Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: CodeLyoko (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (Talk) & Casliber (Talk) & SoWhy (Talk)

Evidence presented by Rschen7754

Kudpung continues to defend his past behavior

• Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/Kudpung/Questions#Questions_from_Rschen7754 - I asked a few direct questions about the past interactions with Ajraddatz and GorillaWarfare and Kudpung stood by his actions completely. --Rschen7754 19:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung has made personal attacks

[1] - for context on what it means (read aloud) in German, see wikt:Ärschen. Ironically, this is while accusing me of making threats and personal attacks. This is also an example of his failing WP:ADMINACCT. --Rschen7754 20:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung has made vague threats to suppress criticism

• User talk:Fish and karate/ACE19 (when Kudpung wants to become an arbitrator)
• [2][3] (when Kudpung wants to regain adminship)

I suspect Ajraddatz will want to comment further on the diffs, but I bring this up to illustrate a pattern: Kudpung uses these vague threats to stifle opposition and legitimate criticism towards himself. This has a disturbing chilling effect and is behavior we cannot tolerate on this project if we are to continue to exercise self-governance. --Rschen7754 20:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Chris.sherlock (talk)

Unintended threatening comments

My evidence is not to show Kudpung in a bad light. I believe that he tries hard to ensure that Wikipedia is free of sock-puppets and people who are editing in conflict. However, I believe that some of his comments can be seen to be threatening, even thought they are not intended that way. They definitely show someone who I believe gets fixated on things and exhibits an attitude that he must defend Wikipedia from abusive users - even if they may not be. This attitude is confrontational, and can be extremely intimidating. It can also be wrong, and potentially affect the reputations of non-abusive users.

• Message to Ritchie333. you will understand that there is a very serious issue behind all this, and I have been trying to save the face of two editors here. This is the primary example I would like to bring to your attention. The message is clearly directed about both myself and User:Missvain. I am concerned that Kudpung sees issues where they don't necessarily exist. In this case, the suspicions proved baseless, but were upsetting for a number of editors. I'm also concerned about the assertion that he is being harassed by "rogue stewards". The fact that he thinks "noone else" did any "homework" shows a lack of awareness that whilst he has found issues with accounts in the past, not everyone who shows "suspicious" behavior is necessarily an abusive editor.
• Message to Xxanthippe. I honestly don't think he knows how threatening this series of messages can be construed.
• Message to Yngvadottir. By asking you politely to refrain from posting on my talk page, it was not an invitation for you to continue your attacks in another venue, and I still had not warned you about your very serious recent breach in our rules, but don't be lulled into thinking I hadn't noticed. - this is also threatening, like a "watch out, I'm keeping a close eye on you".
• Message to Ajraddatz. I note that your stewardship comes up for review in a few days. However, as you are a steward that deals with Trust & Safety, I suppose you are ironclad. I will be taking advice from somewhere as best I can. This is... threatening. There was no need for this message, and again another example of Kudpung telling someone he has his eye on them. This sort of message is unacceptable, no matter how valid Kudpung considered it to be.
• This message and this message to me made me feel intimidated. He has since apologised, but this is nonetheless evidence. In particular, I found You certainly have an unusual manner of expressing yourself for someone with your history. There's a lot 2 hours of research turns up concerning enough that I needed to take it to WP:AN/I.

Evidence presented by GRuban

While I can't speak to all the accusations against Kudpung, the clash with GorillaWarfare is one of the saddest cases of friendly fire I've seen in 14 years here of Wikipedia. It's basically a Greek tragedy (or at least a "Geek tragedy"). Greek tragedy usually tells of the downfall, in several episodes, of powerful and respected people due to a inherent flaw (often pride), and each episode is followed by a Stasimon, where an all-knowing chorus commenting on events. This is basically what happened here; the commenting voices of horrified experienced editors growing louder with each episode is the main part of this evidence. In real Greek tragedy, the main characters can't hear the chorus; if only they could, the tragedy wouldn't have occurred. In this event, the main characters could hear, but apparently chose not to listen.

Kudpung and GorillaWarfare began as allies

October 2017, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl, GorillaWarfare and Kudpung were on the same side, supporting. User:Xxanthippe was the first oppose, because MLG was ... too feminist. what concerns me is the extent of her passionate dedication to the cause of women's editing of Wikipedia and her intention to remain concentrated on that area. Because of this zeal, I am not confident that she will be able to use the powers that would be granted to her as an administrator in the balanced and impartial way...

At Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl#Xxanthippe's oppose, Both K and GW post strong supports of MLG and rebuttals of Xxanthippe's oppose. GW implies Xx's oppose is that of a troll, Because it's worth visibly standing up for folks who do good work when they are denigrated by other folks on Wikipedia, trolls or otherwise., K calls it "crap" and "mean spirited".

