Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates/Kudpung

Candidate performance during election
This , this , this , this and this are recent examples of the candidate being disgruntled since launching his campaign only a week ago. In particular accusations of attempting to derail a candidate’s election seem very wide of the mark. If this level of “complaining about one’s lot” was in front of the community in an RfA or RfB the candidate could be considered by some as regretting the transclusion. A candidate for the most senior elected position has to be more enthusiastic. We are not election Mr Speaker who has to be dragged to the chair. Complaining about questions, questioners and discussing withdrawing at the drop of a hat before or even after the event does not demonstrate commitment.

Candidate questions
Our own article on the subject of stonewalling is neutral in describing such behaviour as neither good or bad - simply a strategy to present a selection of information a person is willing to give or withhold in order to protect one's image. However, when there is a detailed process to assist in a large scale elections, failing to answer questions carries an obvious risk. Also, simply referring to a nomination statement for answers when the NS is devoid of comment on the matter requested is, to say the least, unhelpful. “If you have read my nomination statement, I'm sure you will understand and will be able to rest assured that as an Arbcom member, I would press for the severest sanctions for anyone who comes to a page with blatant lies, innuendo, veiled PA, and issues taken deliberately out of context to discredit a fellow editor or admin.” has been cut & pasted 7 times in response to a series of questions. For disclosure, there is enmity between us stemming from a simple query I raised on his TP 4 years ago which was met with unnecessary hostility for which Kudpung apologised. Things have not improved and we have disputed a couple of RfA matters. Leaky Caldron  20:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

3 questions re Statement
Hi Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia in so many ways. Could you please clarify what you mean by: - It's very hard work and time consuming for absolutely no reward whatsoever (a bit like being an admin only much, much worse), and it takes one away from the very reason one joined Wikipedia for. - Less than 10. You'll probably discover them on the question page. - Yes, of course I did.
 * 1) being an Arbcom member is definitely 'no big deal'
 * 1) Over the years I've made some enemies - it comes with the job - How many is some, rounded to the nearest 10, more or less? When I think "enemies", I think terrorists blowing up kids in malls. The thought of people making "enemies" in Wikimedia - esp as part of a job ... cringe. What can you do such that, at worst, you'd have "adversaries" instead of "enemies"?
 * 1) if they were truly honest with themselves they know that I am fair without being lenient, and firm without being possessed of power - you say your "enemies" are dishonest, at least to themselves. Did you really mean what you said?

Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC

- ''is there any reason you didn['t follow the instructions and put these questions on the question page? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)) ''

ANI incident
The only time I came in contact with this person was at ANI, and got a bad first impression. For whatever reason Kudpung decided it was okay to bring up my age when it came to editing. To find this one out he had to have gone all the way back in time to the start of my talk-page, I had removed this bit of info as I thought it was too revealing. The point is my opinion didn't matter on material I might or might not have wanted to keep to myself. I had pretty much put the matter behind me until I saw Kudpung's name pop up as a candidate for arbcom. What I hope for this candidate is that they think more before bringing up things editors may or may not want known rather than just assuming it is perfectly okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At least people can put your behaviour down to age-related immaturity and assume that you would have grown out of it. I think my comment and my research were perfectly appropriate under the circumstances. La plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, that seems like a rather thin excuse for dismissing the editor's defense even partly based on age and your assessment of maturity instead of supporting your comment in a more substantive way. I know it can be difficult to avoid name-calling when you get tired of seeing repeated problems, feeling "ground down in the end", but your name-calling in that edit is not something I want to see in ArbCom. ArbCom is essentially our Supreme Court, and our arbitrators need to be above all that. I think arbitrators need to be exceptionally level-headed, especially when dealing with people you find difficult or provocative. Arbitrators cannot be merely reasonable. ArbCom needs to get it right every time, and for the right reasons. You are asking to be elected to a position of great power, where you will be required to exercise very thoughtful and dispassionate judgement. ArbCom's decisions need to based exclusively on the issues and evidence under consideration, not on attempts to embarrass or humiliate someone, no matter how egregious or frequent the offense.


