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

Case clerks: CodeLyoko (talk) & Miniapolis (talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (talk) & Casliber (talk) & SoWhy (talk)

Case opened on 03:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators.

Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee.
Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

Case information

Involved parties

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution

ANI

Preliminary statements

Statement by Guerillero

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.

@Xeno: I have seen the two to three examples on ANI and I don't know of any others. I brought this to you all, because trying to resolve admin conduct issues at ANI is a fools errand. Ed, Sandy, Carrite, and myself all mentioned that this should be brought to arbcom, and I figured that we were a broad swath of opinions on the the project. So, I posted the case. I haven't followed this situation at all and was completely uninvolved until a few hours ago when I posted this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Kudpung

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by SandyGeorgia

With 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)[reply]

I would like to respond to Kudpung's response to my response, but with a death in the family overnight, feel it would not be wise for me type the things I have to say at this time. Short version: ZERO REMORSE in evidence even when given a chance = behaviors unlikely to change. Arbs. Deal with it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: what is it that you/we or anyone who succumbs to the idea that "the community can address this further first" think the community might do, at the risk of having this happen again, while we wait, considering that we have seen zero expression of remorse, rather a combative attitude? Are the declining arbs considering the corrosive effect on the overall community of allowing even one incident of this magnitude from an admin towards another editor, much less, risking another? Kudpung is doubling down with every response; why should we think there is any self-awareness, or risk this happening again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lourdes: said: 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. Apologies are a very good acknowledgement that one recognizes poor behavior, and would have gone a long ways in this arbcase. The only thing I have seen wrt the incident involving Brian's death is: I expect the Committee will be gracious enough to examine it in its full context before passing judgement. Doubling down on poor behavior. This indicates to me an editor who may be unable to understand where his interactions have gone wrong, and what he needs to change. That is = unlikely to change; it appears that his instincts are to "fight back" against what he calls the "anti-admin brigade" rather than acknowledge his own part in a disagreeable dynamic. And the risk of having him do to another editor what was done to Chris is too great. The corrosive effects on the overall community of admins who issue threats are enormous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cassianto

I'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. Cassianto^Talk 18:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamaliel, what does my block log have to do with this case or my comment, and why does that even qualify me to be more reliable than anyone else here? Cassianto^Talk 21:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I think you may want to read the diff again. In it, you say "the troll Dr Horncastle is a confirmed sock of none other than Eric Corbett." You even acknowledge it is Eric in the same bleedin' sentence. But you're right, let others decide. Cassianto^Talk 07:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, no, that is not "essentially what this case is about", that Kudpung is a "bad person". No one is suggesting he is a "bad person". I'm sure he is utterly charming in RL, but like some admins around here, he gets a little bit above his station and acts in a way that is unbecoming of an admin. Please try and assume good faith. Cassianto^Talk 12:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, you have faith in ANI, do you? Do you seriously believe that posting something there will sort matters out and not attract every troll and troublemaker going? Also, it's a bit difficult sorting things out with Kudpung when he accuses you of "harassment" and making "PAs" every time you want to discuss things. He accused me of that, and because of it, I was duly bound to step away. This did nothing other than to have me save it for the next time. And here we are. Cassianto^Talk 10:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Having 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)[reply]

Well, that's something I didn't expect. To jump back a year, an admin takes issue (quite correctly, in many cases) with the sub-standard creations of a female editor, and gets a year's block from "Trust" & "Safety" and a confirmation of desysopping from ArbCom. Here, an admin takes issue with a female editor's creations, PRODding multiple articles despite they weren't valid PRODs, and everything's fine. I suspect this aspect has gone slightly under the radar as people have been commenting on the main issue that was raised. @David Fuchs, KrakatoaKatie, and SoWhy: your thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: Oh, I am quite aware of the background. The fact of her being female I merely raised because of the ironic parallel with the Fram case. However, not the point. If, as a new page patroller, you suspect someone of paid editing then there are correct responses to it. What you don't do is just randomly PROD four of their new articles in a few minutes claiming they're all non-notable. Note that I'm not claiming they'd all survive an AfD - though I think they probably would - just that they certainly aren't PRODs. So why is an experienced NPP patroller getting it so wrong? That's what I'm asking. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: I'm well aware that they're very different cases. But there's a distinct parallel; as we found out during the Fram case, it doesn't actually matter whether you are or aren't deliberately doing something that violates ADMINCOND, merely whether your behaviour gives the impression that you are. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

These are not the only sort of threats that Kudpung has made.

