Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence

891:? It's certainly a harsh attack, but is the criticism "Maher travels a lot, so is out of touch" something that is specifically misogynistic? Are women known for traveling more than men, or somehow being more oblivious than men due to this? GWs arguments for this being misogyny seem to be (a) "Kudpung was misogynistic earlier, therefore whenever he criticizes any woman, that is misogynism," and (b) "I criticized the previous female WMF lead, therefore I am the decider on any criticism of the current one". In each case, the premise is certainly true (Kudpung's reaction 1944:

place to be looking for "friends". Some commentators appear to have made the assumption that if an editor has done good work in the past then they are doing good work in the present. This is a fallacy. A persons' competency at editing may change as a result of age, medical condition or other life experience. However much Kudpung may have contributed in the past, he is now too frequently a focus of contention, a demoraliser of other editors, and a disruptive influence on Knowledge (XXG). He does not behave in a way that becomes an administrator.

646:. I am concerned that Kudpung sees issues where they don't necessarily exist. In this case, the suspicions proved baseless, but were upsetting for a number of editors. I'm also concerned about the assertion that he is being harassed by "rogue stewards". The fact that he thinks "noone else" did any "homework" shows a lack of awareness that whilst he has found issues with accounts in the past, not everyone who shows "suspicious" behavior is necessarily an abusive editor. 975:. Accusing people of misogyny is a personal attack, and you provide no evidence that the Signpost article is misogynistic (being negative and being about a woman does not equal misogyny) or that the editor is "continuing a campaign" of misogyny. That you had a recent negative interaction with the editor doesn't make everything they write about women immediately or automatically misogynistic, and it would be better if you refrained from making such attacks onwiki. 43: 1776:

available, it is an abrogation of Admin. responsibility. It has a chilling effect when the purpose of talk pages should be to enable the community to exchange views and seek to persuade other’s opinion through proper debate. Even to suggest that a brigade (by definition an organised group) are acting with the aim of undermining the entire corps of 1100+ Admins. is perverse and demonstrates repeated poor judgement per

176: 1100:, if it's happening between two highly respected, veteran administrators in good standing, we're probably not dealing with a petty behavioral issue that is correctable via standard blocking. GW's comment was unfiltered and aggressive well beyond normal Talk Page standards, but so was the article she was responding to, which itself could be reasonably construed as a personal attack... GW and Kudpung need to 2349:. The gist of it was apparently that Kudpung apparently had stepped down from EiC responsibility sometimes between December 2018 and February 2019, and told no one about it (at least nowhere prominently visible), and took it as some kind of "personal attack" to call them the co-EiC of the Signpost based on the Signpost's 'about us' page, listing them as co-EiC. 2389:

sees and tags a bunch of stub-like articles about commercial establishments, created by someone with a previous record of UPE, it would be wrong to assume his tagging of them is because the author is a woman. I'm absolutely not making any accusation that these new articles are UPE, but I think this background is of vital importance -

1211:, "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." To be honest, neither Kudpung nor GorillaWarfare behaved in accordance with that sentence. I can't see penalizing K for this flaming ball of lava without similarly penalizing GW - and, just to be clear, 631:

definitely show someone who I believe gets fixated on things and exhibits an attitude that he must defend Knowledge (XXG) from abusive users - even if they may not be. This attitude is confrontational, and can be extremely intimidating. It can also be wrong, and potentially affect the reputations of non-abusive users.

715:

of horrified experienced editors growing louder with each episode is the main part of this evidence. In real Greek tragedy, the main characters can't hear the chorus; if only they could, the tragedy wouldn't have occurred. In this event, the main characters could hear, but apparently chose not to listen.

2149:

Not wishing to detract from the discussion about redirects, but a curious concourse of cicumstances led me to discover again an autopatrolled editor creating dozens of short articles that are barely notable or not even notable at all. Normally I would simply remove the autopatrolled flag, but in this

1968:

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

1957:

Kudpung decided to PROD a bunch of my articles after stumbling across some during their New Page Patrol (NPP) duty. I was anxiety ridden when I saw the PRODs, all which had been recent articles I wrote – all which are notable. The fact that the PRODs use the blanket NPP tool template stating "Welcome

1943:

In the preliminary statements of the investigation several experienced editors have stated that they regarded Kudpung as a "friend" and indicate that he has made valuable contributions to Knowledge (XXG). One can put aside for the moment the question of whether Arbcom or the admin corps is a suitable

1864:

administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Banning editors from their TP, removing good faith comments as trolling and generally treating editors as subordinates and with the exaggerated authority exemplified falls way

1070:

Fram's blocking of GW was uncalled for (at least, so soon, although I completely understand Fram's perspective in this – that this was a clear personal attack)... GW's statements directed at Kudpung's character are silly and childish, and especially seem a distant run off of some campaign she feels a

843:

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

714:

tragedy"). Greek tragedy usually tells of the downfall, in several episodes, of powerful and respected people due to a inherent flaw (often pride), and each episode is followed by a Stasimon, where an all-knowing chorus commenting on events. This is basically what happened here; the commenting voices

2251:

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

2155:

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

1853:

I have provided you with an opportunity to adjust the deceptive, leading, and misleading preamble of your RfC. If you prefer not to address this issue, I may consider that it may be necessary to escalate, and as such, your general competency for adminship may risk being questioned. (Please note here

1447:

where he for some reason latched on to criticizing Katherine Maher for traveling, painting an inaccurate picture of her as an unqualified woman enjoying the travel she can mooch off the WMF while remaining ignorant to the day-to-day goings-on at the Foundation. I thought Kudpung was again expressing

630:

My evidence is not to show Kudpung in a bad light. I believe that he tries hard to ensure that Knowledge (XXG) is free of sock-puppets and people who are editing in conflict. However, I believe that some of his comments can be seen to be threatening, even thought they are not intended that way. They

1832:

This discussion is not about my performance as a content contributor, kindly stay on topic. I have been around a long time and been largely responsible for some of the most important policy changes over the years - including NPP and travelled(sic) extensively for Knowledge (XXG) at my own cost. All

1153:

The original comment, the block, the unblock, the comments on usertalk pages, the comments in this thread... there are additional communicative steps and measures of caution that shoulda coulda woulda been taken all around. Let's call it a day. The only thing that should really happen at this point

1017:

Have some outrage. No one should be calling anyone a "man hater". No one should be mentioning the gender of an editor or group of editors. No one should be calling anyone a misogynist. Both parties, and several individuals jumping onto the conflict, have acted completely inappropriately, and should

1673:

