Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:46, 25 February 2011

Kudpung

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (66/12/1); Scheduled to end 09:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Kudpung (talk · contribs) – Ladies and gentlemen, it is my honour to present you Kudpung, whose username is derived from a Thai village, and who has tempted me to interrupt my break from the project space! Kudpung is an experienced editor (almost 27k edits, but quality not quantity!) who is largely involved in gnome-ish activities, where he often finds himself having to bug an admin. However, his activity doesn't stop there. He has been a significant contributor to five GAs (Malvern College, Malvern, Worcestershire, Malvern water, Milford Haven, Wellingborough), has spent time largely running Misplaced Pages:WikiProject School, has founded Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Worcestershire (the county, not the sauce!) and played a large part in establishing and implementing the WP:BLPPROD process, as well as loitering at WP:EAR to offer assistance to newbies. All things considered, I think Kudpung is a calm, rational and uncontroversial editor, three qualities that would be of great benefit to the admin corps. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Co-nomination

For my third ever nomination, I present Kudpung. A member of Misplaced Pages for five years now, but only active since mid-2009, he's a well-rounded editor with interests in content and deletion. Kudpung has contributed to five good articles, dealt with translation (taking on the formidable Brontë family article), and, as HJ mentions above, began the Worcestershire WikiProject. A much more detailed list of his contributions to the project can be found on his userpage in the "Contribs and Userboxen" section.

Though some of Kudpung's views differ from mine, I cannot help but admire him. It seems that he puts care into every edit he makes and that's a desirable quality in an administrator. He's also got a backbone, and he's not afraid to share his opinion. But he's mature and knows when to contain himself.

Kudpung's comments always seem insightful and he seems to have quite a lot of clue. I usually find them to be well-backed and knowledgeable.

Having some 27,000 edits, Kudpung clearly has the experience to take on the job. He has diversity within that experience, with a large percent of his edits to article space and a decent amount to talk, showing an interest in content while being able to discuss problems and suggestions. With more than 100 edits to three of his good articles, it's obvious that he is dedicated and here for the better of the encyclopedia.

It's undeniable that Kudpung's a strong, well-rounded editor. So it seems only logical to me that he'll be the same as an administrator. ceranthor 20:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I thank you both for your kind words and I'm happy to accept.Kudpung (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I work a lot on BLP and NPP backlogs, and school articles - all areas that have a lot of vandalism, poor or no sourcing, self-promotion, and CSD candidates. I also work regularly at a help desk where many enquiries lead to a use of the tools. I therefore come across many instances where uncontroversial use of the tools is needed. I take an interest in COI and SPI but not being able to view previously deleted pages and users’ deletions, I don’t spend a lot of time in these areas yet. I !vote regularly on AfD for schools, BLP, and music, and would close some of the less controversial issues and DRV, and look into some of the chronic backlog areas, but my Wiki editing time is so full I don’t know which ones yet. Most of the areas I work in are concerned with cleaning up articles and other procedural interventions that need the tools rather than policing the authors who create them, or going on witch hunts for vandals and 3rr, etc. I would of course keep an eye on any filters that ring alarm bells, and chip in on some backlogs such as, for example, MfD etc, that don’t get so much attention. However, I wouldn’t be going out of my way to discover new niche areas where I can wield the mop - the number of daily occasions I come across where the tools could be used among my 50 – 100 daily; mostly manual edits is already enough to keep me very busy, and I work in a time zone where most of the English speaking world is asleep, which would enable me to reduce the nightly or hourly backlog of attack and other CSD pages.

2. What are your best contributions to Misplaced Pages, and why?

A: I have a weakness for being talked into helping out on all sorts of projects and backlogs. Very few of my edits are minor or automated, and until I realized that GA is no big personal deal (but definitely a criterion of quality), I used to think it was the Malvern GA; it’s a long article and I didn't create the short stub, but I wrote most of it and took many of the photos for it, and with a lot of help, I got it to GA. Then I thought perhaps it was creating the WP:WORCS project and getting it going. Then I thought it was the translation I was asked to do of the huge French Brontë article (200 kB, 9,000 words). I like to think that I create or expand articles within the guidelines, so most of them (I think) are fairly clean. On policy and meta stuff, I was able to play a significant part in getting the WP:BLPPROD moved forward to operation, and I once worked like a maniac to clear three days of NPP backlog almost single-handed, but it was done to help demonstrate some issues at WP:NPP and BLP. As a result I came up with a new NPP feature that with the help of a bot programmer is now up and running. I’m also trying to revive the huge WP:WPSCHOOLS project and I‘m currently working on ironing out ambiguities in the notability GL for schools. I know it sounds a bit cliché, but probably my best contribution is the sum total of all my contributions.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Stress? No. There have been some awkward moments, because anyone who works on quasi-administrative stuff is going to make some enemies among the people who refuse to abide by policy and try to win arguments by gaming the system. I just generally leave a deadpan message with a few links to policy, and walk away without taking too much of the bait. I've never taken anyone to a notice board for anything they have done to me - in fact I don't think I've ever reported anyone except perhaps sockpuppetry, because I’m usually able to resolve such issues before they need to be taken that far and I like to think I can handle any disputes I'm involved in without screwing up editor and admin time. Of course if I had the tools, I would certainly get more involved, as a neutral 3rd party, in cases where only admin judgment is allowed, but as a lay editor, I just try to steer clear of the conflict zones.

I dislike system gaming intensely and I’m very quick to recognise clear cases of it. It is cunning and disingenuous. In my opinion, once their art is blatantly obvious, maintaining a pretense of assuming good faith in such situations is also hypocritical. The only times I was taken to ANI was a long time ago by a very young, former sysop, whom I had templated for what I thought (and still believe) was a serious abuse of the edit summary system. I didn’t handle it too well when he complained and I was threatened with a punitive, cool-off block (by an admin who has since disappeared from Misplaced Pages after a very short time in office) unless I apologised for what I supposed was a very veiled and mild form of PA. Otherwise, my tp is totally free of warnings of any kind, and I’ve never deleted any. I’ve probably archived a total of two very rude and unwarranted PA messages to stop myself seeing them until I do my monthly archive. Everyone has their own threshold for what they consider breaches of civility and PA - some look between the lines for insults that are not there; it's one of the problems of written conversation that has no intonation to qualify the semantics. I found this meta essay really useful: m:Rule of diminishing replies. Detractors will be smug in the belief they've won, and it might look bad for me on my talk page, but as one editor put it once: as long as the project's integrity is preserved, it's probably OK to let the other party have the last word.