Note, Kudpung and GorillaWarfare are on the same side; that of feminism on Wikipedia.

Kudpung and GorillaWarfare clashed over a "Minor point" (literally)

12 August 2018 Kudpung addresses Xxanthippe and appeals to GorillaWarfare for support, referencing the above Megalibrarygirl RFA: had it been anywhere else, not only would your vote and comments on the Megalibrary RfA probably have resulted in a block, but possibly also a site ban. It's perhaps best not to play with fire. Let's see what Ritchie333, Joe Roe, Boing! said Zebedee, Ad Orientem, and Molly White from among our most experienced and respected admins say, and the many other admins who commented there.

Those words ("Molly White") unleashed the hurricane. GW wrote User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2018#Minor point: Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men. K blew his top. If you publicly refer to yourself under any name, you have to get used to being referred to in whichever one users legitimately choose. There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts. PS. You just lost Women in Red an active supporter. Well done.

The last part, "when discussed among men", seem to have been the sore point. Still, this was a clear overreaction by Kudpung. If someone tells you they want to be called Fred, you call them Fred, right? And calling her a man hater? And what does Women in Red have to do with this in any way?

In a strange twist, GorillaWarfare apologized: I didn't think you were being sexist or otherwise offensive by using my full name, and if I implied that I apologize. Kudpung accepted; but then GW withdrew the apology! Now arguably GW didn't need to apologize, as her original request was perfectly reasonable. But the apology would have been an admirable way of soothing troubled waters, so withdrawing it didn't help.

Commentary

If I may offer my unsolicited opinion, while I think Kudpung may have overreacted, I guess it could have been avoided if the original post by GorillaWarfare contained a simple clarification note that there were no insinuations of wrongdoing, ill-intent nor ignorance. As it is, it could justifiably be read as a mild criticism. Alex Shih arbitrator at the time

Subsequently, GorillaWarfare objected to Kudpung's Signpost article

2 weeks later, Kudpung wrote Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-08-30/News_and_notes, with two sections critical of the Wikimedia Foundation, "WMF hires a spam outfit", and "Wikimedia moves to WordPress" criticizing Katherine Maher for being out of touch due to traveling a lot.

GorillaWarfare responded on the talk page: Misogyny I was under the impression that there were extenuating circumstances that resulted in Kudpung being misogynistic towards me and another editor, but when we talked offwiki I thought he was taking a break. I'm sad to see that he's continuing this campaign against Katherine Maher. I'm no stranger to criticizing (female) leadership in the Wikimedia movement, but I can at least say I save it for the folks who are doing a poor job.

Now is K's article clearly misogyny? It's certainly a harsh attack, but is the criticism "Maher travels a lot, so is out of touch" something that is specifically misogynistic? Are women known for traveling more than men, or somehow being more oblivious than men due to this? GWs arguments for this being misogyny seem to be (a) "Kudpung was misogynistic earlier, therefore whenever he criticizes any woman, that is misogynism," and (b) "I criticized the previous female WMF lead, therefore I am the decider on any criticism of the current one". In each case, the premise is certainly true (Kudpung's reaction in Episode 1 in the above section was pretty misogynistic, and GWs timeline was a thorough bit of work), but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Also, who's the other editor? Xxanthippe? Who attacked Megalibrarygirl for being too feminist, and who GW implied was a troll?

Commentary

• User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15 I'm upset by these conversations, as you are two editors I have the utmost respect for and have worked closely with in the past ... I absolutely believe that the commentary provided by both of you about the other is inaccurate. Worm That Turned Arbitrator.
• What the Worm said. I ... am sure there is room for not turning a problem with the WMF hiring a marketing firm into a personal dispute between two excellent volunteer admins. Please? --GRuban Yes, me. I am an experienced editor, honest.
• This is among the saddest conversations that I have read in a long time and I ... encourage all involved to take several steps back from the brink. Cullen³²⁸
• I just cannot understand how two long-established editors who have done great work for the encyclopedia, despite facing unpleasant shit I would never wish to face myself, can be so utterly at loggerheads with each other Ritchie333

GorillaWarfare's objection escalated to being blocked

User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15#Personal attack Kudpung isn't directly involved here, but wow does this escalate. User:Fram, experienced administrator: Please remove or significantly rephrase your comment at the Signpost[4]. Accusing people of misogyny is a personal attack, and you provide no evidence that the Signpost article is misogynistic (being negative and being about a woman does not equal misogyny) or that the editor is "continuing a campaign" of misogyny. That you had a recent negative interaction with the editor doesn't make everything they write about women immediately or automatically misogynistic, and it would be better if you refrained from making such attacks onwiki. She does not, and reinstates it after it is removed. I'll remove it again. Reinstate it again and I'll block you. ... Since you edit warred to reinstate your personal attack despite a clear warning, you have now been blocked for 24 hours.

