Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:21 pm
by Randy from Boise
The gift who keeps on giving, Kudpung(T-C-L) , is now mixing it up with Sarah Stierch ( Missvain(T-C-L) ), dumping IS THIS NOTABLE? flags on top of three of her recent articles.
She remonstrated on his talk page, asking that Mr. Dumbshit exert the minimal effort needed to run a quick Google check of notability, which of course got his baggy tighty-whiteys in a bunch. Amidst the expected sanctimony, braggadocio, and bluster, Crazypants has revealed that he has dragged some of Stierch's creations to PROD, a back alley slaughtering pen for terrible articles, claiming "PROD is a much safer solution for the creator and much less burden on the community."
It would be loverly to see Kudpung wind up getting stripped of his Admin buttons by Arbcom and running a new RFA — that would prove to be one of the top five most hilarious events in Wikipedia history, perhaps. We now at least have the shadowy outline of a potential path to that party...
RfB
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:32 pm
by Ryuichi
How much do you think you could get a local pizzeria to pay for a Wikipedia article? Would you charge a different price for a different type of restaurant? What about a hotel? Or a winery?
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
How much do you think you could get a local pizzeria to pay for a Wikipedia article? Would you charge a different price for a different type of restaurant? What about a hotel? Or a winery?
Paid editing is not a crime.
I gave Ms. Stierch's edit history a fairly intensive investigative exam right when WMF was throwing her under the bus and concluded that her paid editing as a percentage of her total editing was extremely minimal. A couple items raised eyebrows, nothing was flagrant. She is a wine and food hobbyist in real life, so the line between the paid jobs and her pro bono hobby editing was an extremely fine one.
Since then, obviously, the rules about COI declaration have firmed up, but you can't burn her at the stake for hard rules that were not even in force then.
WMF was disgusting in what they did to her. Her editing, paid and unpaid, was not disgusting.
RfB
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Since then, obviously, the rules about COI declaration have firmed up, but you can't burn her at the stake for hard rules that were not even in force then.
WMF was disgusting in what they did to her. Her editing, paid and unpaid, was not disgusting.
RfB
The issue wasn't paid editing as much as the position she held when she accepted jobs. This was a no-brainer. Even if she didn't accept money and only made a promise to create an article for someone, it would not have been appropriate given her position. I'm not even against paid editing and think the COI rules are a tad overkill. But it seems pretty common-sense that the leader of a non-profit shouldn't ever be compromised by focusing on creating value for a private venture they are associated with. It has a self-dealing/pay-to-play form that a non-profit executive should have immediately recognized as problematic. The problem is judgement, not dollar amount or percentage of wrongdoing.
Now that she's not an executive, she should be able write whatever she likes. What would bother the COI folks today would be a revelation that the new article author is using friends/acquaintances/clients written reviews as sourcing in these articles as an effort to widen an audience for the food reviewers. I'm sure the "no profiteering of any kind" crowd will start hunting these down.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:22 am
by Jans Hammer
Now at ANI, but unfortunately on a tangential matter and looking like a horse that will not run at this stage:
Oh, this is closely related: Joe Sherlock came to Ms. Stierch's defense and Kudpung has retaliated by harassing him. Anything that moves the ball towards a potential Arbcom case is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.
RfB
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Oh, this is closely related: Joe Sherlock came to Ms. Stierch's defense and Kudpung has retaliated by harassing him. Anything that moves the ball towards a potential Arbcom case is GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.
RfB
Pleased to say I might have got this wrong - several calls for a reference to AC.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
I'm sure after a drama flounce he'd troll the reference desk as an IP, harassing the volunteers and charging them with promoting corporate sponsors or advancing a feminist agenda or whatever scary thing comes to his mind.
RfB
Re: Sometimes I am a Little Bit Slow on the Uptake
Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:57 pm
by Randy from Boise
Ohhhhhhhhhh, I just got it.
It's all about the old Stierch-was-a-paid-editor and Kudpung-hates-all-paid-editors thing...
Chief Twisted Panties started this whole thing by harassing Ms. Stierch because of her paid editing past.