Following legitimate concerns raised by Ajraddatz at his resysop request Kudpung made vague threats.
- My questions at the latest ArbCom election show little understanding of what the fundamental issue is.
User talk:Fish and karate/ACE19

I believe ArbCom should accept this case under "conduct unbecoming of an administrator" and review Kudpung's administrative permissions. --Rs chen 7754 19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add this obvious personal attack (ironically in a response to my alleged personal attacks) in response to legitimate concerns. --Rs chen 7754 20:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy and Xeno: Yes, in theory admins can be warned or blocked, but how often does that actually happen? I would be surprised if admins are blocked 5 times a year - it's rare enough that there's generally a large shockwave when it happens. I'm also concerned that these rationales are basically setting us up for another Framgate - Fram never actually abused the tools, but was brought to ArbCom a few times for his conduct and ArbCom declined to take a look at it, and WMF stepped in. --Rs chen 7754 18:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I greatly value this sort of intervention from editors I have worked closely with in the past, however WP:ADMINACCT does not read Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries from their wiki-friends and close colleagues about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. Going forward, if Kudpung is going to remain an admin, he needs to learn how to take constructive criticism on board in a productive manner - from any respected member of the community, and sometimes even from newer editors. --Rs chen 7754 17:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I 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)[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel

Kudpung'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)[reply]

Statement by Chris troutman

This 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)[reply]

Statement by MrX

This 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). - Mr X 🖋 23:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

About two weeks ago, I wrote, about another case request:

Self-Quoted Statement

This 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 Case

Unfortunately, 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)[reply]

User:Iridescent - There is an anti-admin platoon. It isn't large enough to be a brigade. Its members, who are also "excellent content creators", get away with incivility toward both admins and new editors, the mirror image of some admins including Kudpung getting away with incivility to non-admins and new editors. Whether there is an anti-admin platoon is not related to whether this case should be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ajraddatz

Before 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)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

Seems 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:

Decide Kudpung's behavior is acceptable
Decide Kudpung's behavior is unacceptable

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)[reply]

Declining this case on the grounds that not enough dispute resolution has been tried is disappointing. Look at the people who've expressed disapproval of Kudpung's behavior in this case request: there's Gamaliel, Ajraddatz, Xxanthippe, etc. This should indicate this case request is certainly not Chris vs. Kudpung. If Arbcom declines due to insufficient dispute resolution, that's encouraging these other editors to attempt dispute resolution of their own. This isn't going to be easy, it's much easier to do nothing and avoid Kudpung - either way the dispute is just kicked under the carpet and not resolved (it won't be until there's a final decision on one of the two options above). Banedon (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this case is accepted, please name it something other than "Kudpung", per Hammersoft's anti-anchoring reasoning from some time ago. Banedon (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Given 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Wugapodes

A 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, Some editors say it is hard to get the Committee to hear a desysop case without "smoking gun" diffs of particularly bad actions, and so long term, low level issues that erode community trust are not easily addressed by the committee. Administrators are granted access to the tools because of community trust, and even some editors in opposition to a community desysop procedure expressed belief that those without the trust of the community should not have access to the tools. However the only venue the community has to deal with "long term, low level issues that erode community trust" in an administrator is through the Arbitration Committee, and so even without credible accusations of tool misuse, the Committee should hear cases related to long-term conduct of administrators which goes against the fourth pillar. Whether that is the situation here is to be discovered, but as a matter of course, the Committee should take cases such as this to prevent gaps in our ability to handle administrator conduct issues.

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)[reply]

(comment to Chris Troutman) :Please be aware that Chris was involved in the original issue that kicked this off, at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#Autopatrolled. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung thank you for your last comment. I understand you being concerned and I appreciate you might be curious. To my mind, that’s reasonable. I have PTSD, and my anxiety can get quite acute. I appreciate and can accept now that you meant me no harm. Perhaps on my end I could have elaborated more, but what happened a few years ago was very difficult.

If I may suggest - I think what might have caused some issue was that I was unclear what you meant by researching me. I wonder if you might not be aware that you are a well known editor who does a lot of good work, but sometimes you may make vague statements that can be... misinterpreted. I can’t speak for anyone else, but that’s what happened here.