The trigger for these outbursts typically occurs in relation to his areas of expertise, for example RfA oppose !votes, the theme of RFA reform and generally in defence of the Admin. role. The common theme is clearly authority versus the general community. For brevity I will limit the examples. But

1522:

It is plain from the interactions I have described above that Kudpung was referring to the incident in August 2018. I don't know why he pointed out that I am queer—I am open about this, but him linking it in this way while speaking critically about me made me very uncomfortable. I asked about this

733:

what concerns me is the extent of her passionate dedication to the cause of women's editing of Knowledge (XXG) and her intention to remain concentrated on that area. Because of this zeal, I am not confident that she will be able to use the powers that would be granted to her as an administrator in

2388:

above. ArbCom should note that Missvain was caught doing Undeclared Paid Editing some time ago (and lost her job with the WMF because of it, but retained her admin rights). Kudpung is a staunch defender against UPE, and is very active in New Page Patrol where he is very attentive to UPE. So if he

1846:

I'm just letting you know that due to various concerns, I may be considering taking a look at your recent appointment to adminship (which I supported). (Please note here my use of the modal 'may' which does not mean 'will', and is therefore neither a threat nor a caution, nor an expression of bad

1797:

My final segment of evidence is a personal sketch together with some non-personal examples. These are representative of many episodes of erratic and capricious behavior by this editor. These instances arise (it appears to me) when there is a alleged challenge to his authority / expertise or where

1195:

Unlike a Greek tragedy, however, this doesn't have to end with the death of nearly everyone involved, as I urge the ArbCom. Listen to the voices of experienced editors, they're not asking for punishment of either or both of the parties, they're asking for de-escalation, stepping back, and making

813:

If you publicly refer to yourself under any name, you have to get used to being referred to in whichever one users legitimately choose. There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts. PS. You just lost Women in Red an active

1775:

The right to disagree openly, without fear of recrimination and smear, is a vital part of any collaborative forum. When a senior (long-term) functionary repeatedly uses pernicious language to describe those with whose opinion they disagree, rather that discuss and use the resolution processes

1788:

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

1958:

to Knowledge (XXG)! I edit here too, under the username Kudpung and it's nice to meet you :-)" is hilarious given that I've been editing Knowledge (XXG) for 14 years and have over 150k edits under my belt. This is clear evidence that no attention or care was put into the PRODs.

1181:

Kudpung's initial and secondary reactions to GorillaWarfare's requests about how to refer to her, were inappropriate. ...I understand GorillaWarfare's post at the Signpost, but it was in my view poor judgement. ... I urge GorillaWarfare to reconsider her post at the Signpost.

2039:

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

2302:

This attack came completely out of nowhere, and unprovoked. I could also not recall anytime I had significantly interacted with them, until I dug further and found that I've had the mispleasure of encountering Kudpung in 2009, back when I was still newbie-ish, on the

1750:"Some years ago in 2011, I started and facilitated what still today is the single most in-depth research into RfA. It didn't bring about any changes because after a lot of hard work gathering background information, the on-Wiki efforts began to be trolled so much by 660:

By asking you politely to refrain from posting on my talk page, it was not an invitation for you to continue your attacks in another venue, and I still had not warned you about your very serious recent breach in our rules, but don't be lulled into thinking I hadn't

1519:

What I think is a shame however, especially where on Knowledge (XXG) we are all supposed to be nice to each other (which in reality we are not), is when '']'' women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that: '']''. It's all a bit odd

1895: 1528: 1524: 1514: 517: 1071:

strong need to support and continue. That said, I don't agree at all with how Kudpung placed his initial statements on GW. I would strongly urge all parties (including me, perhaps) to just stop frequenting each other's posts and lay it off for some while.

1134:

Everybody should fucking drop it, and Kudpung and GW should avoid each other and stay busy working. That way, the next time they run in to each other, it's at least possible that they'll be in agreement, which can make patching up hurt feelings a

898:

was pretty misogynistic, and GWs timeline was a thorough bit of work), but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Also, who's the other editor? Xxanthippe? Who attacked Megalibrarygirl for being too feminist, and who GW implied was a troll?

818:

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

1508:

Following the incidents in August 2018, I have (as advised in the ANI thread, I will note) steered clear of Kudpung—something I would have thought would be obvious to him given that we are both highly active editors and we almost never interact

1270:). I was aware that this was likely not intentional on Kudpung's part, and so while I wished to ask him to avoid doing it again, I tried to be clear that it was not a big deal by titling the section on his talk page "Minor point" and writing, 912:

I'm upset by these conversations, as you are two editors I have the utmost respect for and have worked closely with in the past ... I absolutely believe that the commentary provided by both of you about the other is inaccurate. Worm That

1290:

Kudpung's use of my real name that makes me feel he holds bias against women (there are plenty of other explanations, such as mine being the only real name he knew), but rather his reaction to my reasonable request and his subsequent

1566:

where he made a completely reasonable argument to oppose (as did over 100 others). The idea that I would hold a grudge from that, despite no negative interactions with Kudpung up until 2018 (that I recall, at least), is completely

2393:*. (Apologies for lack of diffs or links, but I'm keenly aware that I'm right up against the closing of the Evidence phase, and I'm working to deadlines in real life too - but I don't think these facts are in any way disputed). 590:

I suspect Ajraddatz will want to comment further on the diffs, but I bring this up to illustrate a pattern: Kudpung uses these vague threats to stifle opposition and legitimate criticism towards himself. This has a disturbing

2187:

Imagine my surprise that this very important conversation was taking place without me knowing? A conversation that could change my "future" on Knowledge (XXG) as a content creator. Of course, I see the notification and I was

1739:

after their recent performances on RfA and Arbcom elections and in other noticeboards, they are no longer oozing along at ground-level below everyone's radar and they are likely to be finding themselves on a short leash in

674:

This is... threatening. There was no need for this message, and again another example of Kudpung telling someone he has his eye on them. This sort of message is unacceptable, no matter how valid Kudpung considered it to

1296:

Instead, Kudpung exploded. Not only did he insist he would refer to me however he liked, he called me a "man hater" and implied that my request alone was going to "relax his efforts" to "defend women from misogyny".

103: 1801:

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

1239:

Kudpung reacted explosively when I politely requested he refer to me in the same way as he did the male administrators he was listing me next to. His extreme reaction(s) in the events following violated both the

774:

had it been anywhere else, not only would your vote and comments on the Megalibrary RfA probably have resulted in a block, but possibly also a site ban. It's perhaps best not to play with fire. Let's see what

1541:

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

671:

I note that your stewardship comes up for review in a few days. However, as you are a steward that deals with Trust & Safety, I suppose you are ironclad. I will be taking advice from somewhere as best I

1798:

criticism, no matter how minor, is made in the course of what should be normal discussion. If holding Admins to a higher standard is a requirement, this sort of unwarranted adversarial behavior must stop.

