User:GRuban/RFAR Kudpung

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence
Apologies for taking so long to write this. This is hard for me, as I like both of these people.

Sing, O Muse, of how two of our finest were pitted against each other, and friends and allies ended as enemies!

While I can't speak to all the accusations against Kudpung, this is one of the saddest cases of friendly fire I've seen in 14 years here of Wikipedia. A "Geek Tragedy".

 A typical Geek tragedy consists of five essential sections, some of which are repeated as necessary to accommodate the plot. 

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

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

Note, Kudpung and GorillaWarfare are on the same side; that of feminism. Like Ti-Grace Atkinson.

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

Episode 1: A rose by any other name
Those two words unleashed the hurricane. GW wrote User talk:Kudpung/Archive Aug 2018: Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men. K blew his top. If you publicly refer to yourself under any name, you have to get used to being referred to in whichever one users legitimately choose. There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts. PS. You just lost Women in Red an active supporter. Well done.

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

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

Stasimon 1
STASIMON: The chorus comments upon the episode to the audience.

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

Episode 2: A regular path has no signpost
2 weeks later, Kudpung wrote Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-08-30/News_and_notes, with two sections critical of the Wikimedia Foundation, "WMF hires a spam outfit", and "Wikimedia moves to WordPress" criticizing Katherine Maher for being out of touch due to traveling a lot.

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

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

Stasimon 2

 * User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15 I'm upset by these conversations, as you are two editors I have the utmost respect for and have worked closely with in the past ... I absolutely believe that the commentary provided by both of you about the other is inaccurate. Worm That Turned Arbitrator.
 * What the Worm said. Though I probably know even less history, I do respect the both of you, and am sure there is room for not turning a problem with the WMF hiring a marketing firm into a personal dispute between two excellent volunteer admins. Please? --GRuban (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Yes, me. I am an experienced editor, honest.
 * This is among the saddest conversations that I have read in a long time and I ... encourage all involved to take several steps back from the brink. Cullen328 Let's discuss it  18:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I just cannot understand how two long-established editors who have done great work for the encyclopedia, despite facing unpleasant shit I would never wish to face myself, can be so utterly at loggerheads with each other Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Episode 3: Frying pan to fire
User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15 Kudpung isn't directly involved here, but boy (non-gendered exclamation) does this escalate. User:Fram, experienced administrator: Please remove or significantly rephrase your comment at the Signpost. Accusing people of misogyny is a personal attack, and you provide no evidence that the Signpost article is misogynistic (being negative and being about a woman does not equal misogyny) or that the editor is "continuing a campaign" of misogyny. That you had a recent negative interaction with the editor doesn't make everything they write about women immediately or automatically misogynistic, and it would be better if you refrained from making such attacks onwiki. She does not, and reinstates it after it is removed. I'll remove it again. Reinstate it again and I'll block you. ... Since you edit warred to reinstate your personal attack despite a clear warning, you have now been blocked for 24 hours. Please don't reinstate the PA or make further similar ones after your block has expired.

Boom.