Finally, I would like you to understand that I was pretty careful not to say you are a bad admin. I only ever had two issues - the first was that it was sort of obvious that you were a bit concerned with another admin but IMO there wasn’t really a foundation. I understand now why you were concerned. I guess we can both put this behind us! I am concerned about the way you PRODed those articles. On my end, perhaps my tone caused you some unease. I can always do better with these things.

I want you to know I don’t consider you to be a bad admin. You have never misused the tools, and I need to state for the record that I know that page patrolling can be a thankless task. I also know that you only want the very best for Wikipedia - which maybe where the conflict comes in as your standards are perhaps higher than others who may feel they can contribute less fully formed articles which will gradually improve over time.

So, now you have set my mind to ease - thank you. I know we can both work together successfully. I am, on my part, sorry for any comment or tone that made you feel attacked or implied you weren’t a great editor here. That wasn’t my intent. I tried hard to stick to the tagging issues I was concerned about, so I’m sorry that what I wrote wasn’t clear and that this may have caused you to believe I was implying things I never intended to. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xxanthippe

I 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).[reply]

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).[reply]

Statement by Carrite

We 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)[reply]

I see elsewhere the argument that this was only brought to ANI shortly before a case request was opened. ANI is the wrong venue for administrator discipline, only Arbcom has the authority to sanction administrators in a meaningful way. All ANI can do is shrug their shoulders and urge that everyone should "be nice." This is an ongoing (and seemingly escalating) behavioral problem that has been going on for a couple of years now. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky caldron

Arbcom 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.

@Worm That Turned. A bit of (friendly) collaboration 9 years ago seems a somewhat thin excuse to absent yourself in this case. Surely a more contemporaneous justification is to be found in the spat hosted on your own talk page during ACE2019? [9]. At least it has the merit of being recent and shows you in direct conflict with Kudpung (in a matter which relates to behaviors). Just recusing for any old reason is a disservice. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter. This might be just a personal anecdote but I suspect it is fairly typical. I attempted to reach out to this editor with a genuine, warm message of reconciliation. My message was immediately deleted with an edit summary of "rm trolling". Once you have crossed this editor there is little chance of a meaningful relationship when you are banned from their TP. It has a chilling effect, is the opposite of collaboration and prevents good order via WP:ADMINACCT. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment by Iridescent

I 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 anti-admin brigade) stopped being an eccentric but harmless quirk and started being obnoxious at least five years ago. Whatever comes of this request—which I hope is rejected as I don't see anything more than slaps on the wrist for all parties needed here and it doesn't take Arbcom to do that—can we at least see an end to the "sole defender of Wikipedia's values against the mob" posturing? ‑ Iridescent 09:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, Here, an admin takes issue with a female editor's creations, PRODding multiple articles despite they weren't valid PRODs is somewhat misleading. People are being too coy to mention it, but in this case the female editor in question was previously caught red-handed doing undeclared paid editing (in a very high-profile case which even made the mainstream non-technical press), and as such is aware that her creations are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny than would be usual for someone with 20,000 page creations. Insinuating that she's being targeted because she's female is unfair; the edits of people involved in other paid-editing scandals such as Gibraltarpedia are subject to just as intense a degree of scrutiny. ‑ Iridescent 08:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

I 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)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

Fortunately 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)[reply]

After reading the statements by Cabayi, Missvain, and GorillaWarfare, I strongly urge acceptance. Paul August ☎ 21:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs and SoWhy: In case you haven't yet read the three statements I mention above, please do. Paul August ☎ 01:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Please don't blame the victims for not giving "feedback" to their abuser. Paul August ☎ 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Upon 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)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

I 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)[reply]

Statement by WBG

SoWhy, there was a comment by an ex-crat (WBJScribe) over a re-sysop request by Kudpung that went:- ...That said, 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.

~~My views on the overall case is what Iri said.~~ ∯WBG^converse 11:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On some retrospection, I urge that ArbCom shall accept this case. Whilst K is quite jolly a fellow to engage with if you're on the same boat with him, dealing with his antics after any minimal disagreement is an outright nightmare where he will paint you as a hat-collector or a member of anti-admin brigade and (almost always) proceed with long tales about how he has shepherded NPP for years before giving up, in a passive-aggressive manner.