Completely optional additional question from Strikerforce

4. In the course of your usual travels around the project, is there any particular standing Misplaced Pages policy that you find to be particularly troublesome or a "roadblock" to content creation, more often than it is useful? If yes, which policy? Why do you find it to be troublesome? In brief, in what way would you suggest that policy be modified so that the core rule is still maintained, but it is less of an issue?

A. No, I don't actually find any policies that are a roadblock to content creations. Quite to the contrary however, I find a lot that I consider are open to a too liberal interpretation that allows too many of the wrong kind of articles to be let in or to escape deletion. (See these opinions of mine, Nos. 16 & 19), especially those that are AfD closed as 'no consensus' and hence default to 'keep' simply because not enough people expressed their opinion, even after a relisting, or are closed as 'keep' because a great majority of clueless !voters, or sheer dogged inclusionists, or SPA argue for 'keep' in ignorance (or simulated ignorance) of the policies. However, I am not a deletionist per se, and I'll often !vote keep if the nomination is erroneous, but I do find that on the whole, most articles that face PROD or AfD are there because they should be. Nevertheless, the articles I rescue from even getting as far as a deletion process, far outnumber those I send to AfD or !vote 'delete' on. Policy does not need to be modified, it needs to be expressed more clearly - very often, the words that are wasted at AfD appear to me to be on the interpretation and validity of policy rather than applying it to the notability of the defendant article.

Additional optional question from Ebe123

5. Write a convincing oppose position and then do a rebuttal for your candidacy.

A: Oppose: Kudpung is not really clueful at all about about creations. One of his articles, Klingon Language Suite, was deleted last week. He doesn't really know much about policy does he? We can't have admins who write articles that get red linked.

Reply: It was the only article of mine that has ever been deleted and it was one of my earliest creations, and it was, if I remember, a two-line stub. It must have been two years old, and suddenly last week it came up as a red link in the contribs list on my user page. It wasn't on my watch list because it was probably created before I even knew what a watchlist is. I know it's optional, but I do think the PRODer could have had the decency to template me about it - not that I would have bothered defending it because it was about a competitor's product! I'm satisfied with the number of creations I have already, and any recent ones such as Rose Garrard are most unlikely to face deletion. I intend now to concentrate more on meta stuff and cleaning up and rescuing other people's creations.

Additional optional question from Townlake

6. I've noticed you maintain a lengthy trophy case of barnstars at the top of your user talk page. What is the purpose of your user talk page, and how does this list of barnstars advance that purpose?

A: Lengthy? For the number of edits I've made and the time I've been around there aren't nearly enough! Most admins could fill six pages with their barnstars and some do ;) Actually I don't set store at all by barnstars, althought I'm very grateful to the kind people who have given them to me. I was absolutely top of the class in languages and creative writing at school but all the prizes went to pupils who were less clever than me. I suppose the teachers decided I was good enough already and the others needed more encouragement. Since then, and for the rest of my life I've always declined awards wherever I could, and I feel most uncomfortable when I can't see my way out of having to receive one. I didn't go to any graduation ceremonies at college either - I let them send me my degree certificates by post. The barnstars are on my talk page because I don't want them on my user page, and out of respect for the people who gave them to me, I won't delete them so they've got to go somewhere. My user page is the place for anyone to go who wants to know anything about me, and the barnstars are there too, but very discrete. Perhaps when I have got a dozen more I will make a special page for them, but for the moment, when people give them to me, they arrive on my talk page and that's where they'll stay for a while. The purpose? To make people ask me about them on my RfA ;) But on a more serious note, if you mean to ask what is the purpose of the talk page, then the best answer on Misplaced Pages is here: User:Kudpung/Don't lose the thread

Additional optional question by NuclearWarfare

7. HJ Mitchell mentions your activities in getting WP:BLPPROD established. As anyone who followed that discussion is aware, that was a long and messy process. Could you please detail your what exactly you did in that discussion and your opinion of what could have been improved, if anything, with both the process and the end result? NW (Talk) 17:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A: Yes, it was a messy process. There had been around 400 commentators on Phase 1, but I did not join in until Phase 2. I did not - and I want this to be quite clear - contribute a great deal to the crafting of the actual policy itself. I was however largely responsible (I think) for steering the process towards a conclusion - any conclusion. People had been creating sub RfCs, threads were being collapsed, and even other pages were being created. Adding to the confusion were the talk pages of the RfC, (the Wkipedia phenomenon of talk of talk) so all conversations were fragmented over a number of locations. I finally managed to pull some of the elements together into one place so that a kind of consensus could be reached to go ahead with the BLPPROD in principle, and then I created a workshop page to develop the actual templates, scripts, and bots. I do remember personally rushing the consensus through to get the number of days duration of the PROD set at 10 days, but I did this by taking a mean average of all the suggestions that had been made because there was no consensus for any single number of days that had been suggested, and there was tacit agreement to go ahead on this. So you can all blame me for the ten-day thing if it turns out in the future that it was not such a good idea. I also seem to recall having fiddled around with the wording of the template at one stage, and the wording of the notification template for the creator talk page. My involvement was essentially that which we would call Project Manager in RL - keeping out of the individual discussions that are left to the experts, but keeping the wheels turning, through to coordinating the programmers to make the scripts for the templates that had been designed.

I think many of us learned a lot through that process that our method of insisting on consensus by everyone for every little detail makes a process extremely long, and drawn out. Some editors actually resigned from Misplaced Pages from fatigue on that project. I believe that for site-wide operations like this, we ought to lend more confidence in sub-comittees or work groups with defined members who can reach their own consensus and report back to a steering committee. I am not suggesting that we overturn or modify the Misplaced Pages fundamental philosophy of consensus, but a show of hands occasionally would get things done faster. One of the main problems with the BLPPROD programme was that new people would come in on it at very late stages and make some very aggressive demands for things to be reviewed all over again, and this began to be quite a problem.

I did not take part in the very last discussion that established what or how many sources would be allowed or disallowed.

