The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While there will always be borderline cases, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think administrator tool use is not an issue of the RFAR. --GRuban (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINACCT and ADMINCOND are still requirements that administrators must adhere to. The Arbitration Committee has established that misuse of tools is not the only issue that may lead to a desysop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed, and the middle sentence here is relevant. However this proposed text has 3 sentences, two of which focus on admin tools. So most of it is not relevant here. Are we similarly going to include in the proposed decision any amount of text about other issues that Kudpung is not being accused of, as long as they have nice WP:OMGWTFBBQ? I hereby include by reference the sections about password strength, WP:SECUREADMIN, reinstating a reverted action, WP:WHEEL, and admin noticeboards, WP:ANYUSER. --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to quote directly from policy: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee. This proposed principle may have once been directly copied from WP:ADMINACCT, but it is slightly different from current policy wording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. --GRuban (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:ADMINCOND, Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. As in, respect the memory of the dead, and respect the mourning of others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing nothing in the presented evidence that leads me to believe that this user has not respected the memory of the dead and seems spurious. Am I missing something? Buffs (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this Signpost discussion, Kudpung brings some unidentified unrelated baggage to the discussion of the death of an editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "baggage". I see a compliment to a deceased editor. Buffs (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the concern is that Kudpung used that as an opportunity to take a jab at other FA writers for not being "gentlemanly". GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading it that way and I don't think most are either. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps SandyGeorgia can clarify their meaning so we don't have to guess. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Buffs thinks they know what most people are reading, nor do I know any way to make it more clear to Buffs than it already is. Whatever baggage Kudpung is carrying (I am led to understand it is some sort of "anti-admin brigage"), it is disrespectful to bring it to the discussion of someone's death. Almost as disrespectful as saying that he isn't even reading this discussion of the behaviors that led to this arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with what GorillaWarfare has concluded in the evidence presented in this case, but here she's spot on. It makes sense to copy the relevant portions of policy, not reference portions that are inapplicable. Doing so conflates issues presented. An applicable analogy would be a a ruling by the US Supreme Court on an issue regarding free speech and then quoting the entire Constitution (amendments and all) in their final ruling. How the Electoral College functions or the apportionment of Representatives to the states are not relevant to an individual's right to free speech in the US. Let's stick to the relevant portions of the policy at the time. Buffs (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is really important to avoid comparison with judicial bodies in any particular jurisdiction, even for the purpose of attempted clarification. These notions are not universally understood. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to explain why something is "unfair" if you cannot cite examples to explain why. Likewise, the entire US constitution vs one clause is hardly an unclear concept. Buffs (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Kudpung (talk · contribs) has been a Wikipedia editor since the beginning of 2006, becoming an administrator in 2011, and has performed over 100,000 edits, 10,000 deletions, 1,000 blocks, and 1,000 page protections. (Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Worth noting the contributions by Kudpung. IMHO, I think that should be a mandatory component of an ArbCom decision. No matter the decision, their contributions (and net benefit) to the Wikipedia should be a factor in a decision. By the same token, their contributions alone cannot excuse poor behavior. Buffs (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung has done a lot of very good work. I'm confused why only he is being acknowledged though. I think that GorillaWarfare and many people who also gave evidence have done considerable work for Wikipedia also. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because I am not, at least as of now, listed as an involved party in this case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Kudpung has interacted with other users in a manner that multiple users have found to be inappropriate WP:ADMINACCT. (Evidence presented by Rschen7754, Chris.sherlock, et al) . Specifically, they feel Kudpung has been dismissive of the concerns of others, failed to address reasonable questions, and responded to such questions with snarky replies that are not conducive to a collegial environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Too weak. (And I say this as someone with great respect for Kudpung. For more than a decade he's strove to maintain a civil and collegial atmosphere across the project, wisely focusing on RfA, the porjects "ritual, beating heart". ) There's clearly enough evidence to unequivocally say his behaviour has sometimes been inappropriate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel this is a bit weak. It's not a matter of him being dismissive, it is that he doesn't seem to have any awareness that some of his actions can often seen to be threatening or intimidating. That goes rather beyond snarkiness and dismissive comments. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that it's been threatening or intimidating. It certainly could have been phrased better though. I'm open to other proposals. Buffs (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the perception by more than a few people (myself included) has been that he has acted threateningly and in a way that caused people to feel intimidated. As I say, I suspect this is unintentional, but nevertheless there are many people, from a variety of different backgrounds, who have independently reported feeling this way. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear and irrefutable that "Kudpung's behavior has been assessed as inappropriate by some" It is why a case has been accepted. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.1.1) Kudpung continues to defend his past behavior is not indicative of any wrongdoing. Kudpung was asked questions and he provided answers. That they were not to Rschen7754's satisfaction isn't evidence of misbehavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The purpose is to show that Kudpung sees no problem with his past behavior. That is why this case was started - we have no commitment from Kudpung to do better. --Rschen7754 00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I sympathize with Rschen7754, I'm not sure that we can really take potentially unsatisfactory responses of a request for adminship into account in an ArbCom decision. The most I can say is that perhaps ArbCom members might read this as background, but even there I'm not sure how much weight they can really give it. This is not to say that there are not other points that Rschen7754 made that should be looked at though. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.1.2) Kudpung has made personal attacks: noting that a user's name has at least a passing resemblance to another language's vulgar term for one's backside isn't a personal attack, but they were unnecessary, mildly WP:UNCIVIL, and not in particularly good taste.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