Whilst age et al are mitigating factors, this seem to be a longstanding pattern. I just found out this thread between us, and his mode of engagement perfectly fits with the behavior that Cabayi has described in considerable detail. I believe that he is a net-positive editor (by some few miles or so) but I am genuinely doubtful as to whether his behavior does justice to the sysop robes. ∯WBG^converse 09:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More strange behaviour (and an outright inability to consider any minimal self-criticism) may be located over User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/February#February_2019 and User_talk:Headbomb/Archives/2019/March#The_Signpost, and over Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_3#Is_it_possible_to_delete_an_article_after_its_publication_or_extensively_modify_it?. ^[1] This behavior has happened with different users for spans of years (not with some part. group of editors) and the feedback received has been largely same, which has been discounted every single time (with some nonpologies thrown about, at most). ∯WBG^converse 10:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As to Ymblanter's salient points, I have seen numerous people object to the way he has conducted himself, of late. I needed to go only two weeks back to see a note from Leprivacark about his unbecoming behavior.(Essentially Kudpung's net behavior at RFA is also a potential investigation trail, with him parroting the same Anti-admin-brigade stuff and all that whilst attacking oppose voters and lamenting about dearth of successful RfAs.) ∯WBG^converse 09:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've at-least two new users email me within ~the last year about the reason of Kudpung being so consistently mean towards anyone who dare cross his path; I can mail them (with their consent) as evidence of his (potentially detrimental) effects on editor-retention. ∯WBG^converse 10:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Special attention may be invoked, as to a particular comment in the last-linked thread:- ...as I have been insulted in the recent past by members of the stewardship community, my personal reaction was that this was another case of a steward throwing his or her weight about.... That line of reasoning is seriously problematic in a sysop.

Accepting TonyBallioni's assertion of Kudpung being someone who takes the advice of those he considers friends, it does not paint him in any good light; they are inherently misfit for an egalitarian open-source volunteer community like Wikipedia. Also, there were recent conflicts between WTT and Kudpung on the former's t/p as to ACE guides and Kudpung displayed near-same hostility, before WTT chose to drop out.

Interestingly, I have previously written to Tony about Kudpung's increasingly erratic behaviour and as someone who clearly evaded doing anything minimal (though Tony must be commended for mentioning his failures around similar locus), I am bound to consider him as a passive enabler of the toxic culture that has grown around Kudpung and not the best arbiter of victimhood.
As to recusals, if you show up in Wikimanias (in organizational roles) and write endearing notes to power-users about hosting them in future Wikimanias, well ..... ∯WBG^converse 12:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that when Lourdes states that 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., she means that being threatened of being de-flagged or being tagged as part of an anti-admin brigade or outright banned from his t/p or subject to reverse-accusations of engaging in PAs, in response, is a perfectly optimal trait. Weird, to say the least. ∯WBG^converse 15:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cabayi

Kudpung 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)[reply]

While understanding and, to a certain extent, agreeing with TonyBallioni's comments, it's not about the response to a single incident, it's about the repeated pattern. My first time on the receiving end was five years ago (here) and there's nothing there in that single incident that made me feel like complaining.

However once you see the trait -

Rebut the question;
Pivot to an ad hominem issue; and in recent years,
Remind everybody who invented ACTRIAL, ACPERM & NPR

- at that point it becomes apparent that Kudpung is stifling discussion rather than engaging with the original question. In this light his reply to this case reads almost as a comical self-parody but it's also tragic, as he's so obviously blind to it.

I commend Tony's urge to settle this by way of a private word. That was my suggestion at WT:NPP/R#Autopatrolled but Kudpung played dumb, triggering this mess.

Last summer was a harrowing time for the wiki. WP:FRAM was a major disruption. One of the planks of recovering control from the Foundation was the notion that WP:ADMINCOND and WP:CIVIL conduct would be better policed/enforced (or at least, that was my perception when I returned from my "Fram-break"). On an individual level I'd be happy for Kudpung to take on the concerns expressed and to avoid going ad hom in future so that we can put this all to bed, but on a community level it would be beneficial to establish some guidance regarding the conduct of admins in conversations where there is an imbalance of power, and regarding the cumulative pattern of marginal behaviour. Cabayi (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Missvain

Like 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.