Commentary

User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15#Personal attack

• accusing someone of a campaign of misogyny is a personal attack and it is not any justifiable by K's previous behavior, (however low it had stooped). ... Also, echo YairRand in his entirety. ∯WBG
• Have some outrage. No one should be calling anyone a "man hater". No one should be mentioning the gender of an editor or group of editors. No one should be calling anyone a misogynist. Both parties, and several individuals jumping onto the conflict, have acted completely inappropriately, and should not continue this discussion. --Yair rand

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested The one bit of good news is that GW was quickly unblocked.

• This is a situation that calls for de-escalation... Cullen³²⁸ Admin
• Fram ... You were both edit warring, and an uninvolved admin could have been justified in blocking both you and GW... Courcelles Admin
• The initial comment, Misogyny, was unnecessarily provocative and out of place. I would consider it to be a personal attack. K.e.coffman
• I don't think either party (GorillaWarfare or Fram) has shown wise conduct here ... neither has Kudpung. --Rs Admin
• Fram's blocking of GW was uncalled for (at least, so soon, although I completely understand Fram's perspective in this – that this was a clear personal attack)... GW's statements directed at Kudpung's character are silly and childish, and especially seem a distant run off of some campaign she feels a strong need to support and continue. That said, I don't agree at all with how Kudpung placed his initial statements on GW. I would strongly urge all parties (including me, perhaps) to just stop frequenting each other's posts and lay it off for some while. Lourdes
• I think it takes extraordinary ill-faith to assume that he was being misogynistic in this comment when he was in the middle of a discussion about combating sexism in RfA. Alex Shih Arbitrator
• Kudpung's not a misogynist. Not by a long shot. Kudpung jumps in to fight sexism and bias, not create it. That this is up for debate, genuinely makes me sad. :( Mr rnddude
• I don't see how anyone can unequivocally state that accusing someone on-Wiki of "misogyny" is not, at least arguably, a personal attack. But, if it's happening between two highly respected, veteran administrators in good standing, we're probably not dealing with a petty behavioral issue that is correctable via standard blocking. GW's comment was unfiltered and aggressive well beyond normal Talk Page standards, but so was the article she was responding to, which itself could be reasonably construed as a personal attack... GW and Kudpung need to mutually steer clear of each other from now on, or take their conflict off-wiki where it will not disrupt the project, until they can bury the hatchet and come to a mutual respect. No exceptions. The "full history" doesn't matter. Grudging between admins is unacceptable.... This is not an argument that either party needs to "win".Swarm Admin
• Everybody should fucking drop it, and Kudpung and GW should avoid each other and stay busy working. That way, the next time they run in to each other, it's at least possible that they'll be in agreement, which can make patching up hurt feelings a lot easier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
• The original comment, the block, the unblock, the comments on usertalk pages, the comments in this thread... there are additional communicative steps and measures of caution that shoulda coulda woulda been taken all around. Let's call it a day. The only thing that should really happen at this point is for GW and Kudpung to hash things out a bit more, without a crowd doing the work of making it a spectacle. Rhododendrites
• Swarm and Mr Pants have pretty much said it already. So I'll give you the short version: the major players in this dispute should apologise to each other if they can ... (Kudpung and GorillaWarfare) Ritchie333 Admin
• Kudpung's initial and secondary reactions to GorillaWarfare's requests about how to refer to her, were inappropriate. ...I understand GorillaWarfare's post at the Signpost, but it was in my view poor judgement. ... I urge GorillaWarfare to reconsider her post at the Signpost. Jytdog

Conclusion

Unlike a Greek tragedy, however, this doesn't have to end with the death of nearly everyone involved, as I urge the ArbCom. Listen to the voices of experienced editors, they're not asking for punishment of either or both of the parties, they're asking for de-escalation, stepping back, and making peace. Otherwise this Case will essentially be the next episode in this Geek tragedy. Let's not make it so.

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop#Administrator_accountability, User:SandyGeorgia (who also contributed to the opening of this case) refers us to WP:ADMINCOND, "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." To be honest, neither Kudpung nor GorillaWarfare behaved in accordance with that sentence. I can't see penalizing K for this flaming ball of lava without similarly penalizing GW - and, just to be clear, I don't think we should penalize GW. She's an invaluable, courageous, and hard working contributor... as is he. See, WP:ADMINCOND goes on that "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."