There ya go.
tim
P.S. True story. I got pulled into a talk page discussion about a year or two ago, something like that. And in the course of discussion about something else, all of the sudden Kudpung was all in my grill relating to my "paid editing" position and history, laid out on my user page ( Carrite(T-C-L) )... I mean, he was really all over me dismissing me ad hominem as a "paid editor," not worthy of having a discussion on Wikipedia. He hates paid editing like pork chops hate Rottweilers... Seriously, what a fucking asshole I found him to be. So, if you wonder why I don't like the learned gentleman, that's where I'm at........
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 4:48 pm
by DexterPointy
If Kudpung follows his standard MO, then he'll resign as admin for some non-WP-related reason, and subsequently return in a very months, at which point he'll simply request himself getting re-sysop'ed, which will be done as a simple administrative action, since his resignation wasn't under a cloud.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 5:01 pm
by Randy from Boise
I'm not sure this is a big enough matter to be accepted and get him, but it's definitely gonna put him on Arbcom's radar.
Kudpung is an unstable person who has lost the trust of the community. That's pretty widely accepted. But getting to a case that will pull his tools is a tricky matter — I don't think he has shit on enough of The Right People yet. But the fact that it's Guerillero filing the complaint at Arbcom hints that he's really close to getting squished by a truck.
RfB
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
... But the fact that it's Guerillero filing the complaint at Arbcom hints that he's really close to getting squished by a truck.
Kundpung is perceptive enough to feel the wind of the truck, and having the sense to flee the scene in a timely manner, - thereby avoiding getting hit by said truck.
Anyway, commenting on this threads title "Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman": It's an obnoxious reality we live in.
As I see Kudpung, he's a vain pompous arse, who's patronising just about anyone, almost whenever he feels like it.
The idea that his targeting women, is a lie, in that it's a half truth: Kudpung may target anyone, using any irrelevant property of the target. (Not entirely unlike Troll Dump, who just happen to be far far more flamboyantly persistent and consistent at it.)
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:11 pm
by Vigilant
This reminds me a lot of Eric Corbett's trajectory.
Mouthy, arrogant, demeaning... all of it was A OKAY until it wasn't.
The spiraling, mewling fall from grace was both depressing and hilarious.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:21 pm
by Vigilant
Oh wow.
Kudpung goes all in with the belligerent variant of the Ironholds gambit.
Statement by Kudpung
Apart from the fact that this is ostensibly a vendetta, I trust that for once the Arbitration Committee will do a thorough - and by that I mean thorough - investigation of all the facts, and of the motivations of those who will come here to comment, and not be influenced by negative comments that will come from those who have no axe to grind other than a general antipathy towards adminship as an institution. I also expect that any sitting Arbitrators who have piled on in the past two years will have the decency to recuse themselves. By that, I also mean that the background and behaviour of those who have instigated, or caused this case to be instigated should also be thoroughly examined. I have not been accorded the time to react upon the exchange of email with NewyorkBrad and decide how I would answer to ANI - it is midnight here where I live and I will not be at the beck and call of a pitchfork-wielding mob. That's all I have to say and if the committee votes to take the case, so be it and it can take its course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
You'll do this case the way I say you'll do it, punks!
Let me tell you how you will do your work!
I am in charge of this case!
Imma show you that I'm invulnerable, bitches!
Fuck you if you don't do things the way I want them done!
Is Kudpung gonna have to choke a bitch?!
That's some funny shit right there.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:30 pm
by Vigilant
SandyGeorgia nails it.
Statement by SandyGeorgia
With admins and non-admins, arbs and non-arbs alike expressing disgust and repulsion at the comments made by Kudpung towards another editor, we see no remorse in any response from Kudpung, rather continued attack. This raises a character issue-- one of basic decency wrt how we treat fellow human beings, and whether we should have admins who may be lacking in that. I first saw evidence of this problem in this extract of a talk page conversation at the Signpost.
This incident does not relate to use of admin tools, but it points to an underlying failure to respect other human beings, dead or alive, from Kudpung. In discussing the recent death of a beloved editor, User:Brianboulton, who authored almost 200 Featured articles and dug in to help others wherever he could-- Kudpung responded with:" It's a shame in a way that not all FA writers are so gentlemanly in their approach to other members of the community as Brian was."
Whatever the reader may guess about what Kudpung was referring to, he was apparently not able to hold himself to basic decency, rather dragged other unrelated issues into discussion at The Signpost about the recent death of a beloved editor. This is the kind of person I would cross the street to avoid in real life, and I hope he is not given the chance to treat another editor as he treated Chris, or as he disrespected the memory of Brian's death.