The end result was the BLPPROD we know it today. Now that it has been in use for nearly a year, it's time to take its performance under review and gather some statistics. I don't know how to use tools here to extrapolate such data, but there are some specifics that we need to know now, the details of which I won't go into here. I do feel that some changes need to be made, especially on the issues of what sources can be allowed to avoid a BLPPROD, and what sources are permissible to be added to remove a BLPPROD. We are not yet getting the full benefit of the sticky prod principle that we launched, it's a good idea, but it now needs streamlining and made easier for new page patrollers to understand and apply, and the policy regarding the sources need to be reworked.I hope I will be part of that process, and if I am, this time round I will be able to offer my own empirical experience that comes from much work on NPP and deletions.

See the talk page of this RfA for the breakdown of participants in some of the BLPPROD discussions. Kudpung (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional optional question by Hobit

8. Say a subject meets our general notability guidelines but doesn't meet the relevant subject-specific guideline. Is that a reason to delete or merge the article?

A: I try to interpret and uphold Misplaced Pages policies, guidelines, the right way - even if I privately don't agree with them. Whether a subject meets our general notability guidelines but doesn't meet the relevant subject-specific guideline is one of the aspects of Misplaced Pages that is the most confusing, and that I admit that, does not mean that I do not understand those policies or guidelines. I think generally, the main philosophy of Misplaced Pages is towards inclusionism in so far that if a pretty awful article or a very poorly sourced article is submitted, we do first try to see what can be salvaged by removing the parts that can't be kept, and finding WP:RS for the rest. Two areas where we are ultra strict are BLP and Files, but schools for example has a precedent of its own procedures for which no formal policy exists. Within Misplaced Pages's philosophy towards inclusionism, we allow schools that would otherwise be deleted, to be merged and redirected, but many SPA - and school articles are practically all written by SPA - fail to appreciate this special immunity from deletion, and by insisting on GNG trumping this recommendation (currently a subject-specific guideline of essay status only) they may be inviting exactly the opposite result of consensus at AfD from the one they were hoping to achieve. If a subject meets our general notability guidelines but doesn't meet the relevant subject-specific guideline, it will be kept, and if it doesn't it won't be deleted either, but will be redirected. The subject specific guideline, at least for schools, is an added protection against complete deletion. Merging/redirecting is uncontroversial and can always easily be undone.

'Followup Atre you prepared to follow the apparent consensus of the community that secondary schools are always considered to be notable, until you succeed in getting it changed? DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A:The the apparent consensus by precedent for 'outcomes' is based on on a statement by Jimbo Wales and were being observed a long before I got involved in them, and because those precedents are in favour of keeping or merging, and not for deletion I generally follow them. The consensus broadly accredited to WP:OUTCOMES#Education cannot be accorded any hard proof because it has not yet been subject to recent audit. I don't want the policy or its guidelines changed, I just want more clarity in them regarding the use of the supposed consensus for the 'outcomes', because it will shorten the AfD debates considerably , and dispel some of the acrimony in them. If and and when we get to RfC on it, I/we will not be making a proposal statement that would suggest accepting one opinion over another, and I would be quite happy to accept and implement whatever conclusion is reached by consensus. Essays and guidelines cannot, of course, trump WP:ORG policy, but on AfD I will continue to offer 'outcomes' essays, and guidelines to be taken into consideration, and in this respect I believe that Misplaced Pages:ONLYESSAY, which ironically is also only an essay, sums up the way I believe I contribute to AfD.

Additional optional questions from Hydroxonium

9. In your opinion, what role do new users play in the project?

A:Every one of us here was a 'new user' once, and many joined Misplaced Pages because we either believed in its philosophy or wanted to correct some imperfections we came across in the articles we were looking up. Others join for reasons of wanting to promote themselves, their band or their business, but all, except the vandals, join with the intention of adding to Misplaced Pages as a knowledge base.

10. What is your position on WP:AOR?

A: I was hoping this question would come up, that's why I have not mentioned it previously. I welcome the AOR initiative in the absence of any easier way to remove sysop rights. Should this RfA succeed, one of the very first edits I would be making would be to add myself to Category:Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall.