Evidence presented by GorillaWarfare

Kudpung breached WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINCOND

Kudpung reacted explosively when I politely requested he refer to me in the same way as he did the male administrators he was listing me next to. His extreme reaction(s) in the events following violated both the civility policy and the administrator conduct expectations. His demonstrated pattern of bias against women and other minorities (see subsection 4) is also not compatible with the expectations of adminship. To recap the events:

• In a discussion on Kudpung's talk page (link to full discussion), Kudpung added a second parameter to the {{U}} template specifically so that my username would display my real name, something he did not do with the other administrators mentioned. I took issue with this for reasons I have already explained (1], 2). I was aware that this was likely not intentional on Kudpung's part, and so while I wished to ask him to avoid doing it again, I tried to be clear that it was not a big deal by titling the section on his talk page "Minor point" and writing, Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men.. (diff, link to full discussion) As I said in my statement on this case, I expected him to acknowledge my request and we would all move along.
  • As a note, I generally have no issue with people referring to me by my real name. However in this context it read to me like someone saying "Mr. Smith, Mr. Doe, and Molly", and it stuck out to me. It was not Kudpung's use of my real name that makes me feel he holds bias against women (there are plenty of other explanations, such as mine being the only real name he knew), but rather his reaction to my reasonable request and his subsequent behavior.
• Instead, Kudpung exploded. Not only did he insist he would refer to me however he liked, he called me a "man hater" and implied that my request alone was going to "relax his efforts" to "defend women from misogyny". There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts. (edit summary: men haters have we now?) diff
• Before I had a chance to respond, he went to multiple pages to dramatically withdraw support from Women in Red (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), and wrote this on Rosiestep's talk page that . I am not a founder or leader of WiR, and although I am a member, I am unfortunately not an active one at all. Evidently Kudpung made good on his promise to stop rescuing bios of women, and has started actively targeting them for deletion (1).
• Kudpung continued to show a shockingly out-of-proportion reaction (1, 2), even after I twice (1, 2) tried to apologize and explain further what I had meant.

Kudpung resigned his admin tools shortly after, possibly to avoid scrutiny

After being challenged by some for his extreme reaction to me, Kudpung went all the way to en.Wikiversity to request his English Wikipedia admin status be removed. Note that Kudpung has 3 edits on Wikiversity. In October, Kudpung requested the tools be restored to him at BN. Salvidrim! described the circumstances there: diff. I will note that I commented there to say I did not have objections to him being resysopped, nor did I think his resignation was "under a cloud" in the traditional sense (diff). However, since this is an ADMINCOND case, and because WJBScribe commented there: if such behaviour were to continue, it would in my view be incompatible with adminship on this project and ought to be referred to ArbCom, I wanted to ensure this was included. Unfortunately such behavior has continued, and here we are.

Kudpung continued behavior described in my subsection 1 after an incident at the Signpost; was warned

Later that month, Kudpung published an article in the Signpost where he for some reason latched on to criticizing Katherine Maher for traveling, painting an inaccurate picture of her as an unqualified woman enjoying the travel she can mooch off the WMF while remaining ignorant to the day-to-day goings-on at the Foundation. I thought Kudpung was again expressing his problematic views towards women, which other editors had noticed as well (for example 1, 2). Kudpung started a discussion on my talk page (full discussion) where he accused me of a "campaign and misogyny innuendo against [him]" and said that I "led [him] to dissociate [him]self from [his] support of gender gap issues on Wikipedia" (diff). This, again, was according to him all a result of me requesting he refer to me as "GorillaWarfare". In these conversations, There'sNoTime issued a formal warning to Kudpung: Kudpung is being nothing less than inappropriate here (diff). Eventually, Fram issued a block against me for personal attacks; I was unblocked soon after (block log), and an ANI review was opened which is worth a full read. There were certainly criticism towards myself as well, which I have taken onboard.

Kudpung engaged in gaslighting and singled me out for being queer

Following the incidents in August 2018, I have (as advised in the ANI thread, I will note) steered clear of Kudpung—something I would have thought would be obvious to him given that we are both highly active editors and we almost never interact (fairly enormous page, but should prove this point). The only exception is at the recent ArbCom elections, which I (obviously) followed quite closely. I noticed a question from 28bytes about whether Kudpung is still boycotting WiR, where Kudpung responded (in part) What I think is a shame however, especially where on Wikipedia we are all supposed to be nice to each other (which in reality we are not), is when ''[[Gay pride|proud]]'' women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that: ''[[misandry]]''. It's all a bit odd really. It is plain from the interactions I have described above that Kudpung was referring to the incident in August 2018. I don't know why he pointed out that I am queer—I am open about this, but him linking it in this way while speaking critically about me made me very uncomfortable. I asked about this further down the page because it seemed so bizarre—both that he would point out my queerness with absolutely no reason that is apparent to me, and that he would in another section again deny that he was referring to me despite it being very clear, and coyly dance around the subject: diff.