That was completely unacceptable, and not the conduct I would have expected from an administrator. At the very least I would like to see an acknowledgement of how out of line the comment was, an apology. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what you want as recompense is not the same as a statement of the facts. Buffs (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.1.3) Kudpung has made vague threats to suppress criticism first shows evidence of Kudpung expressing an opinion to Fish and karate, that he felt Fish and karate's remarks were a personal attack. Likewise, he also expressed the opinion that he disagreed with AAjraddatz's remarks and would seek advice elsewhere; he also expressed that he felt any opposition to his Stewardship would be pointless. None of these can be objectively construed to be "threats" (vague or otherwise). Just as Fish and karate and AAjraddatz are entitled to their opinions, so is Kudpung; all are entitled to seek council as they desire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kudpung wrote " don't mind people writing their voter guides, but telling downright lies is blockworthy PA anywhere else." - again, this is an example of Kudpung making statements that threatened or implied that someone should be sanctioned. His tone is definitely threatening and I'm not at all surprised that at least one person found it to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate someone. My opinion on this matter is that I don't think that Kudpung is aware of how his comments come across. Certainly he should not be so quick to tell someone whose opinion he disagreed with (or rather felt is a lie) they should be blocked. There are other avenues that he should be going through, and all that he achieved was escalation of anger. This is not the sort of conduct I would expect from an experienced Administrator. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.2) Chris.sherlock previously asserted that such concerns had been allayed. That the same issues are now being raised here as "a very serious issue" is conflicting or disingenuous. Clarification would be appreciated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It should be noted that I can see Xxanthippe's point in the RFA which opposes Kudpung's. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) This was a placeholder for my remarks that, apparently, were never completed. Mistake on my part. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to. Could you give a diff? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Struck accordingly...this was a typo: a placeholder for remarks that, apparently, I forgot to include! Buffs (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what I'm meant to be clarifying, and what is disingenious or conflicting. I didn't bring this to ArbCom, and I merely stated that I found that him digging into my past was indeed intimidating at the time. What I stated was that, whether he intends to or not, his comments are frequently seen to be threatening to other editors. The fact that there are numerous examples where he has caused wide concern and made others feel like he was making a threat (and the evidence I gave shows this) shows that there is conduct that I feel he needs to address. What exactly is being asked of me, and why would ArbCom say I'm disingenous? Whilst the issue was resolved, the behaviour that led up to the resolution is still valid evidence of an issue that I feel should be addressed. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it was resolved to your satisfaction, why is it now evidence of an issue that needs to be addressed? Either it was resolved or it wasn't; it can't be both. Buffs (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An apology was provided to me. I accepted this. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t cause me a lot of anxiety and stress. Whilst I have accepted his apology, this does not mean I cannot give evidence of what he did to me. Someone can commit an offence or action against you, and you can forgive them. This does not mean that their actions had no consequence. I am quite satisfied with the apology given to me, but does that mean I should find it acceptable that someone made vaguely threatening comments to me? Should I find it acceptable that Kudpung told me he was “researching” me? The answer is, of course, no. Just because someone apologises does not mean that the other party can’t accept their apology and still, when necessary, speak about what happened to them. That would be silencing the victim.

I notice this is not the first time you have impugned the motives of another editor. Your options in trying to divine my motives were fallacious and wrong. It might be best for you to not make such assertions, it’s really not fair or helpful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that you don't understand what "impugn" or "resolve" means. If it's been resolved to both parties' satisfaction, it means the matter is settled, not that future punishments should still occur. Likewise, impugn invokes dishonesty, which I'm not advocating. Buffs (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impugn means to call into question the validity and honesty of a person. You told me I might be being disingenious (which means "slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth") because I had already "resolved" issues with Kudpung. I think you need to look up what that word means, and what you wrote. You also need to understand that I have experienced being targetted by Kudpung and I have every right to provide evidence, which is what I did. I think you need to understand that I found resolution through an apology, but as the case is directly relevant to my experience with Kudpung my evidence is particularly pertinent. So your presented a false dilemma when you stated that in therms of my evidence "the same issues are now being raised here as "a very serious issue" is conflicting or disingenuous."

I also note that I asked you a direct question in that I don't know what I was meant to be clarifying. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to ease off here, Buffs. There is a level at which constant / frequent critical responses begins to look like badgering. Maybe if you read this page more closely you will see why it is a problem in this case. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a remark pretty clearly designed to stifle dissent and to imply that my opinion should be discounted because I haven't read the entire case. I have read it and I can (reasonably) come to a different conclusion than you. Buffs (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a bit concerned that you seem to be beginning to personalize things with various people on this page who are just trying to help workshop: ([1], [2], your block threat earlier). We don't have to all agree on this page—after all, ArbCom will be making the final decision, not drawing it from consensus on this page—but we can at least be kind to each other. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm only "personalizing" responses to the person to whom the comment is stated. Likewise, I never threatened to block anyone as I lack the capability to do so and do not see anything remotely close to blockworthy here. Lastly, I disagree that people are here solely to "help in workshop"; I believe they are expressing their opinions on the matter (as they should), not solely to help others though. Buffs (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even after an issue is resolved, future conduct can be examined in the context of the past incident. Earlier you stated that the edits of someone who previously engaged in undeclared paid editing "have earned at least a second glance when it comes to commercial establishments/publicity." No, the community would not punish the editor again for undeclared paid editing, but it may choose to take it into account when evaluating the editor's behaviour. isaacl (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than a little confused by your statement. Could you clarify "No, the community would not punish the editor again..."? I don't recall advocating that. Buffs (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with you that the community would not punish the editor again. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, I don't necessarily think that punishment is what is required here. I believe that it would be best for Kudpung to acknowledge that there are aspects to his behaviour that cause issues, and to request that he modify that behaviour. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.3) In 2018, interactions between Kudpung and GorillaWarfare escalated to the point of uncivil remarks by both. Despite further escalations by GorillaWarfare that led to a block, Kudpung effectively disengaged and de-escalated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It should be noted that I can see Xxanthippe's opinion about the RFA which opposes Kudpung's and GW's views. While I can't honestly say I agree, such a concern is reasonable (that someone will push a POV) and is a valid reason for opposition. I find it unnecessarily inflammatory to call such remarks that of a "troll" or "crap" and "mean spirited". That GW blew up about someone using her real name (one she openly uses on her user page:"I'm fairly open about who I am ") was completely unnecessary. Likewise, I find her explanation afterwards lacking. In response K's reply was also abrasive to a lesser extent. Later remarks by GW about a Signpost article being full of "misogyny" were also out of line again. I'm VERY surprised in GW resorting to such unnecessary and uncivil remarks and even reinstating them after they were removed/being warned resulting in her block (the fact that a former and future member of ArbCom was blocked is astounding). I found the article unhumorous, but within the realms of political commentary. That people disagreed with it is reasonable; that they resorted to such remarks/actions is not reasonable. In this entire interaction, GW and K were not without faults. Both did not uphold the best standards of behavior, but GW was far worse, IMHO. I ask that ArbCom consider this evidence carefully when rendering their decision. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xxanthippe's opinion? Please give a diff. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

This was a reference to the totality of your remarks in the referred RfA. I'm not going to provide links to every single one. The point of that is that I can see your point and, while I disagree, your points should be considered in that discussion and their relative influence in this discussion. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which RfA? Can you give a link? Are you suggesting that I used the words "troll" or "crap" and "mean spirited"? I never did. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

No, I said GRuban did. Sorry if that was unclear. Moreover, I was saying I see your point in the RfA and was defending your right to have that opinion regardless of whether anyone else agreed or not. Buffs (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which RfA (for the third time). For heaven's sake! (I hope you don't regard this as a profanity). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The only one that GRuban presented evidence on: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Megalibrarygirl. Also, "heaven" is not "profanity" by any definition, but I do appreciate the civil discourse! Buffs (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I can agree with "That GW blew up about someone using her real name" is an accurate assessment of what happened here. Perhaps I'm missing something, but from what I can see in fact GorillaWarfare actually asked him very politely to refer to herself by her username. In fact, what she said was:

Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men

The person who escalated things was not GW, but Kudpung. Kudpung even went so far as to withdraw from the Women In Red initiative because of this request. If you look at what he wrote, it was:

If you publicly refer to yourself under any name, you have to get used to being referred to in whichever one users legitimately choose. There's one thing about me defending women from misogyny, but men haters could certainly cause me to relax my efforts.