General comments

• Links for Kudpung: Kudpung (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Kudpung can be found here.
• I think I just ought to point out that my time zone is UK + 7, and anything up to America + 12 or more, so there may be a lag in response time. Thank you for your understanding. --Kudpung (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats are on the talk page for those who can't or don't wish to load X!'s tool. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I was thinking of nominating this editor at some point too, but both co-nominators stole my thunder. Minimac (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
2. Support I've seen Kudpung around a few times and always felt he was a good editor. Reading over his recent edits, I'm impressed with his temperment and clear way of talking. I would have no problem supporting this candidate. Worm 10:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
3. Another no-brainer. Long time coming. StrPby (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
4. Support I think Kudpung can be trusted with the tools. We have disagreed on some specific points but I am not going to make some childish grudge-oppose over a disagreement on an AfD months ago. Having seen Kudpung around a lot, I'm sure there's a good understanding of policy and lots of hard work for the benefit of wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Support. An easy one. Kudpung has plenty of experience and knowledge of Misplaced Pages's policies, and has very insightful judgment into policy issues. And he's pretty calm and mellow too, which is what we want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   And just an additional thought based on comments below - Kudpung does a lot of good work trying to help newcomers, especially difficult ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Support With a single exception (which I am not even gonna raise) this editor has always shown to have a clue when I met him in an AFD, which is all that is required for a good administrator. Yoenit (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
7. Support I am happy what this user has to say. Plenty of experience. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
8. Support - I see plenty of clue here, and have for a while. There is no real need to go searching through his contributions for it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
9. Support A very good editor. I thought you were already an Admin Kudpung =O – Novice7 (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
10. Super Support It's about time. I'm not worried at all over the oppose based on one diff. Kudpung tried hard to resolve the disupte and turn the editor around with no luck. It's hard to deal with very young people like Gobbles, as I also tried. Kudpung has helped write many GA's, and has shown much dedication to the project. He's the type of person Misplaced Pages needs as admins, helpful, dedicated, cool-headed, and intelligent. Good Luck Kudpung, you'll do fine. Tofutwitch11 13:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
11. Support I have frequently come across Kudpung, and I have always found him to be a thoughtful and constructive editor. He has a very good grasp of policies, and an intelligent understanding of how to apply them in particular cases. He frequently goes to some effort to explain things to inexperienced users, rather than just throwing a boilerplate warning at them, and looking through his editing history I have found that he regularly patiently explains things in a courteous and constructive way to editors who have created problems. These are characteristics which are of great importance in an administrator. Is he perfect? No, of course not, and Kudpung himself admits in referring to the ANI case he mentions above that he "didn’t handle it too well". However, we all make mistakes sometimes, and the fact that he is able and willing to acknowledge his mistake is a strong point in his favour. That incident was a year ago, and I have not found anything similar more recently. The ability to learn and improve is good. In any case, he merely "didn’t handle it too well", rather than "completely mishandled it". There are people with far worse incidents in their history who have gone on to become excellent administrators. Do I always agree with Kudpung? No, there have been times when I have disagreed quite strongly with him. However, that is no bar to supporting: there is room for administrators with a wide range of points of view. Kudpung is perfectly right in believing that the admin tools would be helpful to him in the course of the sort of work he regularly does. To be able to deal with an issue and move on to other work, rather than to have to seek an admin's help and wait, will help his time working on Misplaced Pages to be even more productive than it already is. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Support I've been watching the candidate for some time, and I'm impressed at the dedication and cluefulness. This nomination is overdue.--SPhilbrickT 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
13. Weak support He seems to be good at adminship but he already has lots of groups so he could do enough. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 13:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
14. Support No reason to expect the tools would be abused. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
15. Support No issues seen, positive interaction history. No reason to believe the tools will be abused. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
16. Support. Non-controversial nomination, experienced, demonstrated civil interactions, no apparent psychoses. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
17. As nom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
18. The diff given by the lone oppose sums up my impression at the moment ... Kudpung has worked very hard, he knows a lot, and his his heart is in the right place, but occasionally he says things that offend people. That's an observation, not a reservation ... he'll make a very good admin. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
19. Support well respected and trustworthy. Nomination statement is factual and well repreasenative. Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
20. Support. Intelligent, civil, trustworthy. Ideal candidate. -- œ 14:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
21. Support Another great candidate – integrity, trustworthiness, experience, temperamentally well suited for adminship are all concepts that come to mind when evaluating this candidate--Hokeman (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Easy! --Perseus8235 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
23. Support I run into this user a good amount while gallivanting about Misplaced Pages. As other people have said, Kudpung clearly knows what's going on in terms of policy, judgement, and civility (and I maintain that the user is generally civil even after reviewing the diff provided in the oppose section). Most of the time I think this user has more of a clue than I do. Seems like an obvious support to me. – GorillaWarfare 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
24. Strong support. Extremely well-qualified candidate, good answers to questions. The opposers' concerns are completely unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
25. Support as per a review of contributions and a very positive experience I had with the candidate, who helped slog through some seemingly-intractable sourcing of unreferenced Thai footballers. --j⚛e decker 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
26. Support - per Keepscases (and Kudpung is an excellent contributor). Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
27. Support Kudpung is the kind of Wikipedian I hope to grow up to be. I have absolutely no reservations about giving him the mop. --Danger (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
28. I think from past observations (eg the BLPPROD development and having deleted quite a few of his CSD-tagged articles) he'll do an excellent job in the deletion-related areas he's nominated. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
29. Support. A very dedicated Wikipedian, full of ideas for ways to improve the project. 28bytes (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
30. Support. Kudpung seems to me to have the levelheadedness needed for the mop. His interactions are polite, thoughtful and considerate, particularly with less-experienced editors. --CharlieDelta (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
31. Support. :P -FASTILY 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Civil, trustworthy, and a good article writer. I don't see any issues. Alpha Quadrant 20:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Kudpung and I have had some 'vigorous' discussion in the past, but I'm please we managed to resolve the situation amicably (I believe so any way...). He also meets my other criteria; therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting his candidacy, I believe he will make a fine and clueful admin. Pol430 talk to me 20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. Impressive candidate; will make an excellent admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
35. Support I've collaborated with Kudpung in several areas, and whilst we don't always agree I greatly respect him. He's done good work in referencing unreferenced BLPs re his own WikiProject and has been helpful both in uBLPs and death anomalies, especially where Thai is needed. Now if we could just get him to learn Chinese.... ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
36. Strong Support - It's about time, I thought you were :P Mlpearc powwow 23:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
37. Support Helped me out when I needed it, seems to demonstrate a strong understanding of the rules and workings of the encyclopedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
38. Support - great user. Opposes are fairly unconvincing. Orphan Wiki 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
39. Looks good. Inka 01:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Tiderolls 02:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
41. I was pleasantly surprised to see this up :). Kudpung is a fantastic editor who will do well as an admin and I offer my complete support. Airplaneman ✈ 03:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
42. Clueful user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
43. Support Yes, Kudpung may be quite a pain for some who can't handle the never-say-give-up discussion orientation Kudpung brings forth :) Ably trustworthy, knowledgeably competent, and humanly err-worthy, Kudpung will be quite a magnanimous and positive addition to the project. Wifione _....... 06:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
44. Support - I've bumped into Kudpung a couple of times, most recently with a particularly virulent SPA at Alex Gregory. He's been cool, calm, displays a thorough knowledge of policy and a has a good head for applying it. Will be good with the mop. Manning (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
45. Support - User is a reliable and trustworthy editor can be trusted with the sysop tools. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 13:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
46. Support I've had good experiences interacting with this editor. I have checked the details of the oppose votes, and saw nothing of concern.  Chzz  ►  16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
47. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
48. Support I was kind of leaning neutral, and I really don't remember having any contact with you, but almost the entirety of my own personal list of "editors I most respect and/or trust the opinions of" have come to your support, often on the basis of personal experience with you. In the absence of any troubling votes in the oppose column, that's enough for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
49. Don't agree with him on everything, but he will probably be fine as an admin :) NW (Talk) 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
50. Support Lovetinkle (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
51. Opposes seem to be grasping at straws. Juliancolton (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
52. Support Kudpung appears to me to be both reliable and clueful with the best interests of Misplaced Pages at heart. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
53. Support: Kudpung seems to do an enormous amount of good work and will do far more good than harm as an administrator. My support is however qualified by some worries about his approach to any questioning of the rightness of his actions. I have had three direct interactions with him and all I have found to be a little problematic. All three problems were due, I think, to his work on New Page Patrol, his failure to follow the sensible advice given to patrollers: Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author. and at least the first two to my own excessive sensitivity to having articles tagged with ugly labels.