Kudpung also demonstrated, at the links above and throughout that page where asked, that he does not believe his behavior towards me in August 2018 was in any way inappropriate. This is extremely concerning.

Kudpung claims others hold grudges against him or against admins as a group, and uses this to dismiss concerns

• In August 2018, Kudpung claimed that my concerns with his behavior were a long and obvious hangover from this (diff)—his link directed to my RfA from eight years prior where he made a completely reasonable argument to oppose (as did over 100 others). The idea that I would hold a grudge from that, despite no negative interactions with Kudpung up until 2018 (that I recall, at least), is completely absurd.
• I commented at the ANI thread regarding Chris.sherlock, but not to do with Kudpung—concerns about DuncanHill's interactions with Chris.sherlock (see discussion). Despite this fact, Kudpung shortly thereafter claimed "GW ... still can't keep her nose out of anything that concerns me", despite the fact that the only interaction I can recall having with him following August 2018 is the interaction on the ArbCom questions page, where he had been speaking about me.
• As Leaky caldron, Iridescent, and Winged Blades of Godric pointed out in the request, Kudpung habitually dismisses opponents or those who raise concerns with his behavior as members of the "anti-admin brigade".

Kudpung has not been accountable for his behavior

I am not sure what availability I will have onwiki in the next few days, and so I am adding this now. I will strike it if Kudpung becomes involved with the case.

The administrator policy requires admins to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed (WP:ADMINACCT). Since this case was accepted, Kudpung has not participated in any way or responded to the concerns about his behavior raised by other editors, despite being active elsewhere on-wiki ([5]). The only acknowledgement of the case was to add a quote about this case by another editor to his userpage ([6]), with the edit summary "verdict first, trial later". Certainly no one can be forced to participate in an ArbCom case, but surely refusing to do so is incompatible with the accountability requirements for holding administrator permissions.

Evidence presented by Leaky caldron

Kudpung has repeatedly used formulaic, disparaging descriptions to vilify unidentified editors WP:ADMINCOND

For years Kudpung has habitually used a disparaging smear in referring to community members (usually unidentifiable) as being part of “the Anti-admin brigade”. I estimate that the use of the A-AB sentiment began to be expressed regularly circa 2012.

Basic search result: [7]. (there are variations on the wording which the search tool cannot pinpoint and the search itself is imperfect so that not all of these hits identify a unique usage by him).

The trigger for these outbursts typically occurs in relation to his areas of expertise, for example RfA oppose !votes, the theme of RFA reform and generally in defence of the Admin. role. The common theme is clearly authority versus the general community. For brevity I will limit the examples. But there are vast numbers (maybe hundreds) of A-AB aspersions, including worrying hyperbolic comments about throwing drink at someone if they met at a meet-up [8] and bizarrely, “jumping up and down on my sofa pretending that some of those question posers are under it".’’ [9]

June 2013 regarding Admins: [10] "None of us admins relishes the thought of being pinned to the wall by a franzy (sic) of righteously indignant children or outraged blocked adults and we already have to take a lot of baiting, provocation, and unjustified shit from both, but the anti-admin brigade does exist and we'll have to live with it. Any changes to policy or procedures need a consensus and we can't disenfranchise them." Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

In late 2015 in relation to Signpost article about recruiting new Admins.[11]: “It's a good overview of the situation, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Lowering the bar will only get us more of the kind of admins the anti-admin brigade (especially the prolific content providers) is always bleating about.”"--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02 pm, 3 October 2015, Saturday (4 years, 3 months, 15 days ago) (UTC+1)

2016 in a discussion about the suitability of a potential RfA candidate, how can this language possibly be helpful? [12] “don't worry too much about the 'anti-reform crowd' or even the anti-admin brigade; after their recent performances on RfA and Arbcom elections and in other noticeboards, they are no longer oozing along at ground-level below everyone's radar and they are likely to be finding themselves on a short leash in 2016"

In 2018, refering to his seminal work on RfA reform: [13] "Some years ago in 2011, I started and facilitated what still today is the single most in-depth research into RfA. It didn't bring about any changes because after a lot of hard work gathering background information, the on-Wiki efforts began to be trolled so much by the anti-admin brigade that we just gave up"