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 a handful of PRODs and one charming "explanation" on how to fix an article to become more notable. Here's an example Kudpung's attitude on the talk page of one of the PROD'd articles: 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.
First, I was insulted and pissed off (to the point where I actually brought it up, albeit rudely, on Kudpung's talk page, which isn't really something I do these days). I just now see that Chris.sherlock made an appearance - I am just now seeing that as I type this statement. I have a feeling Chris' appearance is what may have triggered Kudpung to start "digging" up whatever on Chris. FWIW, I only just "met" Chris on wiki formally due to this incident.
I see in that conversation Kudpung claims that Chris was not assuming good faith, which is hilarious, because Kudpung was not doing the same with my articles. Kudpung's response to my message is extremely patronizing and borderline mansplaining, two things, anyone who knows me well enough, knows I do not respond well to. I said to a fellow Wikipedian off-wiki that I was surprised "COI wasn't declared just because I ate a piece of pizza at Evel Pie and then decided to write the Wikipedia article about the place."
But seriously, the entire experience was extremely bothersome. My heart is racing just typing this - I felt attacked, I felt singled out, I felt like my work wasn't good enough - I began experiencing imposter syndrome. I felt like I was no longer welcome or needed on Wikipedia. It was *that* bad. Yes, I am responsible for my own response and emotions, but, as someone who has been diagnosed with PTSD (funny enough, the situation with me and COI and WMF was when I was diagnosed the first time) I instantly got off my computer and had to open my Headspace app and start meditating. It was that bad. I thought to myself, "God, maybe my starts and stubs really aren't what people need here." - I haven't had the feeling of wanting to leave Wikipedia since a few years back.
I realized a conversation was taking place about me (without my knowledge) about removing my autopatrol powers because of my articles. Talk about insulting and ridiculous. And just another way to make Wikipedia less accessible to new editors and less inclusive. The *exact* opposite of what I spent my years at WMF trying to achieve. I did not know I was the subject of conversation until someone tagged me asking why editors can't email me. It's because I have been experiencing years of harassment on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

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)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

I 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.

[10]: I asked not to be the only one referred to by that name alongside a list of men referred to by their usernames (here), which felt to me like an instance of the unfortunate habit society has of referring to women less formally than men, which has been identified as a potential contributor to gender inequality and undermining of women's authority (easily Googleable, but here is an article on the topic). This ended in a shockingly out-of-proportion response from Kudpung, who immediately exploded into calling me a "man hater", insisting upon calling me whatever he liked, threatening to withdraw his support for women in general, and withdrawing his support for WiR (despite me not being a founder or even particularly involved in the project): 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. He then posted on Rosiestep's talk page to dramatically withdraw from WiR, along with a few other edits in that same vein: (see edits from 04:41–05:16). I tried to both clarify what I meant and diffuse the situation: [11]. He doubled down, saying that my request was a "long and obvious hangover" from him criticizing my use of edit summaries eight years prior at RfA. The fact that he thought I was "obviously" harboring a grudge over such a minor criticism, a criticism that was among many oppose votes in my RfA and hardly a harsh comment, and a grudge that I had sat on for eight years with little to no interaction with him, is both absurd and illustrative of Kudpung's tendency to blame any conflict, no matter how small, on a personal grudge against him (or as Leaky caldron and others have pointed out, against admins in general).

Signpost article: Kudpung 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 ongoings at the Foundation. I made a comment in the Signpost comment section that I felt this was inappropriate (a view, by the way, that I was not alone in holding: [12], [13], etc.). From this came various discussions at the sections on my talk page starting from the section titled "On the Signpost article" and continuing down through "Hi there", which I will leave you to review without adding my own commentary, as this statement has already become too long. However, I will note that these conversations resulted in a formal warning towards Kudpung from There'sNoTime, who stated that "Kudpung is being nothing less than inappropriate here", as well as concerns about his behavior from other editors. Please also refer to the later ANI discussion in which some other administrators reviewed the situation after I was briefly blocked by Fram. There was certainly criticism towards myself as well in these talk page discussions and the ANI thread, which I have taken onboard.