That's a remarkable response.

I agree that things have been rocky with GW and Kudpung ever since, I'm not sure it was wise of GW to call him a misogynist, but GW actually has said that she took into account the criticisms she got on the Signpost discussion into account. I definitely think we should assume good faith on this point. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If my "minor point" comment is "blowing up", I'd hate to think what Kudpung's reaction was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, I didn't see it as a "minor point". Buffs (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have an interesting perspective, but not one that I think most people would consider valid. Merely asking someone to refer to you in a particular way is not offensive. There is literally nothing about the single request given by GW that would have made the average reasonable editor react in the way Kudpung did. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can say the request is inappropriate without saying that Kudpung's response was/was not appropriate. Both could be wrong (and I feel they are). The two are not mutually exclusive. Buffs (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.4.1) Clear evidence has been presented by GorillaWarfare that Kudpung violated Wikipedia policies on civility. While not excusable, in context it is not especially egregious.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am highly concerned that GW has differing standards for men and women "I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men". Apparently, it's ok for a woman to call her "Molly", but if a man calls her that it's somehow inappropriate? Kudpung is within his rights to support, not support, or withdraw support from causes at his leisure. The fact that GW took such umbrage (or even notice of it) is concerning. I do not see that such choices are inherently uncivil. After remarks like this where he's accused of sexism for mere disagreement or lack of support for a single wikiproject, I can understand his reaction a little more. While I feel his choices and response were an overreaction, given the context, I feel this was only mildly outside the bounds of what we call uncivil. As an admin, he should have recognized that and backed away...it appears to me that he did just that...eventually. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not accurate. I have clearly explained in my evidence that "I politely requested he refer to me in the same way as he did the male administrators he was listing me next to". I also was careful to clarify this to Kudpung after I realized after leaving the message that it could be misinterpreted to mean that I did not wish for men to use my real name; it did not change his inappropriate reaction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day does this not boil down to action and reaction? GW requested in polite, neutral terms to be referred to by username rather than being singled out. The immediate response (19 mins) was histrionic, including a talk page ban for another editor seeking only to calm matters. My reading is that this evidence is highlighting a failure to perform in line with required conduct requirements, not so much gender politics. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused where GW has ever stated that it is OK for a woman to call her by her name, and that a man cannot call her by her name? The request was quite polite. Personally speaking, if I had called her by her first name and she requested that I call her by her username, I would apologise if I caused her any discomfort, reassure her that I was not aware that it was a problem, and assure her that I take her views into consideration and agree to call her by her username in future! The response by Kudpung I read was very surprising to myself, evidently to GW herself, and it appears quite a few people were also confounded by it also. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men" stands on its own. So, it would be ok to call her "Molly" if we were only talking about women and not men? At a bare minimum, it was imprecise. I did not at all find it to be "polite", but a demand with an undertone of insinuating sexism. Buffs (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word “prefer” made it a request. There was no demand, and he could have declined politely. It would then have been up to GW in knowing how to respond. Perhaps she would have decided to keep her distance from Kudpung. Perhaps it would have escalated. We’ll never know - instead the response was highly aggressive and the start of an ongoing grudge against GE. Not something I expect to see in an experienced admin.

As for the “among men” bit, Wikipedia is predominantly edited by males. For whatever reason, GW feels that her name being referred to amongst men may be a subtle (possibly unconscious) form of downplaying her significance. I cannot say, only GorillaWarfare can really tell us why this is. If course, Kudpung will never know, because he didn’t ask. You, however, could find out by asking her but you also haven’t. Perhaps you should before jumping to conclusions? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified this on my talk page, but will copy it here as well: I've said this in a few places, including to Kudpung shortly after leaving my original "Minor point" comment, the Kudpung evidence, and the workshop pages, but happy to repeat: I realized shortly after leaving the "Minor point" message that my phrasing "among men" was ambiguous. The message I intended to convey was that when my name is included in a list of male administrators, and they're all referred to by their usernames but I am not, I would prefer to also be referred to by my username. That is, when listed among men, I would like to be described similarly. I did not intend to say that the gender of the person making the comment was relevant. I don't care at all if men (or women, or any other gender) refer to me as "Molly" or "GorillaWarfare" or "GW" or any other reasonable permutation, but it does make me uncomfortable when I'm the only person described informally when everyone else mentioned in the same context is referred to by their username. To be as clear as I possibly can be, When my name is included in a list of users, I prefer to be referred to in the same form as the other users, especially if the other users are and are being described more formally. I do not care about the gender of the person who is making the comment listing said users. I realize that this was easily misunderstood to mean that I prefer men not call me by my real name, which is not the case, and which I have tried to clarify several times.

