Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Kudpung

Kudpung

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Use third-level headers for new sections.
- Example: === Heading title ===.
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

Nothing has changed in 4 years

Not quite the disaster of 2015 [1] but still the same peavishness in responses as if questions are intended to trip him up, accusations of PA [2], banning editors from his talk page [3], threats to throw toys out of the pram over a fairly trifling matter [4] and, as in 2015, statements of disinterest in the Arbcom election process [5]. And this is all in less than a week. Does not wish to answer any more questions from me. I am looking for consistency, accuracy, reasoning & resolve and the only thing I see is consistency in displaying a battleground attitude. Little has changed in 4 years here, I'm afraid. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to oppose as well. I need to have some data to base a vote on, and Kudpung's answers are effectively not answers. His last response reads as though he thinks I'm asking him to re-litigate a specific case, but I believe I stressed any contentious vote is fine (because any data is better than none). He implies that "my overall experience and editing history" should tell me what I want to know, but I can't possibly search through all his 100k edits to see what matters to him. As it is, right now, it's either vote for him with no idea what he'll do if elected, or oppose. I am choosing the latter. Banedon (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As am I. A loose necktie (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the personal attacks and harassment masquerading as user questions (repeated again this year), the 2015 result was far from a disaster with Kudpung gaining over the minimum 50% for eligibility. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to stick to the statistical facts Kudpung, although you had 53.19% you did finish with the lowest NET (83 compared to the lowest successful candidate with 349 net +ve) of any of the candidates with a +ve Net[6]. And unlike your claim here that you finished second runner up [7], you were actually 4th runner up (if there is such a thing). So I suppose it all depends on how one chooses to interpret the statistics. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky caldron, You stick to the facts: Despite the personal attacks and harassment masquerading as user questions (repeated again this year), the 2015 result was far from a disaster. 53.19% is 53.19%, you can turn these figures over and over as much as you like. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Querying suitability

I have concerns about admin toxicity. I wasn't particularly impressed by his contributions to the Signpost. There seems to be a large sense of entitlement and little capacity for self-reflection. Tony (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make no secret to your attitude towards all admins according to your user pages : This editor despises the toxic admin system and culture, and by default distrusts any admin unless convinced they are not unethical.'. Here's a list of my recent contributions to the newspaper :

Signpost articles by Kudpung

ACTRIAL wrap-up (Special report, March 2018)
Death knell for The Signpost (Op-ed, March 2018.)
ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide (Special report, April 2018)
Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails? (Op-ed, May 2018. Pt 1 of a trilogy)
NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement, or a marriage? (Special report, June 2018)
What do admins actually do? (Op-ed, June 2018. Pt 2 of a trilogy)
The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise (Op-ed, July 2018. Pt 3 of a trilogy)
Wikimania 2018 (Special report, August 2018)
Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia (From the Editor, August 2018)
WMF hires a spam outfit (News and Notes, August 2018, investigations into WMF practices)
NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers (Special report, October 2018)
News from the WMF (December, 2018)

Let others read the nerwspaper and judge for themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My vote in this election may be influenced by this[8] thread. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Now reflecting his enthusiasm to curtail questioning and participation in RfA, wishes to do the same at ACE2020. [9] Leaky caldron (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Xxanthippe, let's hope that potential voters really will visit that thread, and take note of the warnings you were issued by other admins and established users, and if they want the true background to it all after your cherry-picking, they are welcome to ask me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity

Kudpung has a different understanding of the dynamics of Wikipedia than many in the community, based on long observation and in some cases statistical work of a few editors which is mostly forgotten. I'm sure I don't agree with everything Kudpung believes, but there are valuable insights that could be very useful on ArbCom. And if he is "peevish" I'm sure that's a pretty faint damn. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]