    The first problem was his tagging of an article I was working on. The article on an obscure 19th century french political magazine, L'Organisateur, was tagged refimporve 1 min after an edit, 9 mins after the start of the article. This led to an acrimonous exchange: and

    This was followed by a similar experience on another new article on Raymond Lister where one minute after an edit and three after the start of the article - he again added a tag. This again led to an unpleasant interchange: User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Oct_2010#Reminder_about_new_page_patrolling and User_talk:Msrasnw#NPP. More worryingly this was followed by whole series of edits (20:32 - 21:08 15 Oct 2010) where he just added stub tags to twenty little articles I had created.

    My final interaction was via an Afd for another article where I saw his name on an education deletion listed article. The article was Queensland School for Travelling Show Children. This article was started at 02:25, 16 October 2010 and then there were four more edits before this user tagged it for deletion at 02:36, 16 October 2010 only 9 minutes after the article was started 3 mins after an edit. The thing I find even more worrying than this is that the user then claimed to have done substantial work checking the article first. Pre-deletion request research for this article took over an hour. ].

    To summarise: support given the vast amount of good work done. But I have some worries that this user's responses to others querying his edits, tagging and the like are not what I would hope for from an administrator but I further hope that after becoming an administrator his approach to these kind of issues might improve. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

54. Support - I have worked closely with Kudpung recently, and he is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia first and foremost. He's already had a large influence on the course of Misplaced Pages, and I would hope we can give him the opportunity to have a larger impact as an admin. SnottyWong  21:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
55. Just because he made enemies with some of the inclusionist crowd doesn't indicate that he would abuse the tools, calm and reasonable in AFD Secret 22:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
56. Support His level of involvement in Misplaced Pages, cluefulness, and willingness to discuss shows that he'll make a good admin. First Light (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
57. Support No issues here. WayneSlam 02:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
58. Nominator support. ceranthor 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
59. Support. Clueful. --JN466 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - Sufficient experience to use the tools with a minimum of mistakes, a clear reason for needing the tools, no reason to believe Kudpung would deliberately misuse the tools, and no evidence that Kudpung would not be open to review and constructive criticism of his use of the tools. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
61. Support A clueful, intelligent editor who would be an asset as an admin. Good temperament for the work required. BLPPROD has been a real game changer for the wiki, in a good way -- and I say this as someone who was probably not in favour of it, at first. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
62. This editor is good people and has a compelling use for the tools. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
63. Support. Opposed by all the right editors, for all the right reasons. Badger Drink (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
64. Support NPP is a rather thankless job, and having someone who's been in the trenches as an admin will greatly help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
65. Support We need more admins and you're competent and trustworthy enough. Swarm 07:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
66. Support. Looking at editcount, user history and contributions, I see no reason not to trust this user with the mop. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 08:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per diff provided by the first neutral comment below. While it appears that the interaction may have been with a rather difficult editor to converse with, I believe that it was bad judgement for Kudpung to have gotten involved when he did. I also have a problem with the interaction that the candidate chose to provide in one of his answers above. I will investigate further, but my first instinct is to oppose based on communication issues. Strikerforce (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   I really couldn't disagree more, for the reason I have outlined below in the "neutral" section. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Oppose Keepscases (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Can I ask you why? I hope you know that without reason your oppose carries very little wieght. Well, let me throw out a guess. It's because Kudpung does not agree with the questions you ask on RFA isn't it? Your behaviour continues to frustrate me.....Tofutwitch11 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Time for an RFA ban? Keepscases has made only about 1500 edits in nearly four years, but the vast majority have been to RFAs - usually asking ridiculous questions. That he can't even be bothered to explain his opposition for those who don't know the backstory doesn't help his case either. AD 15:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Unfortunately Keepscases has not provided a reason for their opposition, so we can only speculate. Since Kudpung doesn't have an atheist userbox, this isn't like the more memorable Keepscases opposes, so the most likely explanation is that Kudpung has repeatedly commented on the RfA gauntlet - and, specifically, the questions that get asked at RfA; it appears Keepscases is opposing a candidate who thinks that too many bad questions are asked at RfA. bobrayner (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Wot? No question? Keepscases, you've ruined my day. The only reason I agreed to run for office was for an opportunity to answer one of your questions :) Kudpung (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Should we indent this? Swarm 07:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Oppose- I look to an administrator as a representative of Misplaced Pages. Their actions (administrators), in my personal standards, reflect the thoughts and opinions of the organization as a whole. Not just the attitude of one individual. I also look to administrators, to show a maturity and a bearing that does not lower their words or actions to pander to a group or to sartorially comment on any individual editor opinions too come across as witty, as done above to Keepscases. Though you may not agree with their opinion, to belittle an opinion of another editor in this forum and in that way leaves me to wonder how you may respond when faced with a situation that requires tact and decorum to further Misplaced Pages's missions and goals when representing Misplaced Pages as an administrator. ShoesssS —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

   Oh come on, we're allowed to have a sense of humor here. What exactly would have been a better way to handle this (IMO rather awkward) situation? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Kudpung, ought to have commented on Keepscases snappy dressing. Danger (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Comment - You are right, we all have a sense of humor, and sometimes we forget that something said in jest is done with tongue in cheek. However, some people get what we are talking about, and some people don't. Sometimes the majority of our audience sees a situation funny, and others see a slur. And that is the problem. As an administrator, I look to the individual to see all sides. Not just his/her's or their friends or individuals in their circle of trust, but all sides. If I saw a potential for a problem (and took the time to express a written opinion), how many others saw it to? ShoesssS 19:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   I guess I don't really see what problem you're getting at here, but I don't want to badger you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   A warning to everyone on Misplaced Pages. HOMOUR IS BANNED. Especially if you wish to be an admin. No more jokes or witty comments or you'll be blocked indefinately. Orphan Wiki 01:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   You may find this little bit rather amusing, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   Oppose per the diff provided above. I might be willing to overlook it if it were less recent, but I expect a high level of civility from administrators. Kansan (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   I've changed my mind after reading through it again. Kansan (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Based on the TLDR answer to Q6, and your genuine surprise at Sandy's reaction to it, it doesn't seem you sufficiently value the time of project volunteers who aren't operating on your wavelength. Townlake (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
5. Oppose Seems to operate on his own personal ideas of notability and personal essays like WP:Run-of-the-mill rather than following the guideline's objective principles. For example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Avenues: The World School or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy. Determining that a topic is special or unusual in some way is not our policy as we usually aim to cover all members of a class for which there are reasonable sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
6. Oppose I don't trust this editor to be neutral and to properly weigh in what everyone says in an AFD. Dream Focus 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Do you have any diffs to support ignoring of consensus? (Oh, and don't try to use the AfDs provided by Col. Warden; these deal with policy interpretation, not consensus building.) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   I too am confused by this oppose; what exactly makes you believe that Kudpung will not be neutral / take things into account properly? ceranthor 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