Last October, related to issues raised in the September 2019 issue of the Signpost [14]: “Oh, dear, wrong again: Its the cabal of the anti-admin brigade and their uncalled for acrimonious comments that are 'as sick as a lake of vomit'." Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25 am, 18 October 2019, Friday (2 months, 30 days ago) (UTC+1)

The right to disagree openly, without fear of recrimination and smear, is a vital part of any collaborative forum. When a senior (long-term) functionary repeatedly uses pernicious language to describe those with whose opinion they disagree, rather that discuss and use the resolution processes available, it is an abrogation of Admin. responsibility. It has a chilling effect when the purpose of talk pages should be to enable the community to exchange views and seek to persuade other’s opinion through proper debate. Even to suggest that a brigade (by definition an organised group) are acting with the aim of undermining the entire corps of 1100+ Admins. is perverse and demonstrates repeated poor judgement per WP:ADMINCOND.

Talk Page bans and false accusations of PA

A further negative tactic exploited by Kudpung is the banning of editors from his talk page, frequently accompanied by a thinly veiled accusation of a persona attack / breach of NPA by the "victim". This stifles discussion and resolution opportunities. He does not utilise appropriate dispute resolution processes.

Kudpung behaves & responds impulsively, quickly accelerating issues to conflict

My final segment of evidence is a personal sketch together with some non-personal examples. These are representative of many episodes of erratic and capricious behavior by this editor. These instances arise (it appears to me) when there is a alleged challenge to his authority / expertise or where criticism, no matter how minor, is made in the course of what should be normal discussion. If holding Admins to a higher standard is a requirement, this sort of unwarranted adversarial behavior must stop.

I’ll start off with the fact that for reasons now long forgotten I was banned from Kudpung’s talk page several years ago (2014 ish). Having respected that request, his page nevertheless remained on my watchlist.

1. In August 2018 I was surprised to receive a Barnstar from Kudpung [15] and took this to indicate that I was now probably welcome to comment there. In March 2019 I noticed him having a particular rough time relating to his role as Signpost co-editor in chief: [16] and added a message requesting an editor to ease off. [17]. Within a few hours my message was removed with the edit summary “RM trolling” [18]. I asked about this and the curt, dismissive response is here: [19].
2. Involving another editor, an instance where his reaction to a quite minor request was a fit of pique with a self-aggrandising put down using his tenure, weight of edits, experience [20]: This discussion is not about my performance as a content contributor, kindly stay on topic. I have been around a long time and been largely responsible for some of the most important policy changes over the years - including NPP and travelled(sic) extensively for Wikipedia at my own cost. All that is also work, many hours a day for years. I have done more than my fair share towards content and there is no obligation to reach featured status. There is a big difference between your 21,000 edits and my 100,000+. Thanks, but I don't need your help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 2:34 am, 15 October 2019, Tuesday (3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+1)
3. And this is just unnecessary in any context [21], repeated threats to a (then) new Admin. using language laden with passive-aggressive threats: I'm just letting you know that due to various concerns, I may be considering taking a look at your recent appointment to adminship (which I supported). (Please note here my use of the modal 'may' which does not mean 'will', and is therefore neither a threat nor a caution, nor an expression of bad faith, but purely informative.) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02 pm, 23 November 2016.
4. I have provided you with an opportunity to adjust the deceptive, leading, and misleading preamble of your RfC. If you prefer not to address this issue, I may consider that it may be necessary to escalate, and as such, your general competency for adminship may risk being questioned. (Please note here my use of the modal 'may' which does not mean 'will', and is therefore neither a threat nor a caution, nor an expression of bad faith, but purely informative.) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2016.

Per WP:ADMINCOND administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Banning editors from their TP, removing good faith comments as trolling and generally treating editors as subordinates and with the exaggerated authority exemplified falls way below the level required and is behavior that must now be addressed properly through a process Kudpung is willing to reconcile with.

Evidence presented by Xxanthippe

Kudpung has made Personal Attacks

On 6 August 2018 Kudpung accused me on his talk page of "misogyny"[22]. His allegation of misogyny was made without informing me and was followed up with bullying threats of a block and site ban. A remonstrance by me led to the doubling down of the allegation and threats.[23]. Oddly enough, next year on 16 November 2019[24], Kudpung said "I don't recall having called any particular editor a misogynist or a misandrist." Together with his increasingly irascibility and intolerance of editors who disagree with him, such inconsistency indicates cognitive and behavioral issues that are getting worse with time.