 * IMO, making mistakes like this is not a bar to anything. We have all seen far, far worse. We all make mistakes (I have made some big ones), and we learn. Do you still believe what you said and did was not a mistake? Or if it was a mistake, what are your intentions? I would not carry on like this if I had already decided to vote against you. But the price for my vote is reassessing those comments (beyond the short shrift above), evaluating them thoughtfully, and then acting accordingly. (There is no right answer, IMO.) Dcs002 (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Knowledgekid is classical of the editors who bear a grudge when they have had to be admonished. Remember, I was a school teacher and a professor at a teacher training faculty for a very, very long time. We all know how kids hate those teachers who were only doing their job. Admins suffer a huge amount of abuse - you wouldn't want to know what they get in their mail - and I am actually one admin who throws around least with my block hammer. Its a very lonely job, we get slagged, slandered, pilloried and pissed off and have no support and are not allowed per WP:INVOLVED to defend ourselves - just take a look at the stuff in the question pages here. I sometimes do not mince my words, but I'm no bully. The great difference between admin work and Arbcom work is that the arbcom is a team. Whether they get on with each other or not is another thing, but unless they act out of process with their admin tools - as some have done in the past - it's rare that they would do something egregious. Apart from giving some deserved short schrift occasionally, I've never abused my power here and I think that's exactly what annoys some people, and I'm not likely to abuse it from within the confines of the Committee if I were to be elected. You are welcome to vote how you like, if you don't want me on the Committee, that's fine,but as I 'm sure you've guessed, because Wikipedia is voluntary work, and Arbcom will demand a lot of dedication, I'm hardly likely to kiss the floor in front of people I have had to warn in the past just to get one more vote to the  1,500 that have been cast already by people that none of us know, and who probably have even less idea about what Arbcom is than you or Knowledgkid. The world won't end for me if I don't get elected, but like leopards, at my age I'm hardly likely to change my spots. For the editors who deserve it, I will continue to show my classic avuncuar empathy, and  those who don't, if it's not me remonstrating with them, it will be another admin to be sure. Let's not forget that we are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia, not harass and bully each other.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the long post. Brevity is a serious problem I have.) Thank you for your response. Yeah, that's kind of an arrogant way for me to phrase my question as the price of my vote. And I absolutely appreciate what an awful job it must be to be an admin, and an arbitrator. I don't see myself ever asking for either role. (I was a professor too, btw, though not long enough to get to tenure - "Ass-P" only. Yeah, there were those constant complainers who tried their hardest to get under my skin and wear me down and threaten me, and administration already knew who they were. The challenge is assuring them they are getting a fair hearing every time, and bending over backwards to make sure they actually get one.) I think ArbCom needs to work that way (and from what I've seen, it does). I think all editors deserve similar presumptions of good faith, and that's not related to the mathematical question of whether they detract more than they contribute. (I'm reading about that more and more, and it disturbs me. It's often presented s a subjective question disguised as an objective one.)


 * But back to the substance of my original concern - can you give some sort of assurance that you will stick to the arguments and evidence of the cases presented, and not dismiss anybody's arguments based on your opinion of their maturity, or whether you consider them a nuisance (and avoid giving the impression of doing so)? Immature people can still contribute, and what's more, they can improve as they mature. I think we also need the occasional nuisance to make sure we are still on track with out goals. (Students who constantly argued about each exam question occasionally pointed out questions with more than one plausibly correct response, and in their arguments, they showed knowledge of the substance of those questions.) It's the substance of the case that should determine what constitutes good work and what is disruptive, I think. Are we on the same page here?


 * If repeat problem editors show up in arbitration, particularly those with whom you've had previous difficulties, I just want to make sure they get an absolutely fair and impartial hearing, with no sign of partiality, no comments on their character or motives, and that findings are evidence-based. Can you wipe the slate clean or recuse yourself if you find that a problem? (Either is fine with me.) WP:INVOLVED, by my reading, only applies to admins, not arbitrators. Is that right? (Admins who are doing admin action, and defending yourself is not acting as an admin, is it?) Thanks again for reading my long post. (You should have seen the first draft! I'm glad I had good co-authors and editors when I wrote up my research manuscripts :P ) Dcs002 (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Gosh,, with over 1,500 2,500 votes cast already due to the mass mailing they did this year, you are certainly making me work hard for just one more vote now that it's all over bar the shouting! But I'd rather answer you than some of the people on the question page and those who have just gone there and to this page to do a hatchet job.


 * I have never had previous difficulties with anyone. They might have had problems accepting my sanctions or me pointing out where they were clearly wrong, but that was their problem - I was only doing my job like the magistrate who bans a drunken driver for six months because that's what the law recommends he does,even if the driver can no longer use his car for work - yes, its a tough old world. That said, as I have said time and time again, of the 777 blocks I've meted out, (which is a lot less than most front line admins who in fact like, one of our best 'field-officers',  for example, are few and far between) more than 700 of them were procedural, and of the rest, none have ever been overturned. As I said to someone who all but accused me of being a misogynist just because I don't go on the streets for womens' rights: I'm not running in this election for a joke - even if some others, like those who ask leading/loaded questions giving me no option but to identify myself as either a crank, a tyrannical schoolmaster, or a pederast, have turned this year's process into a farce. The joke is that I have never done anything whatsoever to harm or insult those people other than to campaign for years for better admins which ironically is what they are yelling for. But they love to shoot the messengers. They stalk my edits (as you have seen) and don't let an opportunity pass to take something out of context and pillory me for it, believe me, it's extremely hard in the face of some vile behaviour not to overstep the mark, and with some people who have used the question page here as a platform for their anti-admin or anti-male politics I come as close as I dare without stooping to their level.