If all of the arbs are so deep into sync with the admin corps that a large number of them must recuse from a case which is precisely the kind of problem the community expects the arbs to deal with, what's next? This is your job; deal with it. And not via allowing Kudpung to engage in friendly email exchanges amongst yourselves, while expressing zero remorse for what he has done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Calls out Kudpung for the garbage human he is and then calls out the cowards on ARBCOM.
I think since Kudpung and I have worked together closely in the past, albeit in 2011, I should recuse here. WormTT(talk) 16:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Recuse due to my own past conflicts with Kudpung. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Recuse as I commented in the ANI thread and made an effort to informally resolve this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Chickenshits who hide when it comes to dealing with a long term problem child.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
I'm not going to be drawn into an edit war by someone with your experience - I usually let ANI decide, although I generally abhor that noticeboard ruled by a gallery full of I-know-it-all Wikilawyers, but here's food for thought. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I don’t mind getting called out if I’m wrong. But for both Paola Ramos (journalist) and Jenee Fleenor they have no other external links and they extensively use Twitter. As for “wikilawyering”, I started WP:AN and I agree, it can be quite bad, but you accused an admin in good standing of misusing their tools, and then subsequently showed you weren’t prepared to follow reasonable steps to check if an article was notable before tagging the article with WP:PROD, and you rudely doubled down by saying it wasn’t your “job” to do so, and furthermore you told the admin their articles needed to be “controlled”. What makes it worse is you seem to feel that you don’t have to actively contribute to articles, as I can see you twice showed on talk pages you actually easily found references that showed subject notability "after you a-plied the PROD tagging, and then tried to blame the author that they should have done a better job and didn’t take enough effort. That’s completely against the principle of WP:AGF and you discouraged a great editor who actively contributes article improvement (not just link changes, wikignomimg and page patrolling, all important but also IMO in many ways more difficult than these actions) to the point where they felt they might just give up Wikipedia.
I am suggesting you should probably consider your actions on Wikipedia. FWIW, I appreciate your efforts also, but not at the expense of others and I certainly don’t like it when people make unfounded accusations against editors of very good standing, like the one I feel you targeted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's not take 'AGF' to far, shall we? The decision to list your previous (or other) accounts on my talk page rather raised my curiosity. I would also hesitate to assume that all admins and/or former admins are/were entirely in good standing. I tried to keep the profile low on the request for feedback I made, but some of you seem determined to open cans of worms - Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Quite irrelevant. You asked me to disclose who I am, so I did. You need to be change the way you go about things. I don’t think I’ll speak about the other accounts any further. If you want to take it further, do so in the appropriate forum. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I won't be, unless you give me cause to. However, your comments at WT:NPR rather surprised me because your past, 'might' not be quite as illustrious as others may be led to believe. Indeed, my question to the NPP community was to deliberately AGF on one person's editing in 'very good standing' , without opening any old wounds. Either you are not aware of them or are choosing not to be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kudpung: I appreciate you looking at your own behaviour and reflecting on how you can make changes to ensure more harmonious editing, as well as reflecting on how you can better understand our policies and guidelines better. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You certainly have an unusual manner of expressing yourself for someone with your history. There's a lot 2 hours of research turns up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That sounds... ominous, and not a little threatening. I feel somewhat intimidated, so I have taken this to AN/I. I’m not sure why you are “researching” me, but this seems like stalking and harassment and I really don’t want to be intimidated any further. If you could disenage from my talk page, Kudpung, that would be appreciated as I think I will try to limit further interaction with you for a while at least. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Kudpung seems like he's really disappointed he missed WWII and the chance to be in the Gestapo.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:38 pm
by Moral Hazard
Newyorkbrad seems never to have misused recusal, except when he recused from an Arbcom case about Ironholds and your humble servant.
I do not recall any recent misuses of recusal by GorillaWarfare and Wormthatturned, and I believe that they both have "taken on board" discussions of prior recusals.
My benevolence shall defeat all malevolence.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Newyorkbrad seems never to have misused recusal, except when he recused from an Arbcom case about Ironholds and your humble servant.