Stasimon 3
User_talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive_15 Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive991 The one bit of good news is that GW was quickly unblocked.
 * accusing someone of a campaign of misogyny is a personal attack and it is not any justifiable by K's previous behavior, (however low it had stooped). ... Also, echo YairRand in his entirety. &#x222F; WBG
 * Have some outrage. No one should be calling anyone a "man hater". No one should be mentioning the gender of an editor or group of editors. No one should be calling anyone a misogynist. Both parties, and several individuals jumping onto the conflict, have acted completely inappropriately, and should not continue this discussion. --Yair rand
 * This is a situation that calls for de-escalation... Cullen328 Admin
 * Fram ... You were both edit warring, and an uninvolved admin could have been justified in blocking both you and GW... Courcelles Admin
 * The initial comment, Misogyny, was unnecessarily provocative and out of place. I would consider it to be a personal attack. K.e.coffman
 * I don't think either party (GorillaWarfare or Fram) has shown wise conduct here ... neither has Kudpung. --'''Rs Admin
 * Fram's blocking of GW was uncalled for (at least, so soon, although I completely understand Fram's perspective in this – that this was a clear personal attack)... GW's statements directed at Kudpung's character are silly and childish, and especially seem a distant run off of some campaign she feels a strong need to support and continue. That said, I don't agree at all with how Kudpung placed his initial statements on GW. I would strongly urge all parties (including me, perhaps) to just stop frequenting each other's posts and lay it off for some while. Knowing GW's opinion (that she's not going to take it quietly... or something like that), I can only hope she sees better sense. If she does continue her ill-directed campaign at Kudpung, I would recommend an immediate indefinite re-block of GW until she realizes she cannot walk this path. Lourdes
 * I think it takes extraordinary ill-faith to assume that he was being misogynistic in this comment when he was in the middle of a discussion about combating sexism in RfA. Alex Shih Arbitrator
 * Kudpung's not a misogynist. Not by a long shot. Kudpung jumps in to fight sexism and bias, not create it. That this is up for debate, genuinely makes me sad. :( Mr rnddude (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how anyone can unequivocally state that accusing someone on-Wiki of "misogyny" is not, at least arguably, a personal attack. But, if it's happening between two highly respected, veteran administrators in good standing, we're probably not dealing with a petty behavioral issue that is correctable via standard blocking. GW's comment was unfiltered and aggressive well beyond normal Talk Page standards, but so was the article she was responding to, which itself could be reasonably construed as a personal attack. (To be clear, I 100% endorse freedom of speech in the press, including The Signpost) GW and Kudpung need to mutually steer clear of each other from now on, or take their conflict off-wiki where it will not disrupt the project, until they can bury the hatchet and come to a mutual respect. No exceptions. The "full history" doesn't matter. Grudging between admins is unacceptable.... This is not an argument that either party needs to "win". S warm Admin
 * Everybody should fucking drop it, and Kudpung and GW should avoid each other and stay busy working. That way, the next time they run in to each other, it's at least possible that they'll be in agreement, which can make patching up hurt feelings a lot easier. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
 * The original comment, the block, the unblock, the comments on usertalk pages, the comments in this thread... there are additional communicative steps and measures of caution that shoulda coulda woulda been taken all around. Let's call it a day. The only thing that should really happen at this point is for GW and Kudpung to hash things out a bit more, without a crowd doing the work of making it a spectacle. Rhododendrites
 * Swarm and Mr Pants have pretty much said it already. So I'll give you the short version: the major players in this dispute should apologise to each other if they can ... (Kudpung and GorillaWarfare) Ritchie333 Admin
 * Kudpung's initial and secondary reactions to GorillaWarfare's requests about how to refer to her, were inappropriate. ...I understand GorillaWarfare's post at the Signpost, but it was in my view poor judgement. ... I urge GorillaWarfare to reconsider her post at the Signpost. Jytdog

Exodos
EXODOS: The final chorus chant where the moral of the tragedy is discussed.

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

Relative power

 * XXanthippe in their statement writes that they are concerned that "Kudpung's friends ... and his long work as an administrator..." will weigh the case in his favor. A reasonable concern, Kudpung is a respected Wikipedia editor, former Signpost editor, and administrator, after all. But in this case, GW is ... more. Friendship and respect of that sort is hard to measure, but in this particular case we can get a rather good first order approximation of the two parties' relative levels of friends and community support:
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018 GorillaWarfare	Support:1064	Neutral:652	Oppose:398	Net:666	Percentage:72.78%
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019 Kudpung	Support: 409	Neutral:711	Oppose:553	Net:−144	Percentage:42.52%
 * Now GW earned that level of popularity, she's one of the harder working administrators and arbitrators, principled, tough, and usually polite and fair. But we should not fear that the community will be unduly biased in favor of Kudpung in this dispute between them. At a baseline, the community is clearly, solidly, on the Gorilla's side. If there is any bias, we should expect in her favor.


 * At the time of Kundpung's Signpost article about Katherine Maher, and GorillaWarfare's "Misogyny" comment, August 30, 2018:
 * Kudpung was a regular Wikipedia user, and former administrator, having recently stepped down. He would get the tools back in October 2018.
 * GorillaWarfare was a current Wikipedia administrator, and former arbitrator, her term having expired with the start of 2018.
 * Katherine Maher was the chief executive officer and executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, a position she had held since June 2016.
 * Is there any doubt who had the power here? Did Maher really need defense from this attack? Was it appropriate for the additional defense to come from someone with a personal conflict with the author? Who was "punching up", and who was "punching down"?


 * In this case, GW properly recused as an arbitrator, since she had a personal conflict with the case subject. And then she added that personal conflict as a party to the case. She's an experienced arbitrator, served a full term as one of the more active arbitrators during that term; and is one again, right now. This is literally her home court. Is it a fair trial when a judge steps down and acts as a prosecutor?

"Misogyny"
Note that in this sad affair, everyone accuses everyone else of misogyny. Kudpung says he is defending women from misogyny, and accuses Xxanthippe of misogyny. X ripostes that K made "an edit so sexist that...". GW titles her criticism of Kudpung's article "Misogyny". The word has been used so often it's losing all meaning. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if my making these notes gets me accused of misogyny!