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, though why he decided to now also jab at me for being queer I do not know. I did ask 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, coyly dancing around the subject: There are perhaps no rules against putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4, so if you personally consider that I have, it's highly subjective, and perhaps circumstantial evidence and without clear substantiation it's probably an opinion best kept to yourself

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)[reply]

Statement by 75.191.40.148

My 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)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Wow, 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)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I 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)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

I 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)[reply]

Cabayi, I generally agree with your comments about this moving forward, without commenting on any specific past incidents as I’m not familiar enough. The reason I said above that a case might be helpful is that it can be a highly structured way for feedback to be received, responses to be heard, and a way forward charted. Desysop cases are usually about people failing to respond to community feedback on their actions. Well, as SoWhy has pointed out, we’ve not formally had that here. A case would be useful precisely because it’s structured and could deal with concerns methodically as well as hearing any valid responses. Basically my view is similar to Maxim’s that returning this to ANI now would be worse, but I’d add that this shouldn’t be an “obviously ends in desysop” case but a “See what’s going on and see what the best way forward for the project is” case without excluding any options. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

All I want to add at this point is a caution against putting too much store in pile-ons here. Kudpung has dealt with a lot of difficult people in his time at Wikipedia, and (like any admin who works in difficult areas and is not scared of taking difficult action) will have built up a lot of enemies with grudges. I think it would be a mistake to put too much weight on every little accusation that might come out of the Evidence phase (though I'm sure the ArbCom members get that), and I see only a small number of cases that I think might warrant scrutiny (out of the many thousands of interactions Kudpung has had with people over the years). Also, I'm not aware of any accusations of abuse of admin tools, and I think that should be borne in mind too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Regarding 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)[reply]

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. GMG ^talk 15:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Blade of the Northern Lights

You 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)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes

It'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)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

This 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)[reply]

Statement by Fastily

Spent 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)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Obvious recuse --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for arbs: as I understand it, the Committee has no specific quorum requirement; an absolute majority of active nonrecused arbitrators can decide any matter, even if that's just one arbitrator. (Formally, at least.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied a statement by an IP from the talk page to the main request page at the direction of bradv. CodeLyoko^talk 02:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: This case has been accepted by the committee and will be opened shortly. CodeLyoko^talk 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (8/2/4)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