I also agree with Chris.sherlock that there is no reasonable way the comment Very minor point, but in the future I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men. can be interpreted as a "demand". As for the "undertone of insinuating sexism", it is true that referring to women less formally than men can be a sexist behavior, and even when it is not it can lead to people interpreting the sentence as the women having less authority/etc. (see the link in my evidence). I would think anyone would want to avoid the outcome, especially when the intention to be sexist is not there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare's intention with her request is probably best explained by her here I asked not to be the only one referred to by that name alongside a list of men referred to by their usernames (here), which felt to me like an instance of the unfortunate habit society has of referring to women less formally than men, which has been identified as a potential contributor to gender inequality and undermining of women's authority (easily Googleable, but here is an article on the topic). (Is it still mansplaining if I'm quoting her?  ) --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.4.2) No clear evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim that "Kudpung resigned his admin tools...to avoid scrutiny"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I find this charge to be one of the most concerning/perplexing. I also fail to see how such a resignation of adminship would reduce scrutiny any more than taking a break from Wikipedia would do the same. I find this to be a move of maturity: taking a break when the stresses are too much. That people would use such actions as evidence of incompetence is absurd. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't that he resigned but he did it in a non-transparent way: first he tried doing it through private email, then he did it on en.wikiversity after a bureaucrat asked him to at least make it public somewhere. --Rschen7754 00:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim in the evidence (that I can see) that the temporary resignation, and the subterfuge involved in requesting it, had anything to do with incompetence. But if an Admin. resignation request is only apparent when it is unearthed, requiring the identification of an obscure non-en WP resource [3], surely that is the antipathy of transparent? Therefore it did avoid scrutiny. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it isn't as transparent as you would have liked, that doesn't mean the opposite of "completely transparent to my satisfaction" is "intentionally tried to hide it so no one would know". I've been in the military and know dozens of people who have self-requested their clearances be suspended for various, non-nefarious reasons (i.e. they are undergoing medical treatment, they are facing the loss of a loved one, etc) and they feel they should be restricted from some of their duties as they cannot give it 100% of their focus for a crucial role (In some functions, it's common to restrict/reinstate people 2-3 times a week due to simple medical treatments). With that background, someone restricting themselves is a good thing IMHO. Since many noticed, I hardly see it as "hiding" anything; Xxanthippe even noted it on his talk page. Buffs (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with RL is not appropriate. There are tried & tested ways in which notifications are made. Going off to a 'Crat by private email or to an obscure, rarely used associate site can only be read as trying to avoid community awareness. And no one has claimed that the reason was "nefarious", i.e. wicked or criminal. It was simply preventing community awareness - no more, no less. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.4.3) The evidence about a Signpost article about WMF employee did not provide substantial evidence of any wrongdoing on Kudpung's part. It did provide feedback by several people as to how Kudpung could improve.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This entire section of evidence reflected much more on Fram and GorillaWarfare's behavior than Kudpung. While some felt K was out of line, many also saw it as valid criticism. I don't think the discussion was as clear on the subject as GW portrays it. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The response by Kudpung to GW to her politely being asked to be called by her username was entirely out of proportion. It is greatly concerning that someone could state to another editor that "you were the one who led me to dissociate myself from my support of gender gap issues on Wikipedia". If one small and polite request by one editor can lead someone to stop supporting gender gap issues on Wikipedia then I think that bringing this to ArbCom's attention is quite valid. What it shows is fixation on another editor, and potentially holding grudges. It is quite concerning, especially in an admin. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"politely being asked to be called by her username" I didn't see that as anything close to being polite. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you see offence where none exists. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll agree to disagree then. Have a good day! Buffs (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious how you would have worded the request to be more polite, if you were me. My caveating the request with "very minor point" and using the wording "in the future I'd prefer" is about as soft as I can see making the request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, that's simple: "In the future please refer to me by my username". If we're to be respectful of all genders, we should have the same standards for everyone. Buffs (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare's request was expressed in a completely reasonable form as I stated elsewhere, and did not need any improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Except I don't care if Kudpung or anyone else uses my real name, so long as, if they are mentioning men as well, they do the same for them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except we may not know their IRL names. In short, you are asking people to have special rules for you when also talking about men otherwise you'll be offended. What if we only know one man's name but not another? What if we use their IRL names and not yours? What if someone didn't know your name because they didn't look at your user page, but they knew the other person IRL? etc. From what I see, you're taking great offense at an innocuous comment that sounded to me like he was trying to be kind and refer to you by your actual name as a sign of respect for you. The fact that you cannot seem to at least see the point here and instead want to dictate the behavior of others is concerning. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest of respect, I think that you are reading into this. GW politely made a request to Kudpung. Your rephrasing was not any more or less polite, only I note your rephrasing was in the form of a demand and GW’s was a request. GW has explained several times her reasoning behind her request, and I note that she tried to explain her reasoning at the time as well. I would hope that her explanation would be accepted in good faith, but I respect you have not done so. I hope the Arbitrators will, however, accept her explanation as it seems perfectly reasonable to me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me to ask to not be referred to in a way that has been recognized as contributing to gender inequality. I agree it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to know this from the getgo, as I don't claim it to be common knowledge—hence why I informed Kudpung and asked him to avoid it in the future. This was not "dictating the behavior of others", it was a polite request to be named differently going forward. All of your questions seem easily resolved by referring to people by their usernames. I also see nowhere where I've "taken great offense" at his use of my name—I politely asked he address me differently, and it was his subsequent reaction (calling me a "man hater", etc.) I took great offense with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a) Agree that it's perfectly reasonable for GorillaWarfare to ask to be called GorillaWarfare.

b) That said, though, isn't this section supposed to be about the Signpost article? Shouldn't the argument about what to call her be up a section? --GRuban (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GRuban. I do not concur with "It seems reasonable to me to ask to not be referred to in a way that has been recognized as contributing to gender inequality." Even the link she provides simply shows a difference, but even the researchers do not conclude any substantive differences in treatment exist because of it. Buffs (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it's okay for me to ask to be called GorillaWarfare, unless I am doing so because I feel the way I was referred to contributes to gender inequality, in which case it's not okay? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your question even is here. Buffs (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is how your comment reads to me, and I am asking if it is correct. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.4.4) Accusations of gaslighting and outing have not been substantiated by the evidence provided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

To be blunt, I think GW is reading into the statements made to her exactly as she wants to hear them in order to justify her opinion. Likewise, she cannot seriously consider herself to be outed when she openly admits she's gay and puts her name on her Wikipedia page. I don't see her sexuality (personally) as a reason for K's opinion. I do not see his statement directed at her personally. Plenty of people in the LBGTQ+ movement indeed engage in the manner Kudpung is describing (it's a relatively common criticism among ALL political positions and especially extremes of those positions "All the dems..." "Trumpers will never support..." etc); I don't see any evidence of it being personally ascribed to GW nor do I see it as a disparaging remark, just a summary of multiple opinions and the commonality of the expressed viewpoints. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed that Kudpung has outed me—you are correct that it would be absurd to accuse someone of outing me when I am publicly out. It was him choosing to bring my sexuality into a completely unrelated, negative allegation about me that made me feel he was treating it as a negative descriptor. As for your claim that "plenty of people in the LBGTQ+ movement indeed engage in the manner Kudpung is describing", are you claiming that the LGBTQ+ community is particularly full of misandrists? If so, that is quite a claim, and [citation needed]; if not, then how was it any more relevant for Kudpung to mention that I'm queer than it would be for him to mention that I'm part of any other subgroup of humanity, for example people with brown eyes, or people who prefer waffles to pancakes? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I tend to agree with GorillaWarfare here. I am concerned that when Kudpung detects any perceived slights by an editor he targets them. The fact that he brought up anyone's sexuality, even in passing, is quite concerning. To be clear, I am referring to the following comment:

What I think is a shame however, especially where on Wikipedia we are all supposed to be nice to each other (which in reality we are not), is when proud women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that: misandry. It's all a bit odd really