 * If such people come before Arbcom for similar behaviour towards other editors or for disrupting due process, I will naturally see no need to recuse myself; I wouldn't be involved in whatever they had done to be accused of. I know how to read rhe evidence, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know the general barometer of sanctions and I would not press for any harder sanctions than my colleagues on the Committee. If other Committee members have commented on on their character or motives, I may well concur and have to vote my agreement. What some people don't/won't understand s that the Committee is the CID, the CPS, the jury, and the judge all rolled into one. But if I have to constantly recuse myself for every case where I have a thorough dislike for the accused, then I might as well withdraw my candidacy right now because there are a quite a few editors who constantly keep getting dragged before the court.


 * Being on the Committee is no big deal (well, not for me), I'm only running because I was badgered into it by many well-meaning supporters last year (I did not run) and again this year. If I don't get elected I'm not going to cry into my soup, but I might no longer be quite the lenient admin I was behind my gruff exterior, and I would probably start doing my job a bit more firmly with vandals, bullies, and those who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads, and also look into ways of reforming the Committee and its election process from outside it. I wouldn't belittle your support for a moment but it's now a bit late in the day, so as we now have yet another two weeks to go and after 40 hours of answering questions already, I think it's time for us all to relax and wait for the results. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply. (I am commenting now about my questions, no need to reply.) I just want to clarify something about why I asked all those questions. When I ask questions of you in a public forum like this, I don't assume you would answer them simply to get my one vote (despite my unfortunate choice of wording when I first posted here). Answering voter questions is always an opportunity to promote your candidacy. If a voter challenges something you said or did in a question, it's an opportunity to set the record straight, or close the matter however you wish. I really do take my vote seriously, even though it is just one in several thousand, and having a public forum like this is really helpful for someone like me who knew nothing about any of the candidates going into this. I assume there are a lot of us who are voting for the first time, and some of us would prefer to get to know you candidates. I assume your responses to my questions will be read by people other than me. It might even be true that, if the mass mailing is new this year, there might still be a lot of us who haven't voted yet - swing voters? It's a very long process to read everyone's statements, and question and comment pages, then wait for responses, comments, and follow-ups.


 * My thanks to you and everyone else who steps up and volunteers to do an ugly, time-consuming, and thankless job that I would never want. Campaigns are never fun, and the job you are asking for is probably even less so. Dcs002 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The outlook is bleak indeed Abandon hope all ye who enter here
Having fully assessed everything you have said, the subtle and not so subtle indications you vent together with your highly influencing senior pedagogic background, you treat WP like some global, virtual Dotheboys Hall. If that is your schtick, good look, we'll need it. Someone point me to the retired banner. Thanks by the way for removing your absured public accusation that I had been blocked 12 times. "Your ability to do accurate research must improve. D- on your school report." Leaky Caldron  13:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

key success factors of the linux community, what to take for wikipedia
linus torvalds created a community of programmers working on the linux kernel 1991. the community grew since then to nowadays 5'000 commits a month, 5 times more than 10 years ago. alone the linux kernel mailing list receives more than 20'000 messages a month, 3 times more than 10 years ago. innovative technologies are added to the kernel first from universities, individuals, companies, bearing the GPL. what do you see as the key success factors of that development, and what can you take off that into your work at wikipedia? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * , 1) This question belongs on the question page, please do not abuse the election process. 2) This question has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this election  3) In any case I am not in the slightst interested in your topic area and you cannot insist that Arbcom candidates have such knowledge or wish to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Question from Dcs002
I have moved this comment here from Kudpung's Questions page as the sections on such pages are reserved for the specific user asking questions and the candidate answering them. THEowner of a l l 20:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * @Dcs002. Another type of drama board exists. These are pages where Kudpung hangs out or inserts himself into user talk pages and whines, complains and generally denigrates anyone with the temerity to challenge his authority, ask him awkward questions and where he disparages sections of WP with epithets which would, in a underclass user, be considered personal attacks. He was recently seen jumping up and down on his sofa pretending that some of those question posers are under it. Which makes a change from suggesting that he would throw his beer at some people if he were to meet them! These are the pages of seriously influential editors. They meet up. They know each other. They support each other through thick and thin. To paraphrase "We petty men walk under their huge legs and peep about to find ourselves dishonourable graves." Kudpung is now at the top table - where he plainly deserves to be. There are some very astute questions on this page but I'll be turning my light out in a couple of weeks. Leaky  Caldron  17:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I understand why moving the above comment here was appropriate, but I want to state clearly that, although my name is used in this subsection heading, I do not wish to be associated with that comment, in fact or in spirit. I do not endorse such sarcastic personal attacks, regardless of whether I intend to vote for the candidate. Dcs002 (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, tradition has it, on Wikipedia that election time appears to be the one occasion where users can be as spiteful as possible and candidates are not allowed much scope to defend themselves. The problem is that here just like at RfA, younger or more naive voters might believe it all. This is one of the reasons why we don't get many candidates for adminship or the Arbitration committee. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)