a mindset that should not be allowed to fester within our community and especially within our administrator corps. It also appears to be part of a pattern of intense overreaction to conflict or criticism, and belief that other users are actively targeting him when they are not. This got much too long, so I have trimmed out most of it down to bullet points of the concerning behavior I've experienced from Kudpung. I will present it more fully in the evidence phase should the case be accepted, or sooner upon request.
In what is now becoming a concerning pattern of claims that he is being persecuted, I see from a statement above that Kudpung believes "GW who still can't keep her nose out of anything that concerns me", despite the fact that I have avoided him almost completely since the ANI thread in August 2018 (fairly enormous page, but should prove this point), aside from responding to where he singled me out in his ArbCom question replies, and responding to a different editor on a point almost entirely unrelated to Kudpung in the recent ANI thread to do with Chris.sherlock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by 75.191.40.148My one and only enounter with Kudpung occurred months ago. At the time I considered discussing it at ANI but I was so disgusted that I just walked away from it. Then I saw this arbitration request and thought I would add my comment. I added a refimprove template on Baked Beans here because there were a few paragraphs, sentences, and list items that were not sourced. A few minutes later Kudpung reverted with the comment, "More than adequately sourced. Possible vandalism." Less than one minute later Kudpung left me a level 4 vandalism warning followed immediately by a two-week block for vandalism. When I suggested that the revert, the warning, and the block were inappropriate, Kudpung claimed that I was making personal attacks. I stated that I would be discussing the matter at ANI and possibly with Jimbo. About a day later Kudpung unblocked me with the comment, "Pending further investigation". I'm not sure what exactly was being investigated or what the outcome of that investigation was. Thanks for considering my comments. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by AtsmeWow, I just hope the active arbs are taking into close consideration those editors/arbs/admins who are involved with Kudping vs those who are not involved in any way. I guess the longer an editor/admin is exposed to this sort of thing, the less suprised we are to see biased opinions with tinges of WP:POV railroad, all of which tends to rear it's ugly face at the dramah boards. Feck all the great work you've done for the project for years - you made the mistake of saying something that didn't receive 100% approval and now you must pay the price. I've seen it elsewhere on the project but just never expected to see it at ArbCom, but here we are. If this case moves forward, don't be surprised if ArbCom sees many more because this case is setting the bar so low, the final remedy will indeed set a precedent, so look out admins!! It will certainly be a test for ArbCom with regards to alliances vs unbiased evaluation based on factual evidence and an arbs ability to separate the two. It will be interesting, indeed. In the event I wasn't clear, my position is to decline this case - issue an admonishment if you must, but decline the case. Atsme Talk 📧 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by YmblanterI am seriously concerned with the general trend here. We have a number of statements with a general motive "I had in the past a bad encounter with Kudpung, it was so bad that I did not want to discuss with him or go to ANI or to report it elsewhere, but now I finally got my chance, please accept the case". I am sorry to hear about this bad experience, and I sympathize with the sentiment, I also had myself very bad encounters with some users (not Kudpung) and I judged at the time that following them up would make me more harm than good (and sometimes I still tried to follow up and it turned indeed detrimental), however, if you have chosen not to give feedback, how do you expect Kudpung to get this feedback onboard? This is exactly why we have this requirement that ArbCom only accepts cases when community has failed to resolve it by other means. I urge the arbs to look at it from this side: Whereas some behavior of Kudpung was probably substandard, did he get enough feedback that a considerable fraction of users (not only a tiny number who could have personal issues with him) are unhappy with his behavior. If the answer is yes the case must be accepted, If the answer is now it must be sent back to the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioniI was planning on sitting this out as basically everyone involved here I consider a friend or at the very least someone I have a positive working relationship with. What drove me to comment was Paul August's use of the terminology of victimhood: I think that's the wrong framework to look at this through and sets up an inevitable conclusion of a harassment finding and a desysop, which I think from the evidence presented thus far and from what I've observed personally isn't really the case. You have disagreements and one person may have been in the wrong in them, but that doesn't make the others victims. The other side of a fight isn't a victim just because they were wronged.What I can say here is that there apparently has been a failure on the part of many "senior" members of the community to deal with a situation in a way that would have fallen short of Arbitration. Anyone who has ever interacted with Kudpung knows that he takes the advice of those he considers friends and those whom he has worked with closely very seriously, even if it is negative.I'll personally admit that I should have said something during the situation with Ajraddatz, or GorillaWarfare. People approached me knowing that I was friends with Kudpung and my advice was something of the sort "Yeah, he doesn't get along well with GW. This will blow over soon." I should have told him that I thought it would be better if he didn't comment on GW going forward because she is someone who many in the community, myself included, respect and that his views of her might be wrong, even though they are strongly held. I didn't say that, but if I had, I suspect the feedback would have been taken well.The reason I didn't do this was because having these conversations sucks, both IRL and on-wiki. No one likes telling a friend or colleague they need to improve on something. I'll go ahead and say if Boing! said