7. weak oppose I'm having problems with "As a school however, it cannot possibly be notable - it doesn't exist ad will not for nearly two years. It will still not meet notability for schools until 2016 when it starts offering Grade 12 classes" . The (apparent) opinion that an essay on notability for schools trumps the GNG seems not only odd (and frankly mistaken), that whole discussion seemed off to me. I can live with the notion that he didn't find the sources in the AfD in question strong enough, but that (very recent) quote really bothers me. His answer to my question didn't really clarify anything for me. That said, I'm seeing a highly active and helpful editor who does a lot of great things. I'm just not sure I trust them with the delete button at this time. Hobit (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   I understand your rationale Hobit, but you are not highlighting the fact that the article is not in fact about a school at all, and I was just evoking an hypothesis with that sentence. My error was in referring to it as a school in my opening gambit. A global project that is concerned with the eventual building of a group of schools worldwide, cannot have notability as a school even if the page has the word school in its name. If we are to question my trust for using the delete button, (where this is the kind of controversial close that I do not intend to do anyway if the consensus is not clear - the other admins have made contentious closes their speciality), then please base your lack of trust on my AfD nomination in which I stated: Article is about a school and/or a group of schools that does not exist yet, and which may not exist for a long time. As such, the subject cannot have accumulated any notability: WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, and WP:ORG. That AfD had support from

   Jimbo Wales has more or less inferred that High schools ('as long as we don't create tons of stubs') are practically de facto notable; our tacit understanding, borne by precedent of thousands of kept High school articles however poorly sourced, has little in fact to do with WP:WPSCH/AG which is an essay only and merely reports Mr Wales' opinion. Furthermore, even the primary schools that are still required to defend their notability per GNG and ORG, are offered the exceptional privilege of being redirected rather than deleted, if they can't. There is absolutely no question that an essay can trump a policy, and nowhere have I ever inferred that it can.

   The key question in that rather unusual AfD which was closed as no consensus, was not so much one of notability but 'when is a school not a school?' - should the article be kept as a notable project, or deleted as a school or schools that does/do not exist? With all due respect therefore, I cannot see much of a risk of me being quick on the delete button in the case of any school. Kudpung (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

   Humm, my issue is with your statement that a school can't be notable until and unless it offers 12th grade classes. The GNG pretty clearly says otherwise. I'm suspecting you meant something else, but you seem to keep coming back to that notion in the AfD. Further, just because something doesn't exist yet, doesn't mean that it can't have notability; WP:CRYSTAL is darn clear on that issue. If you simply think that WP:CRYSTAL/WP:GNG/WP:ORG should say that non-existent things shouldn't be notable, I don't see an admin problem. But instead I'm seeing you claim that they say that now. That's a worry. Finally, though I suspect it's a language issue, I'm seeing indications you are treating the deletion process as a game where your job is to delete things. "opening gambit" here in particular, but also parts of you response to Q8. Again, I'm seeing what looks like a good editor who does a lot of great things around here and I suspect you'll be a net positive. But the above issues are worrying enough that I feel I need to continue to oppose. Hobit (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

8. Candidate will probably be a good sysop, and looks likely to pass anyway, but I'm compelled to sit in this section because his attitude against younger editors alarms me. A lot of his commentary at WT:RFA is age-related (and while it's a commonly discussed topic, I've seen Kudpung bring it up where it is not otherwise relevant a few times), and rather negative. I've always held the view that we can't restrict young people from editing unless we rescind being a free-as-in-speech encyclopedia, and alienating them is doing an injustice to those of our younger sysops/crats/editors who do a remarkable job. Count this as a "moral oppose", if you like, because it's meant in the same way as the moral supports that seem to come up-- best of luck, but do bear this in mind if/when you pass. sonia♫ 00:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

   Ooh, thanks for reminding me. Gotta have a talk with that boy. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

   Sonia, have you read this? It may surprise you to learn that I agree with it entirely. With the greatest of respect, I do think perhaps that the points you are referring to may be probably more concerned with maturity issues, and not ones of physical age. Discussions at WT:RfA have generally been about how to discourage obviously young and unqualified editors from running at AfD without offending them or discouraging them from continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. If I'm wrong, do please provide the diffs so that I can work on it.Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

   Thank you for the thoughtful reply. No, I hadn't read that page, but it is indeed very accurate. As for diffs- it was more of a feeling (which from reading through your contribs I can see may have been misinterpreted), but are examples which explicitly refer to age as an assessment of users in discussions not already about children. I suspect my general impression of your attitude came from comments more like this one where "newbs and minors" are grouped together on one breath. I understand that may not be how you intend to come across, but you put forth a rather judgemental persona at times. sonia♫ 08:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose ...escape deletion...clueless !voters...sheer dogged inclusionists...Not at all the atitude I want admins to have. RxS (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

   Maybe I'm missing an in-reference... but that doesn't make much sense to me unfortunately. Could you please elaborate? Thanks. Juliancolton (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