I think it's pretty clear he was referring to GW. This is not the first time he has obliquely referred to another editor, in such a way that the editor knew they were being talked about. He did the same to Missvain and I believe he was doing the same to me at one point. Whilst I acknowledge he apologised to me, I haven't seen an apology to Missvain. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "outing" wasn't the correct choice of words; "singling out" would have been better, which was my original intent. Buffs (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I never said that "the LGBTQ+ community is particularly full of misandrists" and I take offense that you would say so. It IS a view held at the extremes of leftism and, as such, it does rear its ugly head on the extremes of the LGBTQ community just like it does in the extremes of feminism and the extremes of left-leaning causes. I don't see noting its existence in those realms as a particularly extreme position nor do I see him particularly ascribing such viewpoints to you. Yes, I'm saying it exists in the LGBTQ community; I don't think it's any more prevalent there than most other groups of predominantly leftward-leaning points of view (in feminism, it is certainly WAY higher). Buffs (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you said that the LGBTQ+ community is made up of misandrists. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lordy. This format makes for some awkward threads. 1) you agreed with GW 2) GW did state that...which is whom I was trying to reply, but there is no easy way to do that with indentation. Buffs (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case let me clarify that on this point I do not agree. I do not believe that the LBGTQ+ community is made up of misandrists, nor do I believe that members of this community have any overwhelming tendencies towards misandry (I reread what GW wrote and don’t believe she ever claimed this). - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You take offense? I asked if that's what you meant, and included two follow-up responses depending on how you answered. That is not implying you meant that, it is asking if you did. It's clear from your response that you did not mean that, in which case my last question applies: why would it be reasonable for Kudpung to point out that I am queer when, as you say, misandry is not more prevalent among LGBTQ+ folks than it is among left-leaning people in general? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but (pretty much by definition as a leftist issue/concern/advocacy) it's more prevalent among LGBTQ than the general population. This would apply to any view with left-leaning tendencies. I'm not saying it applies to you (or anyone) individually. We're talking about whole groups of people and their tendencies. Buffs (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. This conversation is not productive. I'm just going to bow out of it. I've made my points long ago and I stand by them. Buffs (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking that, because claiming that LGBTQ people are more likely to be misandrists (or leftists, or feminists, or whoever else) is both unsourced and, in my opinion, quite unfounded. Accusations of "misandry" are quite unusual to me—I'm used to only seeing them coming from various parts of the manosphere—and it's odd to see the idea treated as a true phenomenon. [4] is worth a read, perhaps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided sources. I didn't say that they "are more likely". I was talking about tendencies. Your comments about the manosphere speak volumes. I'm done with this thread now. Say whatever else you wish about me; I'm not going to address this further. Buffs (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it's more prevalent among LGBTQ than the general population. You provided a link to a Google Scholar search of "misandry and lgbtq", which is hardly a source, and from what I can see none of the articles in those results support the claim. You also provided a blog post, which does not appear to even mention LGBTQ communities. And I'm not sure what "speaks volumes" about me mentioning the manosphere—I actively edit articles in that topic area and so I am familiar; I have also been on the receiving end of harassment from that part of the internet and so have seen the term in that context. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.4.5) GorillaWarfare's comments about Kudpung holding a grudge has merit. I can find no significant interactions in the past year. If GorillaWarfare is WP:FOLLOWING Kudpung, more evidence is needed to demonstrate it. Comments made by Kudpung about the "anti-admin brigade" appear to be intended as descriptive, not pejorative. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

GW's assessment here is only partially accurate, IMHO. Comments made by Kudpung about the "anti-admin brigade" do not seem to be about a nefarious cabal, but a description of those whom he feels are uniformly opposing actions based on a consistent set of ideals. This is no different than describing something as a "Democratic/Republican talking point" and explaining why he feels the idea has no merit. Rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over, it's a shortcut. There certainly is an opinion of "I'm anti-administrators" amongst our fellow Wikipedians. Some believe we have too many. Some believe that there are too many admins with extreme political views that taint Wikipedia and administrative decisions. Some view that admins who don't hold the same political/personal views shouldn't be admins (and this includes some admins!). Some view that admins have too much power. For whatever reason, there is a common "A-AB" view amongst some Wikipedians. Grouping them together like this is convenient for descriptive purposes and to assess common traits/flaws. I do not see this as a blanket dismissal of opposing views, but a description of opposing views. I don't personally find it particularly compelling, but I also don't see it as nefarious as some have portrayed it. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt to dismiss concerns by writing them off as coming from a place of general anti-admin sentiment, and not responding further. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is entitled to dismiss "concerns" as he sees fit (as does any other editor). Even under WP:ADMINCOND he doesn't need to explain further if he's explained his position. Mandating that admins continue discussions ad infinitum is infintitely gameable by disruptive/tendentious editors. Buffs (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a balance between requiring admins to respond to concerns about their conduct beyond just saying "you just hate admins", and requiring admins to respond to concerns ad infinitum. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.4.6) Kudpung is under no obligation to participate in ArbCom hearings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Kudpung made statements in the establishment of this ArbCom case. Nothing in WP:ADMINCOND or other policies compels Kudpung to participate. IMHO, the burden of proof is on those bringing the grievance to effectively demonstrate their points of view; the accused does not need to prove his innocence. I will not pretend to speak for him, but I believe his statements in the establishment of this case surmise his points enough and should be considered accordingly. Likewise, I didn't see one person ping him to ask a question (as they could have done). Sometimes knowing when NOT to say something is better than speaking up in your defense. Discretion is the better part of valor... Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point in this. This is self-evident. OK, clearly it is not so self-evident. I agree with this statement. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that he is not obligated to participate in ArbCom proceedings—no one can force anyone to do anything on Wikipedia. But since he has decided not to, that amounts to him not being accountable for his actions, and so he should not retain adminship. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really going down the road where silence = guilt? ArbCom will decide and that IS accountability; so would have been a result in WP:AN/WP:ANI. Discussion ad infinitum is not "accountability". ArbCom has never ruled that people are required to participate and they lack the authority to reach such a finding. That would be a policy that the community should enact via consensus as part of WP:ADMINCOND. I doubt you will find the support for it. Buffs (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized who I was talking to. I genuinely cannot believe that a member of ArbCom truly holds a "silence = guilt" point of view. That is truly astounding! Buffs (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Someone else has mentioned the Arthur Rubin case where Rubin was desysopped largely for this reason (though I should mention that past ArbCom cases are not meant to be treated as precedent). I don't see where I have claimed that admins should be required to discuss their actions ad infinitum—Kudpung hasn't responded to concerns raised in evidence/workshop phases at all, and that is what I think is unacceptable. In response to your edit about me being on the ArbCom, I don't see what is astounding here. The fact that admins must be accountable for their actions is firmly enshrined in policy. I would also add that "silence = guilt" is an unfair summary of this policy—if someone on Wikipedia wishes to hold higher permissions, then they sometimes have to make more of an effort to be transparent and accountable. If they don't wish to do so, that is totally fine—they aren't going to be banned for not participating in an ArbCom case—but they also should not expect to retain these advanced permissions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As an admin, you aren't required to participate, but if you don't we'll remove your admin permissions." Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds this more than a little duplicitous. Buffs (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly is not what is being advanced. To claim that it is amounts to gross exaggeration. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's exactly what's being advocated and GW has made that quite clear "if someone on Wikipedia wishes to hold higher permissions...they aren't going to be banned for not participating in an ArbCom case—but they also should not expect to retain these advanced permissions." Buffs (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.5.1) No evidence presented has substantiated claims that Kudpung is cryptically vilifying editors .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is the second such claim. As stated above, I do not find these generic statement to be nefarious in nature. I believe that those that feel they are about themselves may be correct, but they are not particularly vilifying and are summarizing in nature. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. The linked evidence is in the Evidence. 2. It's not about being "nefarious" - wicked or criminal. Obviously. But it is absolutely not in keeping with the spirit and ethos of cooperation & building together when an administrator believes and repeatedly puts forward that such a group exists but produces no evidence. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.5.2) Anyone banning someone from their talk page is explicitly permitted under WP:USER: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request..." No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that Kudpung "does not utilise appropriate dispute resolution processes."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Should we wish to change that policy, that's fine. Likewise, whether doing so is wise or helpful to a discussion is certainly a matter of debate. However, asking someone not to post on your talk page is something that Wikipedia explicitly allows. He should not be denigrated for choosing to do so. For the record, I've had people ask me not to do so. I do not believe the same and welcome all users in good standing to post to my talk page. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER is a guideline, not a policy as such. It is the frequency of use that is of concern. The other point you make is valid to the extent that it is not possible to prove a negative. It is simply a fact that Kudpung does not take concerns he has to the available dispute resolution forums / boards. So shutting down access to their talk page prevents the clarification of misunderstanding and harmonious solutions (as provided in evidence package #4). I see this as a requirement of WP:ADMINCOND - the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you see this as a requirement of WP:ADMINCOND, but it isn't in there. To be blunt about it, my personal interaction with another user was the entire reason that sentence was added (goes back nearly a decade). At the time, we did not have such a stipulation. I pointed this out and we all agreed (eventually) that current policies and guidelines did not specifically state it and, if we wanted to enforce such standards of behavior, we needed to add it...so we did. I don't object to its addition. Likewise, if we want WP:ADMINCOND to require admins to allow anyone to comment on their talk page, we should explicitly state as such. As we do not, WP:USER applies. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a bit confused. Are you saying it’s not a requirement, or are you saying it is a requirement? Because you write that previously there was no stipulation to do so, but then after a wide discussion the community realised that it wasn’t part of policy and so it was added as a requirement. Could you clarify?