I think since Kudpung and I have worked together closely in the past, albeit in 2011, I should recuse here. Worm^TT(talk) 16:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse due to my own past conflicts with Kudpung. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero: You wrote "taking a liking to", are there other examples? As the incidents thread is ongoing, I don't know that we can say the community has been unable to handle it yet. Additionally, Kudpung has not had the opportunity to respond adequately following Newyorkbrad's email. –xeno^talk 17:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^{Response to Guerillero who wrote "trying to resolve admin conduct issues at ANI is a fools errand"} In my opinion, administrative conduct issues are better raised at WP:AN ^{rather than ANI}, where they have a greater chance of being viewed by a wider range of the administrative community. –xeno^talk 17:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC) ^{Clarified. –xeno^talk 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Awaiting statements; in particular from Kudpung, but also any that demonstrate a pattern or that show prior forms of dispute resolution have been (or will be) unable to adequately address these concerns. –xeno^talk 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: Do you understand why other editors have taken issue with "vague statements" concerning other editors such as the one that prompted this case request? Are you willing to take these concerns into account and modify your approach to avoid this form of interaction in the future? –xeno^talk 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I had (perhaps naively) hoped this might be resolvable as a declined case request, one that delivered structured feedback that Kudpung would take on board and self-moderate, but since they have chosen not to engage further at the request stage, I would accept the case. There do not exist community processes to adequately or effectively address the concerns raised. –xeno^talk 12:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On recusal: at what point do we need to consider the rule of necessity? –xeno^talk 17:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It requires "net four" arbitrators to accept or close a case, so four is effectively our quorum. There are currently 15 active arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So would it follow that if more than 11 arbitrators were unavailable (either by reason of recusal, or inactivity), it would become necessary for all available to hear the case despite any grounds for recusal? –xeno^talk 17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be a reasonable interpretation, though the situation has never come up that I can recall. But since this is a general question rather than specific to this case, and I'm recused here, let's continue this discussion on another page if you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse as I commented in the ANI thread and made an effort to informally resolve this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holding for statements. Kudpung, please provide a full statement right away. I look forward to considering it alongside all the existing developments in this matter. AGK ■ 19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, an admin, is subject to minimum standards of conduct and it is this committee's job to review users possibly not meeting those standards. Kudpung has earned a degree of faith and trust, having edited for a long time, that their aggregate effect on Wikipedia is beneficial. But I am convinced here that we should be looking in more detail at the effect he has had in certain situations. Accept. AGK ■ 14:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also awaiting more statements. I honestly don't know if we're to the level of an admin conduct case yet or not. Katie^talk 01:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per David Fuchs. Katie^talk 19:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs and KrakatoaKatie: While the instant case is resolved, the thread raised to SoWhy by Winged Blades of Godric (Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 39#Resysop request (Kudpung)) - while not dyed-in-the-wool dispute resolution - does show that Kudpung was previously advised by several editors that some aspects of their behaviour were troubling, and in particular, that this might be raised at arbitration if that behaviour continued.
I've noticed that I participated in that thread as a bureaucrat. I don't think it raises grounds for recusal, but am open to comments on this angle. –xeno^talk 13:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that meets the threshold of dispute resolution for our purposes, and I agree your involvement doesn't raise grounds for recusal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is no grounds for recusal. I also noticed that noone raised these concerns on a noticeboard in the aftermath despite Nihonjoe's closing comment (or filed for an ArbCom case) which strikes me as odd if there really were concerns 1,5 years ago that Kudpung should be sanctioned for his behavior. Regards So Why 14:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept After some discussion on the list and some good points raised here by commenters, I think it's worth looking at. Black Kite, that's a vast oversimplification of the Fram issue and you know it. Comparing the individual issues of Fram and Kudpung isn't very important to me and I won't do it if this case is accepted. They're both admin conduct cases and that's where it should end, each judged on its own merits or lack thereof. My worry is that I don't want this to turn into the type of thing I noted when I answered a question from Carrite during the election: I don't want to be the frog in the increasingly hot water again. Katie^talk 14:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. One (unarchived!) ANI report does not "exhausting previous steps of dispute resolution" make. I recommend Chris and Kudpung stay out of each others' way, and I strongly recommend Kudpung reflect on the varied number of people suggesting that he cool off, drop the stick, and reflect on his tendency towards escalation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 03:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To Black Kite: I'm not sure how your comparisons to FRAM are relevant; I didn't vote for desysopping Fram, and wasn't an arbitrator at the time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While a number of editors have raised concerns that there is a pattern of bad behavior, so far it does not appear that this was ever really discussed extensively before. I searched for Kudpung's name in the AN* archives but no section of discussion that clearly refers to him contains any consensus that he should be sanctioned in any way:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#Kudpung in 2018 closed as "nothing to do here"
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#Kudpung in 2015 has the closer start their comment with "I'm tempted to call this vexatious...")
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Kudpungs improper use of speedy delete in 2011 refers the matter to DRV as the correct venue
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive276#False, disparaging claims by Admin Kudpung in 2015: User accepted Kudpung's apology for a mixup
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive599#Kudpung. in 2010 closed as "culture clash"