1285:

As a note, I generally have no issue with people referring to me by my real name. However in this context it read to me like someone saying "Mr. Smith, Mr. Doe, and Molly", and it stuck out to me. It was

834:! Now arguably GW didn't need to apologize, as her original request was perfectly reasonable. But the apology would have been an admirable way of soothing troubled waters, so withdrawing it didn't help. 98: 1888:. His allegation of misogyny was made without informing me and was followed up with bullying threats of a block and site ban. A remonstrance by me led to the doubling down of the allegation and threats. 397: 2408:

Just want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting Missvain has made any sexism accusations (she hasn't). But others are trying to pin sexism/misogyny on everything, and that's what I'm contesting.

1575: 1262:

template specifically so that my username would display my real name, something he did not do with the other administrators mentioned. I took issue with this for reasons I have already explained (

434: 266: 2133:

After this situation with the PROD's, Kudpung decided to bring it up at the NPP talk page. It's no doubt they were talking about me – they started the "Autopatrolled" section at 5:37 UTC, about

1493: 1026: 92: 81: 52: 1440: 857: 739: 199: 2274: 1809:

and took this to indicate that I was now probably welcome to comment there. In March 2019 I noticed him having a particular rough time relating to his role as Signpost co-editor in chief:

1641:. Certainly no one can be forced to participate in an ArbCom case, but surely refusing to do so is incompatible with the accountability requirements for holding administrator permissions. 1833:

that is also work, many hours a day for years. I have done more than my fair share towards content and there is no obligation to reach featured status. There is a big difference between

1631:). Since this case was accepted, Kudpung has not participated in any way or responded to the concerns about his behavior raised by other editors, despite being active elsewhere on-wiki ( 979:

I'll remove it again. Reinstate it again and I'll block you. ... Since you edit warred to reinstate your personal attack despite a clear warning, you have now been blocked for 24 hours.

428: 1200: 87: 1979:

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

1827:

Involving another editor, an instance where his reaction to a quite minor request was a fit of pique with a self-aggrandising put down using his tenure, weight of edits, experience

2103:

article was nominated, to which Kudpung drops a another patronizing comment about your humble narrator – this time not even tagging me to let me know they were "talking" about me:

1081:

I think it takes extraordinary ill-faith to assume that he was being misogynistic in this comment when he was in the middle of a discussion about combating sexism in RfA. Alex Shih

1690:"None of us admins relishes the thought of being pinned to the wall by a franzy (sic) of righteously indignant children or outraged blocked adults and we already have to take a 1351:, I am unfortunately not an active one at all. Evidently Kudpung made good on his promise to stop rescuing bios of women, and has started actively targeting them for deletion ( 392: 2270: 1894:, Kudpung said "I don't recall having called any particular editor a misogynist or a misandrist." Together with his increasingly irascibility and intolerance of editors who 724: 424: 220: 212: 70: 1669:(there are variations on the wording which the search tool cannot pinpoint and the search itself is imperfect so that not all of these hits identify a unique usage by him). 1104:

steer clear of each other from now on, or take their conflict off-wiki where it will not disrupt the project, until they can bury the hatchet and come to a mutual respect.

1087:

Kudpung's not a misogynist. Not by a long shot. Kudpung jumps in to fight sexism and bias, not create it. That this is up for debate, genuinely makes me sad. :( Mr rnddude

1248:. His demonstrated pattern of bias against women and other minorities (see subsection 4) is also not compatible with the expectations of adminship. To recap the events: 1394: 1460:) where he accused me of a "campaign and misogyny innuendo against " and said that I "led to dissociate self from support of gender gap issues on Knowledge (XXG)" ( 366: 1854:

my use of the modal 'may' which does not mean 'will', and is therefore neither a threat nor a caution, nor an expression of bad faith, but purely informative.) --

2094:

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.

1619:

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

386: 231: 209: 65: 51:

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go

29: 1348: 879:

and another editor, but when we talked offwiki I thought he was taking a break. I'm sad to see that he's continuing this campaign against Katherine Maher. I'm

419: 357: 276: 204: 2052:

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

1674:

there are vast numbers (maybe hundreds) of A-AB aspersions, including worrying hyperbolic comments about throwing drink at someone if they met at a meet-up

1837:

21,000 edits and my 100,000+. Thanks, but I don't need your help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 2:34 am, 15 October 2019, Tuesday (3 months, 13 days ago) (UTC+1)

362: 2307:

talk page. But really what it was was Kudpung reflexively unleashing attacks on whoever dared to disagree with them. Note that, at the time, Kudpung was

1720:“It's a good overview of the situation, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Lowering the bar will only get us more of the kind of admins the 1582:", despite the fact that the only interaction I can recall having with him following August 2018 is the interaction on the ArbCom questions page, where 846: 372: 352: 235: 2331: 377: 290: 271: 2326:

When I pointing out that, as editor-in-chief, Kudpung and Bri shared responsibility for the piece being published, this was then met with a Twinkle

934:

This is among the saddest conversations that I have read in a long time and I ... encourage all involved to take several steps back from the brink.

493: 411: 302: 748:

Because it's worth visibly standing up for folks who do good work when they are denigrated by other folks on Knowledge (XXG), trolls or otherwise.

335: 1510: 2346: 2339: 2335: 1625:

respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge (XXG)-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed

1513:, but should prove this point). The only exception is at the recent ArbCom elections, which I (obviously) followed quite closely. I noticed a 520:- I asked a few direct questions about the past interactions with Ajraddatz and GorillaWarfare and Kudpung stood by his actions completely. -- 261: 190: 25: 1316: 820: 1933:

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

1732: 1527:

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

1421:

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

1457: 988: 963: 908: 1054:

The initial comment, Misogyny, was unnecessarily provocative and out of place. I would consider it to be a personal attack. K.e.coffman

1976:. You can see in that diff, I change my section header from "two" to "three of my articles" after seeing they were actively PRODing. 1657:

For years Kudpung has habitually used a disparaging smear in referring to community members (usually unidentifiable) as being part of

1279: 1253: 883:

to criticizing (female) leadership in the Wikimedia movement, but I can at least say I save it for the folks who are doing a poor job.

800: 765: 1923:, in future, you can give this page a permanent pass, because there is already enough to have you sanctioned. I hope you understand?" 1865:

below the level required and is behavior that must now be addressed properly through a process Kudpung is willing to reconcile with.