I do not recall any recent misuses of recusal by GorillaWarfare and Wormthatturned, and I believe that they both have "taken on board" discussions of prior recusals.
<snip video of cold fusion supporter>
GorillaWarfare's most dramatic failure was around the Oliver "But he's my friend" Keyes case.
Honestly, a failure that severe that should have been disqualifying for any ARBCOM position, in perpetuity.
Ira shouldn't be recusing just because he tried to head this off at ANI.
I suspect that ARBCOMmies just don't want to do the hard work and will end up letting teh communitah twist in the wind.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:05 pm
by Vigilant
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:10 pm
by turnedworm
We have a full committee. that's over a dozen arbs who are better placed than GW and I to deal with this case. I don't see that NYB should recuse, but GW had a prominent spat with him last year.
I, on the other hand, worked with him on RFA2011, running 2-3 proposals after, a few chats on Skype and met him at a Wikimania. Since then he has regularly referred to me as a positive individual.
I have no doubt I could remain neutral on such a case, but as Moral Hazard points out, I've learned my lesson. I'm keeping out of it. Given how strongly members of this forum have come out regarding recusals in the past, I'm surprised to see the about turn here.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
We have a full committee. that's over a dozen arbs who are better placed than GW and I to deal with this case. I don't see that NYB should recuse, but GW had a prominent spat with him last year.
I was unaware of this altercation.
Can you provide a link?
turnedworm wrote:I, on the other hand, worked with him on RFA2011, running 2-3 proposals after, a few chats on Skype and met him at a Wikimania. Since then he has regularly referred to me as a positive individual.
I have no doubt I could remain neutral on such a case, but as Moral Hazard points out, I've learned my lesson. I'm keeping out of it.
That seems pretty thin, but fair enough.
turnedworm wrote: Given how strongly members of this forum have come out regarding recusals in the past, I'm surprised to see the about turn here.
As I wrote, it looks a lot like trying to duck the issue.
You've got an admin, Kudpung, who is repeatedly way, way, way over the line, especially compared to someone like Fram(who really got ass fucked by you guys) and everyone on ARBCOM seems to be running away at the first chance from doing the job they stood for election to do.
If I'm thinking this, others are too.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
We have a full committee. that's over a dozen arbs who are better placed than GW and I to deal with this case. I don't see that NYB should recuse, but GW had a prominent spat with him last year.
I was unaware of this altercation.
Naah, you'll probably remember, though I think you were on hiatus at the time. It started with the "minor point" about Kudpung using GW's real name instead of her user name when reeling off a list of "respected" admins, which became a major dramafest when Kudpung took umbrage at this and Fram blocked GW for causing umbrage or something. And then it kept going when GW made a negative comment about a Signpost article. We had a thread on it, of course.
This current rigamarole is basically the same thing. He really shouldn't be an admin anymore — he's lost the ability to restrain himself, if he ever even had it in the first place. It's just common sense at this point.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Plus it carried on in a Signpost article a year later IIRC
I had not seen that.
I saw reflections of it in the Fram debacle.
Thanks for the link and I see GW's point now.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:49 am
by Randy from Boise
I'm fine with recusals; we have a full Arbcom now. GW would actually be more valuable as a witness, but I'm sure somebody will be posting her relevant links if this comes to a case. She should definitely recuse. NYB, being a lawyer, isn't gonna go over any lines and will be conservative staying away from them. WTT I don't get the recusal, but no matter.
This smells like its actually gonna make it to a case.
RfB
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 1:55 am
by Vigilant
Aaaaand Jehochmoan shows up to be wrong about everything as usual.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:36 pm
by Ming
Possibly the first ARBCOM case to die because of too many recusals. Think this might indicate how widely KP spreads his jerky behavior?
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:39 pm
by Beeblebrox
Well, you can add me to the list. I've met Kudpung in real life and we talked a lot on wiki in the past. That's not the strongest reason ever and I did hesitate to recuse until I saw how the discussion about a quorom played out. The reality is that most work on any particular case is done by like 2-3 arbs anyway, with everyone else coming in at the end, and I won't have the time to be adrafter on this one anyway.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Well, you can add me to the list. I've met Kudpung in real life and we talked a lot on wiki in the past. That's not the strongest reason ever and I did hesitate to recuse until I saw how the discussion about a quorom played out. The reality is that most work on any particular case is done by like 2-3 arbs anyway, with everyone else coming in at the end, and I won't have the time to be adrafter on this one anyway.