Also, you state that the quote given is not at ADMINCOND, but it definitely is. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unlcear.

1. Once upon a time, asking others to stay off your talk page was NOT explicitly mentioned in WP:USER. WP:OWN was king and effectively states that you don't even own your own talk page. My interaction with another user was the impetus to change our policies/guidelines. Now, it is part of WP:USER. My intent was to say that I'm acutely aware of this requirement.
2. No, there is no such requirement in WP:ADMINCOND to allow anyone and everyone to edit on your talk page. You can still communicate with an Admin through any number of means other than his talk page: pinging, your own talk page, a another talk page, another forum like WP:ANI or WP:AN, email, via another admin, etc. Likewise, no user is compelled to participate in a discussion he/she doesn't want to be involved in. Obviously, the quotes of the policy are accurate; I was not calling them into question. You stated "I see this as a requirement of WP:ADMINCOND" and I misunderstood what you intended "this" to be. Buffs (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.5.3) Over the past 2 years, Evidence presented by Leaky caldron, et al demonstrate that Kudpung has made statements that were ill advised and were below the standards of WP:CIVIL

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

See my comments above. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs)

I agree with this. I believe that Kudpung is somewhat oblivious to the affect he often has to those around him. Certainly there is enough evidence to show that he has regularly been uncivil to other editors. It is the fact that he cannot see the damage he does when he gets fixated on an editor, and it is very concerning that when he perceives a slight, or gets into an argument with an editor that his behaviour rapidly devolves to wild accusations or comments about the editor. This is not the sort of conduct I would expect to see from an admin. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.6.1) Xxanthippe's claim of being accused of "misogyny" is backed by given evidence. Despite Xxanthippe's objections, being asked to refrain from commenting on Kudpung's talk page and to refrain from refactoring the meaning of others' comments was approrpriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Xxanthippe's claim of "Kudpung accused me on his talk page of 'misogyny'" is accurate, but misses the context. To this layperson it appears to be an assessment of Xxanthippe's contributions. Regardless of that, Kudpung could have been clearer in his word choice and manner of presentation. However, the second link indicates that Kudpung advised her NOT to refactor the comments of others to change the meaning and cited (see WP:TPO). In this thread, multiple people advised Xxanthippe to dial it back and she chose not to. As an admin, such a warning was appropriate and not out of line. Even a warning from a non-admin would have been appropriate. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to again point out that what we see here is another example of an admin making threats to sanction someone inappropriately. It is not appropriate for an admin to say to someone else that "Xxanthippe needs to be very careful that his repeated and self-emphasised attitude to women doesn't get rewarded with a straight site ban". That is not appropriate. Noone should be campaigning or sending messages that imply they actually will perform a "straight site ban" without discussing this firstly with the knowledge of the editor in question, and certainly it should not be an assertion that should be made on someone else’s talk page. I created WP:AN for such things - for maximum transparency and to prevent even the perception of abuse of power. An admin of Kudpung's experience should absolutely know this, and it is very concerning that he does not seem to realise that this was way out of line and could be perceived (let alone actually!) as an abuse of power! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A warning of a sanction for misbehavior is not only warranted, but a requirement. You can certainly argue otherwise, but You cannot simultaneously argue that policy should be upheld and at the same time it should be ignored. I see these as strong, personalized warnings (some are indeed inappropriate though). As long as we don't have a cohesive warning system and regulars take extreme umbrage at being "templated", we will continue to have these problems. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didn’t communicate this directly with Xxanthippe. There was no notification made to that user. And he shouldn’t be enacting an indefinite ban without asking other admins to first review his decision. Certainly it’s a threat. I can think of a dozen ways in which to express this in a less intimidating fashion. For instances, you could say “These comments could be seen as insulting or construed as a personal attack. Could Xxanthippe please stop making these comments? As they can be unhelpful for the project at large, further such comments might lead to sanctions.” That’s succinct, it asks the person to stop what you feel to be a problem (not saying it was, just showing the phrasing) it would have alerted the user, it gives them a chance to review the issue and respond and gives them clear guidance on the potential consequences of not changing their behaviour, as well as explaining it is disruptive to Wikipedia. The way it was phrased was a command, it was unnecessarily aggressive and intimidatory and it was not said directly to the person being referred to. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we will agree to disagree. Buffs (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but just to make sure I know what I’m disagreeing about - are you saying Kudpung directly notified Xxanthippe in that message? You refer to a specific policy that says this should be done, but I can’t see where in that comment such an action took place. Could you please clarify? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Xxanthippe needs to be very careful that his repeated and self-emphasised attitude to women doesn't get rewarded with a straight site ban..." sounds like a warning to me. Buffs (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs I understand, but that that was not what I asked. Where in that message did he directly notify Xxanthippe? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no notification to Xxanthippe that the "warning" had been issued. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That was in a thread on his talk page to which Xxanthippe responded. Warnings do not need to be templates. "Xxanthippe needs to be very careful...[or he will be] rewarded with a straight site ban" sounds like a warning to me, not a threat. Your opinion may vary. I don't see a point in continuing this discussion. Buffs (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need, but I think you have confirmed that you acknowledge Kudpung did not directly alert Xxanthippe. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.6.2) There is no evidence to substantiate Xxanthippe's claim that Kudpung carried out actions and made threats in order to suppress and conceal criticism