687:

You certainly have an unusual manner of expressing yourself for someone with your history. There's a lot 2 hours of research turns up

640:

you will understand that there is a very serious issue behind all this, and I have been trying to save the face of two editors here.

327: 167: 1605:

pointed out in the request, Kudpung habitually dismisses opponents or those who raise concerns with his behavior as members of the "

860:, with two sections critical of the Wikimedia Foundation, "WMF hires a spam outfit", and "Wikimedia moves to WordPress" criticizing 1405:. I will note that I commented there to say I did not have objections to him being resysopped, nor did I think his resignation was 313: 256: 21: 1698:

does exist and we'll have to live with it. Any changes to policy or procedures need a consensus and we can't disenfranchise them."

923:

turning a problem with the WMF hiring a marketing firm into a personal dispute between two excellent volunteer admins. Please? --

603: 561: 528: 248: 2308: 576: 298: 196: 2361: 308: 226: 642:

This is the primary example I would like to bring to your attention. The message is clearly directed about both myself and

2427: 2413: 2398: 1496:

was opened which is worth a full read. There were certainly criticism towards myself as well, which I have taken onboard.

1219:

goes on that "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."

2150:

instance, the user is an admin. Autopatrolled comes bundled with adminship. What should we be doing in cases like these?

1875: 1027:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Personal attacks, a block and an unblock: review requested

702:

While I can't speak to all the accusations against Kudpung, the clash with GorillaWarfare is one of the saddest cases of

2304: 1602: 1003: 486: 2242:(FWIW: Chris and I had never interacted on wiki until this point) and called out Kudpung for their behavior. Including 549:. Ironically, this is while accusing me of making threats and personal attacks. This is also an example of his failing 1761: 1299:

There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts.

1045:

Fram ... You were both edit warring, and an uninvolved admin could have been justified in blocking both you and GW...

828:

I didn't think you were being sexist or otherwise offensive by using my full name, and if I implied that I apologize.

1731:

2016 in a discussion about the suitability of a potential RfA candidate, how can this language possibly be helpful?

518:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/Kudpung/Questions#Questions_from_Rschen7754

2431: 2417: 2402: 2374: 1708: 607: 565: 532: 347: 685:

to me made me feel intimidated. He has since apologised, but this is nonetheless evidence. In particular, I found

56: 1282:) As I said in my statement on this case, I expected him to acknowledge my request and we would all move along. 451: 2423: 2409: 2394: 2138: 2068: 784: 618: 2165:

pulled the autpat. flag already. Unfortunately I have a feeling that there is more to this than meets the eye.

1634:). The only acknowledgement of the case was to add a quote about this case by another editor to his userpage ( 1546:

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

1154:

is for GW and Kudpung to hash things out a bit more, without a crowd doing the work of making it a spectacle.

186: 17: 2081:

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

1196:

peace. Otherwise this Case will essentially be the next episode in this Geek tragedy. Let's not make it so.

1092:

I don't see how anyone can unequivocally state that accusing someone on-Wiki of "misogyny" is not, at least

479: 2224:

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

1059:

I don't think either party (GorillaWarfare or Fram) has shown wise conduct here ... neither has Kudpung. --

948:

facing unpleasant shit I would never wish to face myself, can be so utterly at loggerheads with each other

1898:

with him, such inconsistency indicates cognitive and behavioral issues that are getting worse with time.

1716: 1559: 1535: 1481: 1461: 1453: 1449: 1402: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1306: 1275: 1267: 1263: 2033: 1861: 1777: 1651: 1628: 1245: 1233: 1216: 1208: 944:

I just cannot understand how two long-established editors who have done great work for the encyclopedia,

550: 795:

from among our most experienced and respected admins say, and the many other admins who commented there.

595:

and is behavior we cannot tolerate on this project if we are to continue to exercise self-governance. --

1241: 1272:

Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men.

2323:

attack in response to a good-faith inquiry about why such a mean-spirited piece would be published.

600: 558: 525: 1726:--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02 pm, 3 October 2015, Saturday (4 years, 3 months, 15 days ago) (UTC+1) 2236: 1994: 1469: 1466:

This, again, was according to him all a result of me requesting he refer to me as "GorillaWarfare".

1156: 1141: 792: 614: 120: 2369: 2319:. Whether coming from an admin, the (co)-EiC of the Signpost, or a regular editor, this is a pure 1982:

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

1570:

I commented at the ANI thread regarding Chris.sherlock, but not to do with Kudpung—concerns about

1109: 2357: 1594: 1002:

by K's previous behavior, (however low it had stooped). ... Also, echo YairRand in his entirety.

746:

supports of MLG and rebuttals of Xxanthippe's oppose. GW implies Xx's oppose is that of a troll,

145: 1844:, repeated threats to a (then) new Admin. using language laden with passive-aggressive threats: 1406: 1229: 1650:

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

2246:

with how Kudpung may have misused the NPP tool that Kudpung reminds us he "wrote the book on."

2078:

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

1704: 1679:“jumping up and down on my sofa pretending that some of those question posers are under it".’’ 1352: 1204: 1072: 134: 2365: 1534:

that he was referring to me despite it being very clear, and coyly dance around the subject:

690: 2159:

Hours go by, I'm still not informed that I'm the subject of the discussion. Kundpung writes

2055:

I left a comment on Kudpung's page at 2:05 UTC and they responded at 2:21 UTC. At 2:34 UTC,

1112:

between admins is unacceptable.... This is not an argument that either party needs to "win".

788: 453: 2327: 2320: 1907: 1902:

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

1886: 1747: 1675: 1661:

I estimate that the use of the A-AB sentiment began to be expressed regularly circa 2012.

1385:

After being challenged by some for his extreme reaction to me, Kudpung went all the way to

652:. I honestly don't think he knows how threatening this series of messages can be construed. 1920: 1598: 1571: 1448:

his problematic views towards women, which other editors had noticed as well (for example

1398: 1171: 1061: 1046: 949: 861: 776: 728: 597: 592: 555: 522: 156: 1166:

Swarm and Mr Pants have pretty much said it already. So I'll give you the short version:

2067:(Which, to me, shows lack of attention to detail using the NPP tool). A few hours later 1906:

When I attempted to remonstrate with Kundpung's characterization of me on his talk page

1771:

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:25 am, 18 October 2019, Friday (2 months, 30 days ago) (UTC+1)

456: 42: 2221: 2204: 2122: 2100: 1990: 1416: 1344: 1201:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop#Administrator_accountability

1035: 1019: 935: 115: 1389:

to request his English Knowledge (XXG) admin status be removed. Note that Kudpung has

872:

I was under the impression that there were extenuating circumstances that resulted in

2385: 2353: 707: 703: 643: 140: 2060: 1793:

Kudpung behaves & responds impulsively, quickly accelerating issues to conflict

1769:

and their uncalled for acrimonious comments that are 'as sick as a lake of vomit'."