Please tell me if I missed some but from that I can't see that previous steps of dispute resolution were actually exhausted or even tried. Yes, ArbCom is the only instance that can desysop someone but desysop is not the only possible sanction and the community can impose other sanctions. But for that, they need to actually discuss them. Except the current ANI thread, I see no evidence that this was attempted. Unfortunately, with the case request, the ANI discussion stalled and probably should instead continue. Furthermore, Kudpung has since elaborated on their comment and apologized to Chris and Chris has himself indicated that he is willing to work with Kudpung going forward. So as long as there is no evidence of the community actually attempting and failing to resolve the alleged user misconduct issues, this request seems premature. Decline at this point with no prejudice against refiling if and when the circumstances change. Regards So Why 08:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rschen7754: I don't think the comparison to Fram is valid. Multiple case requests were filed because the community has proven incapable of handling it. Was it wrong to decline the case requests until T&S did what they did? Maybe. But in this case there is no real evidence so far that the community has even attempted to handle it. If ArbCom is the final step of dispute resolution, previous steps should at least have been tried, shouldn't they? Regards So Why 19:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: The only reason why many editors (grudgingly) accept that a body such as ArbCom has to exist is that they understand that sometimes the community is unable to fix a problem. As I noted above, my decline at this point of time stems from the fact that there seems to be no attempt to solve such problems by the community beforehand. If someone can demonstrate that the community has tried and failed to solve those issues, I'm happy to reconsider. But so far I was unable to find any such community-wide discussion. Regards So Why 10:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The impetus for this case request is the dispute between Kudpung and Chris.sherlock, which appears to have been resolved amiably. However, there are several comments here suggesting that this is a pattern of behaviour that is indicative of a recurrent problem. If that is the case it would broaden the scope of this request from a dispute resolution case to an administrator misconduct case, which cannot be satisfactorily resolved at other venues. I'm still mulling over the merits of this request, but the bottom line for me is this: If one of our administrators is habitually making good-faith contributors feel uncomfortable or threatened, we have a duty to take those allegations seriously. – bradv🍁 15:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I've taken another read through the comments here, and there are a lot of concerns that can not be appropriately addressed by dismissing this request. Many of them focus not on the most recent issue, but on an ongoing pattern of behaviour that falls short of the conduct we expect from our administrators. We have a duty to perform a thorough examination of all the facts, as even Kudpung has requested, and not to bury this or kick it back to AN. It's quite possible that nothing will come of this, but we do ourselves a disservice if we don't take complaints of administrator misconduct seriously. – bradv🍁 04:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that all administrator misconduct cases cannot be satisfactorily resolved at other venues, but it may be so in the present case. Carrite wrote above that "only Arbcom has the authority to sanction administrators in a meaningful way", however there are administrators presently under community restriction, and administrators can be warned and blocked (even indefinitely), just as any other user. As above, I agree ANI is not a good venue for this: AN is a better venue to raise serious concerns about administrator behaviour, and if that venue cannot adequately address the concern, it should then be brought to case requests. I am sympathetic to the fact that following RFC/U being marked historical that case requests are the only formal and structured way, but that does not mean that lesser forms of dispute resolution may be short-circuited without good reason. I do understand that warning or blocking fellow administrators is not a pleasant or easy task, but neither is warning and blocking fellow editors, and administrators are tasked with this also. Perhaps we require more administrators willing to add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks. All that being said: there are only 19 administrators presently in that category, with some of them likely to have past interactions with Kudpung; even looking at the present request: out of 9 arbitrators reporting, almost half have recused. So it is possible that there are no administrators available that are sufficiently uninvolved, sufficiently experienced, or sufficiently motivated, to actually attempt to moderate this situation via direct administrative involvement and if that is the case, the committee is required to intervene. –xeno^talk 16:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as issue of admin conduct has been raised - which is separate to the dispute, which has now been resolved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, albeit somewhat reluctantly, to examine Kudpung's conduct. The nature and quantity of the concerns is such that I feel that punting the issue back to AN(I) would be worse than accepting a case. Maxim_(talk) 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a sufficient number of concerns from a wide range of editors have been brought forward that a case should be accepted to investigate the matter further. Mkdw ^talk 03:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, following my rule of thumb that the committee should take any admin misconduct case that isn't totally spurious. On the prior dispute resolution point: we all know that AN(I) is a terrible place to bring concerns about long-term conduct, especially with admins or other popular editors, so counting threads there doesn't give an accurate picture of the how close to the end of the community's tether someone is. The number of people asking us to accept this case does, and I think obligates ArbCom to examine the facts of the matter. – Joe (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Administrator conduct

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Leading by example

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrator accountability

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Decorum

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can edit

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Treatment of new editors

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.

Passed 8 to 1 with 1 abstention at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Kudpung

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung's conduct

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]

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung's accountability as an administrator

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]

Passed 9 to 1 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Previous attempts at resolution

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.

Passed 8 to 2 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung and Chris.sherlock

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung and Missvain

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung and GorillaWarfare

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]

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung's participation in this case

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.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Remedies

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.

Kudpung desysopped

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.

Passed 7 to 2 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kudpung admonished

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.

Passed 8 to 1 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

General reminder

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.

Passed 7 to 2 at 22:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

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 by sanctioned editors

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

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:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

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.

[1] Special attention may be invoked, as to a particular comment in the last-linked thread:- ...as I have been insulted in the recent past by members of the stewardship community, my personal reaction was that this was another case of a steward throwing his or her weight about.... That line of reasoning is seriously problematic in a sysop.

[1]