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is probably the most egregious example of misleading statements by Xxanthippe. First, the claim of the use of "misogyny" is repeated. Second, there is no evidence presented that Kudpung used any administrative tools in any inappropriate manner. Third, there's no evidence of a motive for any such actions taken. Accordingly, this entire section of "evidence" should be ignored in its entirety as it does not demonstrate what it purports. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not valid. See the discussion above of Xxanthippe's evidence p1 Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Repetitious = not additional evidence. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.6.3) Evidence presented by Xxanthippe in this section does not demonstrate that Kudpung engaged in behavior that could be categorized as lack of courtesy expected from an administrator

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

At this point, this is getting pedantic/ridiculous. First the fact that you're anyone is a woman or a man is completely irrelevant. Tossing it in to elicit sympathy is completely unnecessary. Kudpung was asking you to stop. That is a reasonable request (one you're free to ignore) and At this point, you're effectively repeating the same discussion over and over from different angles. There's no new evidence in this section that wasn't addressed in a previous section. It's like your mom telling you to clean your room because your dirty clothes are everywhere. "Your room is a pig sty! You need to pick up everything, take care of your shirts, put away your shoes, don't leave that stuff out..." (all the time simply saying the same thing over and over in different ways as if it's something else you needed to do...in fact, it's the same thing: "dirty clothes are out, put them up"). Given this repetition, this is beginning to feel like a persecution complex. While it could exist, I'm not seeing evidence of it here. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have misread their evidence; Xxanthippe has not mentioned their gender. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Xxanthippe explicitly mentioned gender: "In a discussion on another editor's talk page of Kudpung's rude and dismissive treatment of a WOMAN editor Kundpung told me to 'pipe down'" (EMPHASIS mine). I never stated it was/wasn't Xxanthippe's gender, only that it was mentioned. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said above, First the fact that you're a woman or a man is completely irrelevant. Tossing it in to elicit sympathy is completely unnecessary. Kudpung was asking you to stop.. If you didn't intend "you" in the first sentence to refer to the same person as in the third sentence, it would be helpful to reword the first sentence. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl, I meant the general "you", not "you specifically". Point taken, edited. Buffs (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs I think you need to be careful when it comes to characterizing someone's evidence as "Tossing it in to elicit sympathy". - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include it unless it was there to elicit sympathy. I'm welcome to alternatives. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You impune their motives and admit you could be wrong. I don’t consider this an attempt to elicit sympathy but a genuine attempt to show what Xxanthippe believes to be uncivil behaviour. Given you are not a mind reader, it is impossible for you to know their motives, so saying what you said is particularly unhelpful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impugning motives. I'm saying they are attempting to elicit an emotional response vs a factual one based on those choices of words. I never said I admitted I could be wrong, but I'd be a fool to say I wouldn't accept more information/clarification. In the absence of more info, I stand by my assessment. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you are. That’s the very definition of impugning their motive. The motive you have given is that they are trying to “elicit sympathy”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, "impugn" implies dishonesty. I'm saying you're making an appeal to emotion over facts, a logical fallacy where you are in error. I'm not calling into question your honesty or integrity, just accuracy. Buffs (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the cited source (Mirriam-Webster) does not refer to honesty in the prinary definition given. Lexico, citing Oxford, refers to honesty as one of three possible aspects of a statement or motive that might be "called into question". In other words, per the available sources, the term "impugn" seems to apply (in the sense of call into question the validity of a statement). Perhaps Buffs should slow down before making assumptions about what words mean, according to the wider speech community. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity" - I'm reading "oppose as false"/"lacking integrity" as "dishonesty". Buffs (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.6.4) Xxanthippe's assessment of additional Kudpung's long term behavior problems lacks substantiating evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is not Kudpung's responsibility to inspire others. That one editor doesn't agree with another's choices and that demoralizes you is not indicative of misbehavior. Likewise, if you're looking to people on the internet as a source of such inspiration, I fear you're going to continue to be disappointed. Second, people disagree all the time and saying that someone is contentious is not necessarily a bad thing. In an RfA, there are going to be disagreements; that is the nature of the process. Participating in them virtually guarantees you'll be "contentious" to someone. This is not evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not seeing evidence here that beyond comments from 2 years ago, Kudpung "is a disruptive influence on Wikipedia." While this information could be 100% accurate, I do not see the evidence here to back up these claims. Buffs (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My summary of Kudpung's long term behavior[5] draws on the the evidence of other editors as well as myself to this Arbitration request. In the years that I have been editing Wikipedia I have observed scores of administrators carrying out their duties silently and effectively. Occasionally there are hiccups, but soon business resumes as usual. In the case of Kudpung's activity as an administrator, he travels through Wikipedia leaving a trail of drama and resentment in his wake. (The Signpost debacle which led to the surreptitious surrendering of his administrative authority is an example of this). This is just too disruptive to be acceptable for the smooth functioning of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not seeing any "surreptitious surrendering". Likewise, I don't see a complete "trail of drama and resentment in his wake". Nor do I see the "smooth functioning" of Wikipedia being impaired. We just passed our 6 millionth article. Likewise, "smooth" is ill defined to the point that it could mean anything. We will always have disagreements. Someone's feelings will always be hurt. Someone else won't get their way. In that sense, it will never be "smooth". 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The surreptitious surrendering was dealt with in GorillaWarfare's evidence p2. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think that singling out anyone's assessment in the ArbCom findings is appropriate or helpful. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I haven't singled out any one person's assessment. I've looked at ALL of the evidence and pointed out what I found to be compelling and what I didn't and why. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, what I’m saying is that this shouldn’t be a specific finding. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I see what you're saying. ok! Buffs (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.7) There is no evidence that Kudpung's improperly used NPP. Reasonable people can disagree whether the articles should have been PROD'ed or nominated for AfD; most in their original form lacked an appropriate assertion of notability that has either been rectified or improved. Missvain assumes the article nominations are reprisal, but provides no evidence other than timing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It seems to me that Missvain is taking umbrage that Kudpung (or possibly anyone) would challenge her at all, which is odd. In her assessment, she cites the standard template as evidence that "no attention or care was put into the PRODs". This is absolute rubbish...it's just the automated process. Regardless of how experienced she is, the articles were lacking notability at the time they were PROD'ed, IMHO. She attempts to use emotional language rather than facts to present her evidence ("I was anxiety ridden" "I was so horrified by Kudpung's response, I decided to not even respond or participate." "I was livid"). It's of note that she feels her emotions at the time justified/explained a less-than-appropriate response. Likewise, Boing! said Zebedee has explained (without contest from anyone) that Missvain has a history of Undeclared Paid Editing. Accordingly, her contributions have earned at least a second glance when it comes to commercial establishments/publicity. I personally feel that not all of these should have been PROD'ed and tagging them for improvement would have been a better first step, it isn't completely unreasonable to PROD or tag for AfD either. Missvain should know that a little extra scrutiny on her contributions is reasonable. Lastly, it is not inappropriate to talk about someone without tagging them (at least it isn't written down in any policy I'm aware of). While it's arguably better, it isn't required. It's perplexing that such a claim of impropriety is assessed by Missvain as so egregious that it takes up nearly half of her evidence with no explanation as to why it is improper. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a correct characterization of what happened here. I was watching the discussion on Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and what Kudpung wrote was:

Not wishing to detract from the discussion about redirects, but a curious concourse of circumstances led me to discover again an autopatrolled editor creating dozens of short articles that are barely notable or not even notable at all. Normally I would simply remove the autopatrolled flag, but in this instance, the user is an admin.