1760:

Last October, related to issues raised in the September 2019 issue of the Signpost

1700: 873: 780: 129: 1215:. She's an invaluable, courageous, and hard working contributor... as is he. See, 455: 175: 2288: 2282: 1517:

about whether Kudpung is still boycotting WiR, where Kudpung responded (in part)

1431:

Kudpung continued behavior described in my subsection 1 after an incident at the

2212: 2181: 2017: 1501: 1183: 924: 2013:

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

1916:

He made threats against me that amounted to a misuse of the administrator tools

740:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl#Xxanthippe's oppose

663:- this is also threatening, like a "watch out, I'm keeping a close eye on you". 546: 1393:

on Wikiversity. In October, Kudpung requested the tools be restored to him at

1113: 151: 1390: 967: 880: 1347:'s talk page that . I am not a founder or leader of WiR, and although I am 1551:

In August 2018, Kudpung claimed that my concerns with his behavior were a

1381:

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

2316: 1882: 1715:

In late 2015 in relation to Signpost article about recruiting new Admins.

888: 2105:

Curious however why the article creator did not search for more sources.

2129:

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

1580:

GW ... still can't keep her nose out of anything that concerns me

2005:

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

1423:, I wanted to ensure this was included. Unfortunately such behavior 972:

Please remove or significantly rephrase your comment at the Signpost

1386: 1358:

Kudpung continued to show a shockingly out-of-proportion reaction (

852:

Subsequently, GorillaWarfare objected to Kudpung's Signpost article

761:

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

2384:

I just want to make one point in relation to the issues regarding

1815:. Within a few hours my message was removed with the edit summary 1806:

In August 2018 I was surprised to receive a Barnstar from Kudpung

966:

Kudpung isn't directly involved here, but wow does this escalate.

2269:

published a... let's call it 'controversial' article (the famous

2099:

The second was when Cullen328 brought up a concern about why the

1972:

In fact, Kudpung was actively tagging an article of mine after I

1694:

of baiting, provocation, and unjustified shit from both, but the

1821:. I asked about this and the curt, dismissive response is here: 1207:(who also contributed to the opening of this case) refers us to 1168:

the major players in this dispute should apologise to each other

727:, GorillaWarfare and Kudpung were on the same side, supporting. 711: 706:

I've seen in 14 years here of Knowledge (XXG). It's basically a

2085: 1722:

anti-admin brigade (especially the prolific content providers)

799:

Those words ("Molly White") unleashed the hurricane. GW wrote

457: 37: 2342:. And this is completely unacceptable behaviour from anyone. 2391:

and I think it is disingenuous of Missvain not to mention it

1735:“don't worry too much about the 'anti-reform crowd' or even 858:

Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-08-30/News_and_notes

2192:. My tone was not very polite and extremely defensive, but 1969:

to become more notable. As if I don't know how to do that.

1029:

The one bit of good news is that GW was quickly unblocked.

545:- for context on what it means (read aloud) in German, see 2020:

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

1578:). Despite this fact, Kudpung shortly thereafter claimed " 1376:) tried to apologize and explain further what I had meant. 2293:

own work going back many years. Perhaps you would prefer

1881:

On 6 August 2018 Kudpung accused me on his talk page of "

1415:). However, since this is an ADMINCOND case, and because 2225: 731:

was the first oppose, because MLG was ... too feminist.

2247: 2243: 2239: 2208: 2200: 2193: 2177: 2160: 2134: 2118: 2110: 2072: 2064: 2056: 2046: 2041: 2021: 2010: 2002: 1986: 1973: 1962: 1934: 1924: 1917: 1914: 1892: 1889: 1842: 1828: 1822: 1819: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1687: 1681: 1665: 1635: 1632: 1606: 1579: 1554: 1489: 1411: 1372: 973: 876: 806: 682: 678: 666: 655: 649: 635: 584: 582: 543: 467: 382: 340: 216: 1812:

and added a message requesting an editor to ease off.

725:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/Megalibrarygirl

1746:

In 2018, refering to his seminal work on RfA reform:

977:

She does not, and reinstates it after it is removed.

959:

GorillaWarfare's objection escalated to being blocked

2289:

Headbomb, 'mean spiritied?" I have recollections of

2167:. Whatever "more to this than meets the eye" means. 1034:

This is a situation that calls for de-escalation...

958: 919:

What the Worm said. I ... am sure there is room for

571:

Kudpung has made vague threats to suppress criticism

989:

User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15#Personal attack

964:

User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15#Personal attack

807:

referred to by my username when discussed among men

2144:Here is what Kudpung starts the section off with: 1849:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:02 pm, 23 November 2016. 1488:for personal attacks; I was unblocked soon after ( 805:Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be 1614:Kudpung has not been accountable for his behavior 1456:). Kudpung started a discussion on my talk page ( 2235:Regarding the NPP talk discussion... Eventually 2027: 1952: 1929:Lack of courtesy expected from an administrator 1856:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2016. 864:for being out of touch due to traveling a lot. 826:In a strange twist, GorillaWarfare apologized: 2032:This concerns me, specifically in the area of 1170:if they can ... (Kudpung and GorillaWarfare) 801:User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2018#Minor point 689:concerning enough that I needed to take it to 2345:Further context for the dispute can be found 2338:, vague accusations of lying, and eventually 2277:, and un-Signpost like. My words were simply 2275:I pointed out that the piece felt rather mean 1891:. Oddly enough, next year on 16 November 2019 1765:“Oh, dear, wrong again: Its the cabal of the 1311:Before I had a chance to respond, he went to 772:, referencing the above Megalibrarygirl RFA: 512:Kudpung continues to defend his past behavior 487: 8: 2283:I find this rather mean-spirited personally. 2117:You can also see Kudpung's patronizing tone 1841:And this is just unnecessary in any context 1623:The administrator policy requires admins to 1315:pages to dramatically withdraw support from 929:Yes, me. I am an experienced editor, honest. 579:(when Kudpung wants to become an arbitrator) 1484:). Eventually, Fram issued a block against 1256:), Kudpung added a second parameter to the 867:GorillaWarfare responded on the talk page: 750:, K calls it "crap" and "mean spirited". 49:The Evidence phase for this case is closed. 2028:Kudpung's patronizing tone and retaliation 1953:Kudpung's use of NPP without due diligence 1784:Talk Page bans and false accusations of PA 996:accusing someone of a campaign of misogyny 719:Kudpung and GorillaWarfare began as allies 494: 480: 163: 2380:Evidence presented by Boing! said Zebedee 2244:explaining to Kudpung why he is concerned 1574:'s interactions with Chris.sherlock (see 1252:In a discussion on Kudpung's talk page ( 998:is a personal attack and it is not any 586:(when Kudpung wants to regain adminship) 1439:Later that month, Kudpung published an 757:; that of feminism on Knowledge (XXG). 166: 2176:It wasn't until 12:16, 5 January 2020 2164: 2148: 2104: 2089: 1852: 1845: 1831: 1638: 1624: 1552: 1518: 1473: 1420: 1302: 1298: 1271: 1180: 1165: 1152: 1133: 1091: 1086: 1080: 1069: 1058: 1053: 1044: 1033: 1016: 994: 978: 971: 943: 933: 918: 911: 868: 842: 827: 812: 804: 773: 747: 732: 686: 670: 659: 639: 1108:. The "full history" doesn't matter. 770:appeals to GorillaWarfare for support 753:Note, Kudpung and GorillaWarfare are 7: 1913:Kudpung banned me from his talk page 1472:issued a formal warning to Kudpung: 1223:Evidence presented by GorillaWarfare 267:Clarification and Amendment requests 2173:that was at 16:44, 3 January 2020. 1963:Diff for five PRODs on my talk page 1645:Evidence presented by Leaky caldron 1562:)—his link directed to my RfA from 1401:described the circumstances there: 1213:I don't think we should penalize GW 909:User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15 844:read as a mild criticism. Alex Shih 2273:). A few days before publication, 2201:fails to tag me in another comment 2178:that someone even mentions my name 2057:Kudpung PRODs another page of mine 1938: 1847:faith, but purely informative.) -- 1504:and singled me out for being queer 1246:administrator conduct expectations 823:have to do with this in any way? 36: 1553:long and obvious hangover from 768:Kudpung addresses Xxanthippe and 734:the balanced and impartial way... 539:Kudpung has made personal attacks 2297:to cease publication altogether. 1974:brought it up on their talk page 1869:Evidence presented by Xxanthippe 1018:not continue this discussion. -- 851: 507:Evidence presented by Rschen7754 174: 41: 2121:, in which Kudpung responds to 626:Unintended threatening comments 577:User talk:Fish and karate/ACE19 2256:Evidence presented by Headbomb 2252:comments about the NPP drama. 2059:. In fact, Kudpung PROD'd the 1948:Evidence presented by Missvain 830:Kudpung accepted; but then GW 1: 2156:knows what kind of hurdles. 970:, experienced administrator: 877:being misogynistic towards me 856:2 weeks later, Kudpung wrote 2432:18:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2418:12:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2403:11:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2375:07:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 2309:listed as co-editor in chief 2199:And it keeps going. Kudpung 1939:Kudpung's long term behavior 1686:June 2013 regarding Admins: 1639:"verdict first, trial later" 1427:continued, and here we are. 698:Evidence presented by GRuban 608:20:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 566:20:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 533:19:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 398:Conflict of interest reports 2422:* No, that bit was unfair. 1919:, making the threat "Well, 1724:is always bleating about.”" 887:Now is K's article clearly 227:Search archived proceedings 168:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration 18:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration 2448: 1409:in the traditional sense ( 272:Arbitrator motion requests 1709:05:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC) 1659:“the Anti-admin brigade”. 1637:), with the edit summary 2203:about me in response to 2139:Paola Ramos (journalist) 2069:Paola Ramos (journalist) 1997:bring up their concerns. 1586:had been speaking about 1468:In these conversations, 2334:, with further threats 2265:In February 2019, when 2261:Attacks at the Signpost 1737:the anti-admin brigade; 1603:Winged Blades of Godric 1478:than inappropriate here 1366:), even after I twice ( 1303:men haters have we now? 1280:link to full discussion 1254:link to full discussion 2073:tagged with a PROD tag 2047:"Three of my articles" 1789:resolution processes. 1752:the anti-admin brigade 847:arbitrator at the time 656:Message to Yngvadottir 613:Evidence presented by 2231:Retaliation round two 2163:that they would have 1754:that we just gave up" 1664:Basic search result: 1525:further down the page 1515:question from 28bytes 1096:, a personal attack. 