   See question 4. RxS (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose This is, essentially, a single-issue !vote related to the opinions and attitudes (about wiki-notability, himself, and others) that Kudpung has expressed in discussions of school articles. Kudpung has many good qualities, has made many excellent contributions, and seems to be seeking adminship for the right reasons -- so that he can contribute even more. All those good qualities notwithstanding, I must oppose him due to his insistence on what I will describe as a "Doctrine of Inherent Non-Notability" for certain topics, specifically pre-secondary schools. Additionally, I'm concerned about a pattern of expressing of contempt and condescension for various other contributors and a habit of congratulating himself as some sort of a hero because he has merged and redirected school articles that he considered to be non-notable. I first encountered these views/behaviors of his only quite recently, but I have seen them repeatedly. At Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Andrew's Episcopal School (Amarillo, Texas), Kudpung asserted that sources are insufficient to establish notability, criticized the teenaged newbie article creator for "claim to be a member of the Schools Project but isn't and didn't read the guidelines before writing their first article]," disparaged the AfD nominator for starting the AfD, saying the article "could have been merged and redirected uncontentiously with a friendly note to the creator to explain why," and then (in effect) congratulated himself, saying "I've saved hundreds of schools from deletion this way." This diff is another expression of the view that presecondary schools are inherently nonnotable, a conclusion that in this case was apparently based not so much on Misplaced Pages policy as on Kudpung's own (self-declared) vast knowledge of the world. Additional examples of Kudpung expressing that Doctrine of Inherent Non-Notabiity or otherwise being heavy-handed on the topic of notability for schools are in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eagle County Charter Academy and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Avenues: The World School, which have already been cited and discussed by others. I should note that in an exchange on my talk page (series of diffs) he objected to my allegation that he considers all elementary and middle schools to be non-notable, but his denial was not awfully convincing because he endorsed the idea as a good one (and chastised me for failing to recognize that he was joking). This diff is another example of gratuitous disparagement of another user. Finally, in this diff from yet another school AfD, I was taken aback by Kudpung's assertion that an article about a defunct school need not be merged and redirected -- am I to understand that things past are not relevant to Misplaced Pages?
    I fully expect that Kudpung will be handed the mop at the end of this process, but I want this RfA to induce him to (1) discard his theories of "Inherent Non-Notability" (yes, I fully agree that the vast majority of elementary schools are non-notable, but that doesn't mean there is any such thing as inherent non-notability) and (2) recognize and renounce the arrogance he sometimes expresses in interactions here. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    I'm interested in this concept of "inherent non-notability", because I can't distinguish it from rhetoric. There are some topics on Misplaced Pages which have been declared to be "inherently notable". Examples include high schools, human settlements, geological features, etc. These things are assumed to be notable unless evidence is presented to the contrary. Could we not describe everything that is not inherently notable to be "inherently non-notable", such that they are presumed to be non-notable unless evidence is presented to the contrary (i.e. if they can be shown to pass GNG)? Is there a difference between subjects which are "inherently non-notable" and those that are "not inherently notable"? We seem to be mincing words here. I've looked through the diffs you provide, and I find no evidence that Kudpung believes that secondary schools are inherently non-notable, in the sense that they can never be considered notable. I get the sense that he assumes secondary schools to be non-notable unless there is something unique or extraordinary about the school which sets it apart from the rest, and I honestly don't see the problem with that perspective. I also don't see any evidence of the contempt, condescension, or self-congratulation that you describe; this appears to be a negative slant that you are artificially applying to the situation. —SW—  05:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    I think my answer to the Follow Up question by DGG to question No.8 may eventually help to clarify at least some of all this. Kudpung (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

11. Oppose One of the most unpleasant and seemingly purposefully obtuse long-standing editors I've ever dealt with. I'm sure he'll say the same of me, but we do not need admins who are inflexible, uncooperative, superior, contemptuous, and incapable of admitting error. I mean, refusing to provide any evidence for a claim over the course of months, specifically saying that he is not required to provide any evidence for his claims, but that we need to change our MOS immediately on his say-so or else. Really, one of the worst people I've met on WP. (It's a bit late to dig up diffs right now, though he kept a complaint page on me, and even that shows him in a bad light.) — kwami (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose. While my own interactions with Kudpung has been positive, I have no choice but to land here, having investigated Kwami's somewhat vague oppose directly above. I was very disappointed by Kudpung's demeanor on Misplaced Pages talk:IPA for English, and the long-standing dispute with Kwami. A comment like (...)it just goes to demonstrate yet again (sigh) that the IPA and pronunciation articles are dominated by a bunch of semi-intelectual clowns pretending to be linguists. What have they been smoking this time? (though this outburst seems to be the exception rather than the rule), is not something I would expect from someone who has expressed their disapproval of drama-mongering at RfA. Having banned Kwami from his talkpage (I have asked you now several times to keep off my talk page. Any furthjer incursions here are clear attempts at a flame war), Kudpung goes to Kwami's to inform them that (...)I may feel that my only recourse will be to escalate to an area where your constant personal attacks and abuse may require some explanation, and where your knowledge of linguistics will not help you. Seems like textbook drama-mongeringa rather unconstructive comment to me. Not saying that Kwami has no fault in the situation, but they are not the one standing for adminship here. Thus, oppose for now. decltype (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)I never said any those things, never even vaguely stating that "that we need to change our MOS immediately on his say-so or else ", and I can still provide the diffs for every conversation we ever had, including the 58 comments I offered to Misplaced Pages talk:IPA for English in December 2009 and January 2010, and everything from the user talk pages. The 'complaints' page was a draft RfC with its components for editing it, about unilateral changes that were being made across the board without consensus to the IPA for British place names, and against which numerous editors had complained and who were monitoring and commenting on the development of the RfC draft in my user space. There were links on the draft to various comments you and I and others had made. I knew very little about admin authority in those days and I was intimidated by it, so although I questioned your authority to make those changes, I do not recall ever having been discourteous. After a long exchange of exceptionally cordial emails with one user who strongly supported your IPA changes who was prepared to discuss the problems, I decided to move on and the draft RfC was deleted. The matter remained unresolved, and new complaints and/or queries about those rhotic edits still continue to arrive at Misplaced Pages, but other than acknowledge them, I haven't pursued them.Kudpung (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    Decaltype, those issues were a year ago, and they partly expressed my sincere disappointment in the behaviour of an admin. It was one of the episodes that motivated me to participate in RfA !voting and in WT:RfA to better understand the criteria we apply to choosing our admins. I note that you have not included the diffs for the direct persona attacks that were made by Kwami. I may feel that my only recourse will be to escalate to an area where your constant personal attacks and abuse may require some explanation, and where your knowledge of linguistics will not help you was made when I was considering what the options were for complaining about admins. Suggesting to an admin that I may have to escalate his personal attacks, is not, in my opinion, discourteous.Kudpung (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    Thanks for providing some perspective. When the comments forming the dispute is scattered across many different pages/archives from a while back it is difficult to see the whole picture. But despite repeated accusations by you of incivility and personal attacks, I were unable to locate any gross violations. In any case, I don't think your RfA is the proper venue for examining Kwami's conduct. FWIW, In light of your reply, I have amended my wording above slightly. decltype (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

    I find it entirely possible that Kudpung behaved the way he did because he was intimidated by me being an admin. And I can hardly hold my own behaviour up as a model of rectitude. It's also quite possible that he's changed in the past year (the exchange at Worcester, though frustrating, was better than earlier ones, even though by that point we were both primed to react negatively to each other), or that our personalities simply clashed, but he was also quite rude to several other editors. (I really should back up my allegations with diffs, but frankly dealing with Kudpung was so unpleasant that I would rather not revisit it.) The truly frustrating thing, however, was that he insisted, again and again, that he needn't answer any questions or provide any evidence for his demands because he was acting on the behalf of others, who he refused to name. For instance, it took several months to get him to answer the simple question of whether he believed Received Pronunciation has linking R, which was relevant to whether we were on the same page theoretically when debating if there's an /r/ at the end of names like Worcester. (The British Library says there is one, many pronunciation guides say there isn't, Wells says he has an /r/ at the ends of words after some vowels, but not in a name like Worcester, etc.)