Kudpung has carried out actions and made threats in order to suppress and conceal criticism

When I attempted to remonstrate with Kundpung's characterization of me on his talk page [25] as a misogynist Kudpung banned me from his talk page[26] He made threats against me that amounted to a misuse of the administrator tools[27], making the threat "Well, Xxanthippe, in future, you can give this page a permanent pass, because there is already enough to have you sanctioned. I hope you understand?"[28]

Lack of courtesy expected from an administrator

In a discussion on another editor's talk page of Kudpung's rude and dismissive treatment of a woman editor Kundpung told me to "pipe down".[29]

Kudpung's long term behavior

In the preliminary statements of the investigation several experienced editors have stated that they regarded Kudpung as a "friend" and indicate that he has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia. One can put aside for the moment the question of whether Arbcom or the admin corps is a suitable place to be looking for "friends". Some commentators appear to have made the assumption that if an editor has done good work in the past then they are doing good work in the present. This is a fallacy. A persons' competency at editing may change as a result of age, medical condition or other life experience. However much Kudpung may have contributed in the past, he is now too frequently a focus of contention, a demoraliser of other editors, and a disruptive influence on Wikipedia. He does not behave in a way that becomes an administrator.

Evidence presented by Missvain

Kudpung's use of NPP without due diligence

Kudpung decided to PROD a bunch of my articles after stumbling across some during their New Page Patrol (NPP) duty. I was anxiety ridden when I saw the PRODs, all which had been recent articles I wrote – all which are notable. The fact that the PRODs use the blanket NPP tool template stating "Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Kudpung and it's nice to meet you :-)" is hilarious given that I've been editing Wikipedia for 14 years and have over 150k edits under my belt. This is clear evidence that no attention or care was put into the PRODs.

• Diff for five PRODs on my talk page

The recent PROD's were just plain bizarre. I generally have anxiety anytime I see "new messages" on my talk page, given my history as a more "well known" Wikipedian, for better or for worse. Imagine my surprise when I saw all of those PRODs and one not-so-polite "explanation" on how to fix an article to become more notable. As if I don't know how to do that.

In fact, Kudpung was actively tagging an article of mine after I brought it up on their talk page. You can see in that diff, I change my section header from "two" to "three of my articles" after seeing they were actively PRODing.

Kudpung failed to do their due diligence using NPP. The subjects are notable and meet general notability guidelines. It would have taken a simple Google search to figure that out.

You can see other Wikipedians bringing this up on the talk page of three of the PROD'd articles:

• Atomic Liquors in which Cullen328 and Chris.sherlock bring up their concerns.

• Evel Pie in which Kudpung tagged me in a comment and Chris.sherlock comments.

• Monica Berg where Chris.sherlock asks why the article was PROD'd and no answer is provided.

Sadads also expresses concern over Kudpung's use of the NPP tool here.

Kudpung's patronizing tone and retaliation

This concerns me, specifically in the area of WP:ADMINCOND.

After I saw THREE of the five article nominations, I brought it up on Kudpung's talk page. Granted, I could just assume good faith here, but it's hard to do so when they were clearly going through the list of articles I have recently upgraded/written that I share on my user page.[30]

• "Three of my articles"

I was so horrified by Kudpung's response, I decided to not even respond or participate. In fact, reading their response again is causing my heart to race.

I left a comment on Kudpung's page at 2:05 UTC and they responded at 2:21 UTC. At 2:34 UTC, Kudpung PRODs another page of mine. In fact, Kudpung PROD'd the Hans Nichols article twice (Which, to me, shows lack of attention to detail using the NPP tool). A few hours later Paola Ramos (journalist) was tagged with a PROD tag.

Is this retaliation for me bringing it up on their talk page? That is a up to you to decide.

Kudpung also left a few comments on the talk pages of PROD'd articles. One was unsolicited and patronizing:

• Here's an example: Missvain, if you had Googled it yourself before publishing it, you'd have found your 'ton more sources' . So easy, it would have saved other people the need to control your work.

The second was when Cullen328 brought up a concern about why the Atomic Liquors article was nominated, to which Kudpung drops a another patronizing comment about your humble narrator – this time not even tagging me to let me know they were "talking" about me: Curious however why the article creator did not search for more sources.

• "Removing PROD" from Atomic Liquors

You can also see Kudpung's patronizing tone here, in which Kudpung responds to Rosiestep.

Not informing editors they are talking about them (about serious stuff)

After this situation with the PROD's, Kudpung decided to bring it up at the NPP talk page. It's no doubt they were talking about me – they started the "Autopatrolled" section at 5:37 UTC, about 30 minutes after tagging the Paola Ramos (journalist) article for PROD.