814:supporter. Well done. 742:, Both K and GW post 650:Message to Xxanthippe 636:Message to Ritchie333 468:Track related changes 328:Arbitration Committee 2340:a threat to block me 1511:fairly enormous page 896:in the above section 832:withdrew the apology 667:Message to Ajraddatz 277:Enforcement requests 205:Guide to arbitration 126:Drafting arbitrators 2424:Boing! said Zebedee 2410:Boing! said Zebedee 2395:Boing! said Zebedee 2141:article for PROD. 2113:from Atomic Liquors 1500:Kudpung engaged in 785:Boing! said Zebedee 2137:after tagging the 1767:anti-admin brigade 1696:anti-admin brigade 1607:anti-admin brigade 1529:in another section 299:Contentious topics 197:Arbitration policy 2086:Here's an example 1874:Kudpung has made 1670: 1564:eight years prior 1474:Kudpung is being 1419:commented there: 1228:Kudpung breached 1205:User:SandyGeorgia 1126: 930: 504: 503: 471: 439: 309:General sanctions 257:All open requests 187:About arbitration 160: 149: 138: 124: 107: 99:Proposed decision 96: 85: 74: 63: 62: 2439: 2373: 2298: 2284: 2211:in a comment to 1876:Personal Attacks 1668: 1620: 1414: 1375: 1261: 1260: 1161: 1159: 1148: 1146: 1127: 1120: 1075: 1011: 1006: 928: 811:K blew his top. 755:on the same side 710:(or at least a " 496: 489: 482: 470: 465: 458: 437: 393:Clerk procedures 385: 343: 314:Editor sanctions 291:Active sanctions 249:Open proceedings 219: 178: 164: 154: 143: 132: 118: 101: 90: 79: 68: 45: 38: 2447: 2446: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2382: 2352: 2263: 2258: 2233: 2131: 2111:"Removing PROD" 2030: 1955: 1950: 1941: 1931: 1904: 1879: 1871: 1795: 1786: 1701:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1677:and bizarrely, 1655: 1647: 1618: 1616: 1548: 1506: 1458:full discussion 1437: 1410: 1407:"under a cloud" 1383: 1371: 1301:(edit summary: 1258: 1257: 1242:civility policy 1237: 1225: 1193: 1157: 1155: 1142: 1140: 1119: 1114: 1073: 1007: 1004: 986: 961: 905: 897: 894: 862:Katherine Maher 854: 840: 763: 729:User:Xxanthippe 721: 700: 628: 623: 593:chilling effect 573: 541: 514: 509: 500: 466: 460: 459: 454: 444: 443: 442: 431: 414: 404: 403: 402: 389: 381: 369: 344: 339: 330: 320: 319: 318: 293: 283: 282: 281: 251: 241: 238: 223: 215: 193: 162: 50: 34: 33: 32: 12: 11: 5: 2445: 2443: 2435: 2434: 2420: 2381: 2378: 2300: 2299: 2285: 2271:'Humour' piece 2262: 2259: 2257: 2254: 2237:Chris.sherlock 2232: 2229: 2153: 2152: 2130: 2127: 2115: 2114: 2101:Atomic Liquors 2097: 2096: 2050: 2049: 2029: 2026: 2015: 2014: 2007: 2006: 1999: 1998: 1995:Chris.sherlock 1987:Atomic Liquors 1966: 1965: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1940: 1937: 1930: 1927: 1903: 1900: 1878: 1872: 1870: 1867: 1858: 1857: 1850: 1839: 1825: 1794: 1791: 1785: 1782: 1773: 1772: 1757: 1756: 1743: 1742: 1728: 1727: 1712: 1711: 1654: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1591: 1568: 1547: 1544: 1505: 1498: 1436: 1429: 1387:en.Wikiversity 1382: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1356: 1309: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1236: 1226: 1224: 1221: 1192: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1178: 1163: 1158:Rhododendrites 1150: 1131: 1115: 1089: 1084: 1078: 1067: 1056: 1051: 1042: 1024: 1023: 1014: 985: 982: 960: 957: 956: 955: 941: 931: 916: 904: 901: 895: 892: 853: 850: 839: 836: 766:12 August 2018 762: 759: 723:October 2017, 720: 717: 699: 696: 695: 694: 676: 664: 653: 647: 627: 624: 622: 615:Chris.sherlock 611: 588: 587: 580: 572: 569: 540: 537: 536: 535: 513: 510: 508: 505: 502: 501: 499: 498: 491: 484: 476: 473: 472: 462: 461: 452: 450: 449: 446: 445: 441: 440: 432: 427: 422: 416: 415: 410: 409: 406: 405: 401: 400: 395: 390: 380: 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 345: 338: 332: 331: 326: 325: 322: 321: 317: 316: 311: 306: 295: 294: 289: 288: 285: 284: 280: 279: 274: 269: 264: 259: 253: 252: 247: 246: 243: 242: 240: 239: 234: 229: 224: 214: 207: 202: 194: 189: 183: 180: 179: 171: 170: 66:Main case page 64: 61: 60: 55:and create an 48: 46: 35: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2444: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2386:User:Missvain 2379: 2377: 2376: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2350: 2348: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2324: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2305:Malvern water 2296: 2292: 2286: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2260: 2255: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2245: 2241: 2238: 2230: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2197: 2195: 2191: 2185: 2183: 2179: 2174: 2172: 2168: 2166: 2162: 2157: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2136: 2128: 2126: 2124: 2120: 2112: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2095: 2093: 2090:Missvain, if 2087: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2035: 2025: 2023: 2019: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1975: 1970: 1964: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1947: 1945: 1936: 1935: 1928: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1912: 1908: 1901: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1877: 1873: 1868: 1866: 1863: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1843: 1840: 1838: 1836: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1820: 1818: 1817:“RM trolling” 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1799: 1792: 1790: 1783: 1781: 1779: 1770: 1768: 1762: 1759: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1738: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1723: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1680: 1676: 1671: 1666: 1662: 1660: 1653: 1649: 1644: 1642: 1640: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1613: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595:Leaky caldron 1592: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1543: 1539: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1521: 1516: 1512: 1503: 1499: 1497: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1477: 1471: 1470:There'sNoTime 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1446: 1442: 1434: 1430: 1428: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1380: 1374: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1339:), and wrote 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1295: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1247: 1243: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1220: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1197: 1190: 1186: 