You crave power and as soon as a mate turns up you pull the shutter down. Another one who's fallen for his "I'm a lexicographer, I play the piano at meets up, I'm a former headmaster" shite. Fucking pathetic. Too busy already, resign.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
You crave power and as soon as a mate turns up you pull the shutter down. Another one who's fallen for his "I'm a lexicographer, I play the piano at meets up, I'm a former headmaster" shite. Fucking pathetic. Too busy already, resign.
Wait - Kudpung is a former English headmaster who now lives in Thailand?? For real?
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
You crave power and as soon as a mate turns up you pull the shutter down. Another one who's fallen for his "I'm a lexicographer, I play the piano at meets up, I'm a former headmaster" shite. Fucking pathetic. Too busy already, resign.
Wait - Kudpung is a former English headmaster who now lives in Thailand?? For real?
University lecturer, not teacher. You may be getting confused with RexxS, who is a retired secondary school teacher.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
You crave power and as soon as a mate turns up you pull the shutter down.
What would we say on here if Beeblebrox didn't recuse, he voted to let Kudpung off and then it emerged that they were friends in real life? Surely recusal is the only honourable thing to do.
Too busy already, resign.
That's another issue. It's worrying if arbs plead that a lot, especially if thry've only just been elected.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
You crave power and as soon as a mate turns up you pull the shutter down.
What would we say on here if Beeblebrox didn't recuse, he voted to let Kudpung off and then it emerged that they were friends in real life? Surely recusal is the only honourable thing to do.
I'd say that's exactly what I'd have expected him to do. But recusal in this case isn't honourable, it's cowardly.
We have the case of Donald Trump's impeachment to judge ArbCom's actions by: Kudpung's my mate, I like him so I'm going to turn a blind eye. Sad, very sad.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Very happy to see this my friend. Welcome back. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Then a more realistic one:
Your behaviour before handing in the bit was shocking and inappropriate. I hope you have taken some time to reflect on your approach and will avoid such actions in the future. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Different values...
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Plus it carried on in a Signpost article a year later IIRC
I believe that Newyorkbrad has made statements when recusing that a conflict with an editor need not always necessitate a recusal. Obviously, one wishes to avoid giving incentives to Kudpung and similar fellows to knock-out arbitrators by having conflicts with them, especially since arbitrators' votes are often predictable.
I believe Kudpung was obnoxious with GW, but perhaps she was also at fault. Is it obvious that she should have recused?
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:50 am
by Beeblebrox
"you crave power" What a load of shit. I've done this job before you know. It does not, at any time, fill one with a sense of awesome power. This is a shit job, I volunteered for it because for some reason I actually care.
There's a message from about six months ago in my talk archives in which Kudpung mentions that if I make it to Wikimania in Bangkok next year he'll "be making absolutely sure that my friends who are able to come will have a great time." How's it gonna look if someone who received such an invitation, along with many other friendly messages over the years, is now voting in this case?
And yeah, I'm busy right now. Not forever, not for my entire term, not going to disappear for months on end like some arbs did last year, but (not that's it's any of your business) I have this thing called a real job and we're starting a massive project right now and I'll be extremely busy in on-and-off doses over the next few months, I'll still be able to participate in voting on PDs and responding to the various other things we're working on, I just don't have the time at the moment to take the lead on a case. I would imagine there will plenty of other opportunities to do so in the remaining 21 months of my term.
Re: Glorious Kudpung takes on another prominent Wikiwoman
Plus it carried on in a Signpost article a year later IIRC
I believe that Newyorkbrad has made statements when recusing that a conflict with an editor need not always necessitate a recusal. Obviously, one wishes to avoid giving incentives to Kudpung and similar fellows to knock-out arbitrators by having conflicts with them, especially since arbitrators' votes are often predictable.
I believe Kudpung was obnoxious with GW, but perhaps she was also at fault. Is it obvious that she should have recused?
Pretty damn sure Vig was being sarcastic there. I believe there is an entire thread around here somewhere about it.
And yeah, if you know the details of what happened between them, she absolutely needed to recuse. Kudpung's been around a long time, he knows a lot of people, and he's really pissed off a fair number of them, including GW.