    Kudpung is obviously intelligent and well qualified to edit the many articles he works on. His overall contribution on WP, my frustration aside, is overwhelmingly positive. If I'm wrong, WP will be better for his presence, but I'm dubious about his emotional fit to being an admin. — kwami (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. It should be said that Kudpung has always gone out of (his/her?) way to give a well-reasoned argument for opposing, rather than going off of the basis of one question or diff. This is a neutral, but if there is to be opposition I would expect opposers to extend that same courtesy. Nonetheless, I feel uneasy about supporting an admin so soon after what appears to be sticking the knife in . I accept that Gobbleswoggler was an extremely frustrating editor, and was a good example of why we shouldn't blindly assume good faith. But in that instance the issue was resolved, and it was bad judgement to wade back in. —WFC— 10:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not contesting your 'neutral' !vote, but perhaps you'd like to go back 6 months and list the dozens diffs where I tried really hard as a kindly uncle to coax him into seeing reason and avoid him being given the chop. I actually rather liked that kid and felt sorry for him; his personal problems go much deeper than Misplaced Pages where he sought to escape the frustrations of RL. He was actually editing in totally good faith - albeit disruptive, unlike, for example, this one, and if I had got my knife in a couple of days earlier, he might still have been with us. See my comment about reading too much negative stuff into written messages ;) --Kudpung (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Point taken, and I'll mull it over. Perhaps "knife" was in turn too strong a word, but I nonetheless think that it was a questionable decision to return there, and that it would have looked worse were you ever a blocking administrator in similar circumstances. Although as I said before, I think it would be absurd to oppose you on the basis of one diff, unless there were further evidence that this was part of a pattern rather than a lapse in judgement. Regards, —WFC— 13:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   In fact the analogy I was making was that I might not have blocked Gobbles for another couple of days, whereas I would have given Crouch the big orange banner a lot sooner than the other admins did. No complaints meant to the sysops however, whose decisions I wholly respect. All of us concerned in both cases did our very best. Kudpung (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Actually I thought that Kudpung was making an attempt to be helpful to the person in question. He seemed to me to be trying to help the user to keep the block in proportion, and to encourage them to move on and put it behind them, rather than getting upset about it. He also mentions that he had drafted a "welcome back" message, but that circumstances had led him to drop it. I really don't see how all that can be called "sticking the knife in". Perhaps the message might have been phrased better in a few details, for example "Doesn't that tell you anything?" was perhaps not ideal, but still very mild in the circumstances. Substantially the message reads to me as constructive, and I would regard it as evidence in favour of Kudpung, not against. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   That's exactly how I read it too. A combination of exasperation with the editor and himself may have shown the edit as a little over the top but I felt it was more of a constructive edit than a "sticking the knife in". Worm 14:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   You may both be right, although I'm still finding it difficult to see it in that light (beyond reiterating that my choice of phrase was too strong). I'm going to stay here. The opposes are not baseless, but on the other hand I'm not concerned enough to join them. The fact that I'm not opposing should be taken as an overall endorsement, given how different my attitude to notability appears to be to your own. —WFC— 07:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral for now. The diff listed in the Oppose section is troubling, but what concerns me equally is the attitude of the candidate displayed with "For the number of edits I've made and the time I've been around there aren't nearly enough!" And "I was absolutely top of the class in languages and creative writing at school but all the prizes went to pupils who were less clever than me. I suppose the teachers decided I was good enough already and the others needed more encouragement." Sorry, but arrogance and award-seeking behaviors in an admin are not a good start. I'll be watching how this RFA unfolds to see if other issues of concern are raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Sandy, I'm sorry that you didn't see the total irony in that statement. I'm very surprised that you would even have thought for a moment that I would be so arrogant and really mean it. I am the complete antithesis of an award seeker as I have clearly explained. There is a difference, a very great difference, between arrogance and a genuine, even on an RfA, perfectly permissible light-hearted response that conveys no offense whatsoever. Kudpung (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   I'm relieved to know that, but you might want to lessen the irony while at RFA-- some folks may be even dumber than I am :) And I do suggest moving the barnstars out of your talk space, as reading around them and trying to post to a talk page can be a challenge for newcomers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Indeed, sometimes that sort of thing can be difficult to interpret. I do agree that the barnstars belong elsewhere - perhaps in a collapsed box on your userpage - as we have to scroll down quite a bit before we get to the actual messages. AD 17:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

    Done - as they were never there for ostentation and miniature ones have been in a modest collapse box on my user page already for a very long time. It really never crossed my mind that they might be a hazard to traffic, but you're probably right. Kudpung (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   No longer concerned, since it appears I am humor-deprived today. If Kudpung will remind me on talk here where we've crossed paths, I may consider support, but I typically must know a candidate very well before I support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   We've run into each other here with you at 133 comments and me at 126 comments throughout 2010 and even answered each other directly and uncontroversially. We have also shared a thread here also on the same topic, and if my memory serves me right we also shared similar opinions on the various RFC pages to get the BLPPROD done (but where those pages are now I have no idea). Your name is one of the most familiar of all to me on Misplaced Pages. You are among the busiest of editors and you can be forgiven therefore if my name does not ring a bell. Not to worry, not everyone works in the same areas all the time, and there are a lot of people around here. Kudpung (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, no, I'm not to be forgiven, and will wear my "I'm a dork" t-shirt all day for pennance. My sincere apologies for my irresponsibility here, and I will catch up and come back when I'm not humor-deprived :) Thanks for being so gracious in the face of my faux pas, and my sincere apologies for adding to the agida of RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)