Here is what Kudpung starts the section off with:

Not wishing to detract from the discussion about redirects, but a curious concourse of cicumstances led me to discover again an autopatrolled editor creating dozens of short articles that are barely notable or not even notable at all. Normally I would simply remove the autopatrolled flag, but in this instance, the user is an admin. Autopatrolled comes bundled with adminship. What should we be doing in cases like these?

As you proceed through the discussion, you can see other users bring up all kinds of things: de-sysoping the mystery user (me), talking to me about what I did wrong (look how that went), and then the kicker: removing autopatrol from my toolbox and subsequent Admins in the future unless they pass god knows what kind of hurdles.

Hours go by, I'm still not informed that I'm the subject of the discussion. Kundpung writes at one point that they would have pulled the autpat. flag already. Unfortunately I have a feeling that there is more to this than meets the eye.. Whatever "more to this than meets the eye" means.

Note: that was at 16:44, 3 January 2020.

It wasn't until 12:16, 5 January 2020 that someone even mentions my name, Cabayi.

Imagine my surprise that this very important conversation was taking place without me knowing? A conversation that could change my "future" on Wikipedia as a content creator. Of course, I see the notification and I was pissed. My tone was not very polite and extremely defensive, but I was livid.

And it keeps going. Kudpung fails to tag me in another comment about me in response to Rosiestep. And again in a comment to Sadads.

Note: Xanthippe also brings up that they did not know Kudpung was talking about them regarding a very sensitive situation: here

Retaliation round two

Regarding the NPP talk discussion... Eventually Chris.sherlock appeared (FWIW: Chris and I had never interacted on wiki until this point) and called out Kudpung for their behavior. Including explaining to Kudpung why he is concerned with how Kudpung may have misused the NPP tool that Kudpung reminds us he "wrote the book on."[31]

That appears to have maybe been the trigger for Kudpung going after Chris, which he discusses above. Chris might say "My evidence is not to show Kudpung in a bad light," but I think it's deplorable, unseemly and un-administrative what Kudpung did to him and to me it appears as retaliation for Chris' comments about the NPP drama.

Evidence presented by Headbomb

Attacks at the Signpost

In February 2019, when The Signpost published a... let's call it 'controversial' article (the famous 'Humour' piece). A few days before publication, I pointed out that the piece felt rather mean, and un-Signpost like. My words were simply

• Headbomb: I find this rather mean-spirited personally.
• Kudpung: Headbomb, 'mean spiritied?" I have recollections of your own work going back many years. Perhaps you would prefer The Signpost to cease publication altogether.

This attack came completely out of nowhere, and unprovoked. I could also not recall anytime I had significantly interacted with them, until I dug further and found that I've had the mispleasure of encountering Kudpung in 2009, back when I was still newbie-ish, on the Malvern water talk page. But really what it was was Kudpung reflexively unleashing attacks on whoever dared to disagree with them. Note that, at the time, Kudpung was listed as co-editor in chief of The Signpost, alongside Bri. Whether coming from an admin, the (co)-EiC of the Signpost, or a regular editor, this is a pure WP:ABF attack in response to a good-faith inquiry about why such a mean-spirited piece would be published.

When I pointing out that, as editor-in-chief, Kudpung and Bri shared responsibility for the piece being published, this was then met with a Twinkle WP:NPA notice here, with further threats here, vague accusations of lying, and eventually a threat to block me. And this is completely unacceptable behaviour from anyone.

Further context for the dispute can be found here. The gist of it was apparently that Kudpung apparently had stepped down from EiC responsibility sometimes between December 2018 and February 2019, and told no one about it (at least nowhere prominently visible), and took it as some kind of "personal attack" to call them the co-EiC of the Signpost based on the Signpost's 'about us' page, listing them as co-EiC.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Boing! said Zebedee

I just want to make one point in relation to the issues regarding User:Missvain above. ArbCom should note that Missvain was caught doing Undeclared Paid Editing some time ago (and lost her job with the WMF because of it, but retained her admin rights). Kudpung is a staunch defender against UPE, and is very active in New Page Patrol where he is very attentive to UPE. So if he sees and tags a bunch of stub-like articles about commercial establishments, created by someone with a previous record of UPE, it would be wrong to assume his tagging of them is because the author is a woman. I'm absolutely not making any accusation that these new articles are UPE, but I think this background is of vital importance - and I think it is disingenuous of Missvain not to mention it *. (Apologies for lack of diffs or links, but I'm keenly aware that I'm right up against the closing of the Evidence phase, and I'm working to deadlines in real life too - but I don't think these facts are in any way disputed). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting Missvain has made any sexism accusations (she hasn't). But others are trying to pin sexism/misogyny on everything, and that's what I'm contesting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

* No, that bit was unfair. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)