1185: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1169: 1164: 1162: 1160: 1151: 1149: 1147: 1145: 1138: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1125: 1124: 1118: 1111: 1107: 1106:No exceptions 1103: 1099: 1095: 1090: 1088: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1077: 1076: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1057: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1048: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1028: 1022: 1021: 1015: 1013: 1012: 1010: 1001: 997: 993: 992: 991: 990: 983: 981: 980: 976: 974: 969: 965: 954: 953: 952: 947: 942: 940: 939: 938: 932: 927: 926: 922: 917: 914: 910: 907: 906: 902: 900: 890: 885: 884: 882: 878: 875: 871: 865: 863: 859: 849: 848: 845: 837: 835: 833: 829: 824: 822: 816: 815: 810: 808: 802: 797: 796: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 771: 767: 760: 758: 756: 751: 749: 745: 741: 736: 735: 730: 726: 718: 716: 713: 709: 708:Greek tragedy 705: 704:friendly fire 697: 692: 688: 684: 680: 677: 673: 668: 665: 662: 657: 654: 651: 648: 645: 644:User:Missvain 641: 637: 634: 633: 632: 625: 620: 616: 612: 610: 609: 606: 605: 602: 599: 594: 585: 583: 581: 578: 575: 574: 570: 568: 567: 564: 563: 560: 557: 552: 548: 544: 538: 534: 531: 530: 527: 524: 519: 516: 515: 511: 506: 497: 492: 490: 485: 483: 478: 477: 475: 474: 469: 464: 463: 448: 447: 436: 433: 430: 426: 423: 421: 418: 417: 413: 408: 407: 399: 396: 394: 391: 388: 384: 379: 376: 374: 371: 368: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 342: 337: 334: 333: 329: 324: 323: 315: 312: 310: 307: 304: 300: 297: 296: 292: 287: 286: 278: 275: 273: 270: 268: 265: 263: 262:Case requests 260: 258: 255: 254: 250: 245: 244: 237: 233: 230: 228: 225: 222: 218: 213: 211: 208: 206: 203: 201: 198: 195: 192: 188: 185: 184: 182: 181: 177: 173: 172: 169: 165: 161: 158: 153: 147: 142: 136: 131: 127: 122: 117: 113: 109: 105: 100: 94: 89: 83: 78: 72: 67: 58: 54: 47: 44: 40: 39: 31: 27: 23: 19: 2390: 2383: 2351: 2344: 2325: 2315:, alongside 2313:The Signpost 2312: 2301: 2295:The Signpost 2294: 2290: 2267:The Signpost 2266: 2264: 2250: 2234: 2218: 2217: 2198: 2189: 2186: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2161:at one point 2158: 2154: 2143: 2132: 2116: 2098: 2091: 2080: 2077: 2061:Hans Nichols 2054: 2051: 2038: 2034:WP:ADMINCOND 2031: 2016: 1981: 1978: 1971: 1967: 1956: 1942: 1932: 1910: 1905: 1880: 1862:WP:ADMINCOND 1859: 1834: 1816: 1800: 1796: 1787: 1778:WP:ADMINCOND 1774: 1766: 1764: 1751: 1749: 1736: 1734: 1721: 1719: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1678: 1672: 1663: 1658: 1656: 1652:WP:ADMINCOND 1629:WP:ADMINACCT 1622: 1617: 1587: 1583: 1563: 1540: 1531: 1507: 1485: 1476:nothing less 1475: 1465: 1444: 1438: 1435:; was warned 1432: 1424: 1384: 1317:Women in Red 1312: 1287: 1238: 1234:WP:ADMINCOND 1217:WP:ADMINCOND 1212: 1209:WP:ADMINCOND 1198: 1194: 1172: 1167: 1144:ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants 1143: 1136: 1122: 1121: 1116: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1060: 1036: 1025: 1008: 999: 995: 987: 962: 950: 945: 936: 920: 893:in Episode 1 886: 869: 866: 855: 841: 831: 825: 821:Women in Red 817: 798: 769: 764: 754: 752: 743: 737: 722: 701: 683:this message 679:This message 629: 596: 589: 554: 551:WP:ADMINACCT 547:wikt:Ärschen 542: 521: 125: 111: 110: 108: 76: 57:edit request 2194:I was livid 2011:Monica Berg 1502:gaslighting 1000:justifiable 915:Arbitrator. 881:no stranger 793:Molly White 789:Ad Orientem 232:Ban appeals 210:Noticeboard 2281:Headbomb: 2135:30 minutes 1921:Xxanthippe 1911:misogynist 1599:Iridescent 1576:discussion 1572:DuncanHill 1532:again deny 1494:ANI review 1492:), and an 1399:Salvidrim! 1191:Conclusion 1173:Ritchie333 1083:Arbitrator 1047:Courcelles 984:Commentary 951:Ritchie333 903:Commentary 838:Commentary 777:Ritchie333 438:(pre-2016) 425:Statistics 358:Procedures 112:Case clerk 2287:Kudpung: 2222:Xanthippe 2205:Rosiestep 2123:Rosiestep 1991:Cullen328 1989:in which 1490:block log 1417:WJBScribe 1345:Rosiestep 1291:behavior. 1020:Yair rand 968:User:Fram 363:Elections 116:CodeLyoko 2354:Headbomb 2240:appeared 2063:article 2003:Evel Pie 1896:disagree 1883:misogyny 1445:Signpost 1433:Signpost 1349:a member 1313:multiple 1244:and the 1230:WP:CIVIL 1139:easier. 1110:Grudging 1102:mutually 1094:arguably 889:misogyny 870:Misogyny 661:noticed. 141:Casliber 88:Workshop 77:Evidence 28:‎ | 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 2330:notice 1567:absurd. 1520:really. 1443:in the 1441:article 1391:3 edits 1074:Lourdes 946:despite 874:Kudpung 781:Joe Roe 691:WP:AN/I 435:Reports 373:History 353:Members 348:Contact 336:Discuss 200:(CU/OS) 130:Joe Roe 30:Kudpung 2328:WP:NPA 2321:WP:ABF 2213:Sadads 2207:. And 2190:pissed 2182:Cabayi 2018:Sadads 1601:, and 1184:Jytdog 1037:Cullen 937:Cullen 925:GRuban 913:Turned 791:, and 744:strong 378:Clerks 236:Report 150:& 139:& 2219:Note: 2209:again 2171:Note: 2065:twice 2040:page. 1909:as a 1740:2016" 1259:{{U}} 1177:Admin 1130:Admin 1066:Admin 1050:Admin 1041:Admin 412:Audit 152:SoWhy 16:< 2428:talk 2414:talk 2399:talk 2347:here 2336:here 2332:here 2291:your 2226:here 2119:here 2071:was 2036:. 2022:here 1993:and 1860:Per 1835:your 1705:talk 1560:diff 1555:this 1536:diff 1482:diff 1462:diff 1412:diff 1403:diff 1341:this 1307:diff 1276:diff 1232:and 1123:warm 712:Geek 681:and 672:can. 619:talk 604:7754 601:chen 562:7754 559:chen 553:. -- 529:7754 526:chen 429:Talk 420:Talk 387:Talk 367:Talk 221:Talk 191:Talk 157:Talk 146:Talk 135:Talk 121:Talk 104:Talk 93:Talk 82:Talk 71:Talk 53:here 26:Case 2317:Bri 2311:of 2184:. 2092:you 1692:lot 1593:As 1464:). 1425:has 1343:on 1288:not 1274:. ( 1266:], 1199:In 1137:lot 1098:But 1009:WBG 921:not 783:, 738:At 675:be. 303:Log 2430:) 2416:) 2401:) 2368:· 2364:· 2360:· 2215:. 2196:. 2180:, 2125:. 2088:: 2075:. 2024:. 1830:: 1780:. 1763:: 1718:: 1707:) 1667:. 1609:". 1597:, 1588:me 1584:he 1538:. 1486:me 1452:, 1397:. 1395:BN 1370:, 1362:, 1355:). 1335:, 1331:, 1327:, 1323:, 1305:) 1278:, 1203:, 1062:Rs 803:: 787:, 779:, 669:. 658:. 638:. 598:Rs 556:Rs 523:Rs 128:: 114:: 97:— 86:— 75:— 2426:( 2412:( 2397:( 2372:} 2370:b 2366:p 2362:c 2358:t 2356:{ 1885:" 1824:. 1703:( 1627:( 1590:. 1558:( 1509:( 1480:( 1454:2 1450:1 1373:2 1368:1 1364:2 1360:1 1353:1 1337:5 1333:4 1329:3 1325:2 1321:1 1319:( 1268:2 1264:1 1117:S 1005:∯ 809:. 693:. 621:) 617:( 495:e 488:t 481:v 383:+ 341:+ 305:) 301:( 217:+ 159:) 155:( 148:) 144:( 137:) 133:( 123:) 119:( 106:) 102:( 95:) 91:( 84:) 80:( 73:) 69:( 59:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence - Knowledge (XXG)

Index