Zebedee, Beeblebrox, Worm That Turned, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, HJ Mitchell, or any other number of "respected" community figures who Kudpung personally respects deeply had reached out after one of these incidents people are complaining about, the feedback probably would have been received and we wouldn't have been here (For clarity: not blaming these or any others individually, just pointing out there’s people out there who could have had a discussion and pinging as a courtesy.) There's a reason so many arbs are recused: Kudpung has had close working relationships with countless people throughout this project, and a conversation could have been had saying "Hey, lay off GW and Ajr" or something similar.Finally, I want to address the scope topic: arbs need to be extremely careful in setting the scope here. If you have a general Kudpung case people are going to throw up every disagreement they've ever had with him, and you can make a case for desysoping literally any admin by throwing together their worst moments. I think a case would be beneficial at this time as a structured method to look at what's going on here and figure out a way forward since the community seems to be concerned, but we need to be avoiding an inevitable march to the end. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Boing!I was going to sit this out, but having read TonyBallioni's comments (and then had a relatively brief read of the case so far), I now think that would be something of a cowardly approach. TonyBallioni is absolutely right, and if this isn't a time for friends to reach out, then I don't know what is. Kudpung is a personal friend whose friendship I value greatly, and I'm in communication with him and will do anything that I think might help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Statement by isaaclRegarding the expectation that the community should initiate discussions in a public forum so that editors can receive feedback from a broad segment of people about general behavioural issues (and not a specific issue in a narrowly defined area): if it sucks for so-called "'respected' community figures who [an editor] personally respects" to have a private word, consider how much more it sucks for the remaining 99.9% of the editing population who don't fall into this category to try to have a public discussion. This is exactly what makes interpersonal dispute management so difficult, and nigh impossible to deal with using a consensus-like decision-making process in a large group. If one editor is only going to pay heed to a specific group of editors, then the others won't want to expend considerable effort in trying to engage, and will just avoid interactions. Either the privileged group is convinced to take some action, or the matter lingers and the community is fractured. Although personally I hope English Wikipedia would strive to avoid such rifts, I acknowledge that they can't be completely eliminated. We should do our best, though, to limit their impact, and often this is better dealt with by a small group such as the Arbitration Committee than by an en masse discussion with the community. isaacl (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by GMG@TonyBallioni: I...am concerned that the statement you make is exactly on-point, but not in at all the direction you intend it to be. I am concerned that part of the issue here is a willingness to listen to feedback from a small select group of individuals that are deemed worthy, and everyone else can kindly sod off. GMGtalk 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by The Blade of the Northern LightsYou have got to be fucking joking. Kudpung has been an admin for almost 9 years, and I see no evidence anyone even tried to resolve any of the issues people are dredging up now from years ago. The immediate issue is over. Drop it. I can see this is headed to being accepted, but there is no way Kudpung shouldn't be an administrator. Obviously I've worked plenty with Kudpung, although a long while ago now, and he's never been anything but good to me and good at what he does. Disagreeing with an administrator isn't a valid reason to call for him to be hauled before ArbCom. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by LourdesIt's a waste of Arbcom time. It's a waste of community time. You see, I cannot stand editors who reach out to me and leave patronising comments. I try and give it back to them, then and there. If one were to summate the number of times I've spouted back, the figure would beat Kudpung hands down. And he's from my category. He's spent many years here, has great interactions, has bad interactions too, but has almost always stepped back and apologised when required; or not, sometimes wrongly so. So now we get him up to Arbcom because a number of editors say this has gone on long enough?! Many have said it above – if you spend enough time here, the number of such cases will only go up. Come on. He's sorted out his issues almost always, and when he hasn't, we should tell him that on his face; that's about it. Not wait for one month of evidence, investigations and subsequent decisions "admonishing" his actions. Let's not treat him like a waste basket in a market square. Lourdes 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by AlanscottwalkerThis is the second time in as many months (the first is Portals case) that we have an administrator accused of talking about a side they put editors in (here, anti-admin brigade, there 'protalistas' or whatever put down an administrator wishes to use). Administrators need to know that they damage the project by rhetorically advancing sides and perpetuating sides instead of dealing with editors as individuals (we even have a policy on not creating or perpetuating sides (BATTLE) as it is always going to be damaging to the community) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Statement by FastilySpent some time wading through this mess, and I encourage the committee to decline this case as premature. I'm seeing zero evidence of tool abuse and only half-assed attempts by those involved to resolve their alleged "grievances" with Kudpung. Reality check: we do have established venues for resolving conduct/behavioral issues: WP:AN/WP:ANI, followed by bans/blocks. Accepting this case sets a bad precedent and encourages even more poor behavior; why would any sane person even bother with AN/ANI when they can simply forum shop their way up to Arbcom? -FASTILY 00:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)
All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.
1) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to perform administrative tasks to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, repeated or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.
2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases, administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole.
3) Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions including those raised by anonymous editors. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct.
4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.
5) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that "anyone can edit" and that by the collaboration of editors of all backgrounds, the best possible encyclopedia can be created. Hostility towards any editor is prohibited by Wikipedia's conduct policies and, if directed towards a particular group, can be especially damaging to the inclusivity of the project.
6) Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers; every new editor is a potential long-term contributor. All editors should therefore assume good faith when dealing with new editors and, if it is necessary to comment on problematic actions, do so in a clear and polite manner. Treating newcomers with hostility can alienate a potential contributor and is therefore detrimental to the project as a whole.
7) Proposed deletion (PROD) is a streamlined process for nominating an article for deletion. It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. Proposed deletions are subject to the deletion policy, which requires that alternatives to deletion are considered before nomination. A prior search for more sources to establish notability is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources.
1) Kudpung (talk · contribs) has been a user since 2006 and an administrator since 2011. He has made over 100,000 edits and performed more than 14,000 admin actions. He has been particularly active in coordinating and driving improvements to the new page patrol process over many years.
2) Kudpung has occasionally made remarks towards other editors that could be interpreted as personal attacks.[14][15][16] In disputes with other editors, he has also made nonspecific threats of retaliating against or "investigating" the other party.[17][18][19][20][21]
3) Kudpung frequently reacts to feedback on his conduct unobjectively and without assuming good faith. On multiple occasions, he has interpreted criticism as a vendetta against himself [22][23][24] or admins in general, making numerous references to an "anti-admin brigade".[25] He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it as "trolling" or similar [26] or by requesting that users not edit his talk page (at least six times, by Kudpung's own count).[27][28]
4) Multiple users have individually counseled Kudpung about his behavior in messages on his talk page or in the context of other discussions including in 2018 (1), 2018 (2), 2018 (3), 2020. Kudpung has also been the subject of incident reports on the administrators' noticeboard including in 2015, 2017, 2018, (which each resulted in consensus that no action was necessary), and the 2020 report that was closed after the reporting user indicated that the issue was resolved. At this time, this Case request had already been opened.
5) Kudpung made two comments to Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs) that Chris.sherlock interpreted as threats [29] [30]. This incident was discussed on the administrator's noticeboard and was considered to be resolved after Kudpung wrote privately to Chris.sherlock clarifying his intention.
6) Kudpung nominated four articles created by Missvain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for deletion using the proposed deletion process [31][32][33][34]. Two of these nominations were made after he was made aware that Missvain would object [35][36] and therefore could not be considered "uncontroversial", as all proposed deletions are required to be. Kudpung also started a discussion of Missvain's autopatrolled right, although without mentioning her username or notifying her of the discussion.
7) In August 2018, GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) asked Kudpung to refer to her by her username "when discussed among men".[37] Kudpung reacted to negatively to this in comments referencing "men haters",[38][39][40] publicly withdraw his support from the Women in Red WikiProject,[41][42] and temporarily resigned as an administrator.[43] Later the same month, Kudpung wrote an article in the Signpost critical of WMF director Katherine Maher. GorillaWarfare commented on the piece, describing it as continued "misogyny" on Kudpung's part.[44] This comment led to an edit war and block of GorillaWarfare by uninvolved administrator Fram, which was subsequently overturned.[45][46][47] [48][49]
Kudpung and GorillaWarfare did not interact again until the ArbCom elections in November 2019. In response to a question about his boycott of Women in Red, Kudpung made reference to proud women [who] accuse such men [as Kudpung] of being misogynists
.[50] GorillaWarfare interpreted this as referring to her, and challenged Kudpung on why he emphasised that she is queer.[51] Kudpung denied that he was referring to GorillaWarfare or any particular editor.[52]
8) Kudpung has not submitted any evidence in this case. Kudpung made a statement during the workshop phase indicating he is willing to take on board objective criticism and generally try to learn from the feedback given, but he did not make any specific concessions to the criticism brought forth.
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung's administrative user rights are removed. He may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
2) Kudpung is admonished for failing to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator. In future, he is urged to ensure that he remains civil in his interactions with both new and regular editors, and responds to feedback on his conduct objectively and with an assumption of good faith.
3) Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The community is reminded that attempting to have a community-wide discussion of problematic behavior early on can prevent unnecessary escalations.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.