This was done shortly after PRODing five of Missvain's articles. This is, yet again, evidence of the careful alluding to another editor without speaking to them directly, but in such a way that they find out that they were speaking about them. It was absolutely clear that he was referring to Missvain. It is also not that case that Missvain didn't put any care or attention into the articles. They were each sourced well, and it is quite clear that Kudpung did not even bother to look for the notability of the subjects - even via a cursory Google search! - before he tagged them due to notability concerns. In fact, at one point he comes back to the Talk:Evel Pie page and writes the following:

Missvain, if you had Googled it yourself before publishing it, you'd have found your 'ton more sources' . So easy, it would have saved other people the need to control your work.

Aside from the fact that he stated that he needed to "control" the work of Missvain, he shows that he never actually checked to find out if the article is notable or not. Kudpung still maintains to this day that when he tags articles he can do so on a whim, with no attempt to even do cursory searches to see if the article is notable or not. That is, IMO, unacceptable. I would like to see some acknowledgment of this fact, and evidence when he PRODs articles that he has done some basic research before he says an article is not notable. Alternatively, I think he should be prevented from adding the PROD tag for notability until we can see that he knows better. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines specifies our procedures on the matter. As stated above, tagging the articles for improvement would have been more appropriate, IMHO, but I also can see that, at the time, you could have made an argument that the articles in question failed to meet notability requirements and, since the rule is based on "uncontroversial deletion candidates". Obviously, someone disagreed and a discussion should ensue to address the tagger's concerns. I see nothing inappropriate about that process; and it's how the process is designed to work. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So reading that process, it says that “If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself”. It then says “If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them“ then it might be worthwhile merging or PRODing. He didn’t do either of these things. In fact, he literally said this on the talk page - one time he popped up to say that a Google search found notable sources, and on another article he even gave the sources! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I wouldn't have done it that way. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So my point stands, Kudpung is not tagging articles appropriately. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3.8) Evidence presented by Headbomb of Kudpung's actions does not rise to the level of being labeled incivility

Addendum: Bri has explicitly confirmed that Kudpung had nothing to do with the publishing of the article

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Headbomb's description of this interaction is lacking. First of all, Headbomb called the choice to publish the article as a "fuckup", multiple times repeated "you fucked up", and stood by that choice of language. IMHO, that alone should have been grounds for a block. Attributing actions to him that were not his is an inherently disingenuous and hostile assessment. Stating that such hostile language and other interactions could lead to a block isn't unreasonable. Even after realizing that Kudpung had nothing to do with the publishing of the article, Headbomb has not retracted his remarks and, instead, has cited Kudpung's pretty reasonable reaction as evidence of malfeasance. This is bizarre. Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to publish a garbage transphobic piece was clearly a fuck up by The Signpost, as evidenced by the resulting hurt and drama. So yes, I stand by that assessment. Calling a spade a spade and holding The Signpost editors' feet to the flame when they make mistakes isn't grounds for a block. Being responsible for what gets published and taking blame when things go sideways is literally the responsibility of an editor-in-chief. He was listed as EIC at the time of his comments, and then attack my work on Wikipedia when I raised concerns about publishing the piece. If Kudpung wasn't EiC at the time, the only thing he had to say was "I resigned on X, the 'about us' page is outdated". Not "claiming I'm the editor of the Signpost/criticising the Signpost is a personal attack". (To be clear, he never stated what he considered to be the personal attacks, but those "NPA" warnings and threats of blocks always followed me pointing out he was co-EiC of the Signpost, with supporting links to the Signpost about page). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this NPA block warning should not have been issued. An administrator should not be blocking someone if they feel they are being attacked, it is a basic principle that it is a complete conflict to block someone you are having a dispute with. In this case, Kudpung may well have felt they were being attacked, but others may not have seen it that way. Certainly, I feel that criticising someone for writing an article in the Signpost is par for the course. You may not like it, but when you publish something so opinionated then the author should not be so thin-skinned as to react badly to even very mild criticism (which is what I feel this was).

Perhaps I'm wrong about Headbomb's criticism. But that was not for Kudpung to decide, he should have sent this to WP:AN/I and asked for input. What this shows is yet another example of him making threats to editors in appropriately. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this as a threat. Likewise, Headbomb, continued use of profanity is grounds for blocking under WP:CIVIL. Please refrain from it in the future. Pointing out political disagreements/problematic logic in transsexual claims is not "transphobic", regardless of how you feel on the subject. Likewise, I don't think it was wise to publish such a piece nor do I support the stated language. But it doesn't mean it's not above discussion/criticism. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for you to be issuing warnings about events that happened some time ago. You are not an arbitrator so you have no business directing the actions of anyone on this page. It would be best if you need to provide a warning that you do it in a more appropriate venue. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just as much a right to assess someone's evidence here (as well as their continued profanity-tinged remarks...the ones made yesterday, not in the past) as anyone else. I am not "directing the actions of anyone on this page", I politely requested someone be more civil in their remarks. Headbomb can choose to comply with my request or not; it's up to him. Admins/Arbs can assess accordingly as they see fit. Unless it continues, I see no reason to continue to escalate the situation.

As for the rest, let me get this straight: you're telling me that a statement of fact + polite request is a "warning" (something you claim I shouldn't be doing here)? And, completely perplexing to me, your solution is that you choose to "warn" me about my behavior in the same venue? Your sense of what constitutes a "warning" and and where a "warning" is appropriate is quite hypocritical. Buffs (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it has simply been a statement of fact, I would t have said anything. But you did write “Please refrain from it in the future.” That could be construed as witness intimidation, even if you didn’t mean to do so. Like I say, there are better forums to make this request. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't do XYZ" is "witness intimidation"?!?! Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you're saying that this could be construed as criminal activity? Are you serious? Wow. Just wow. I only POLITELY asked someone to be civil when, in my estimation, they were not.

Too many people here are WAY too springloaded into "I'm offended therefore you're oppressing people". There's no "intimidation" here and I'm not going to fragment this discussion into other pages unless it's absolutely necessary. Buffs (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could say likewise with you then, given you found GW’s request to Kudpung to be offensive. I stand by my comments. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming censorship or intimidation, you (perplexingly) are. Buffs (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to publish "Pesky pronouns" was mine alone. I took public responsibility for it [6] [7], and initiated the search for a new E-in-C. There should be no blowback on Kudpung for that incident. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that information. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather immaterial to Kudpung's reactions and threats. As I said above, all Kudpung had to do was say something like "I resigned on X, the 'about us' page is outdated"." It also does not absolve him of his initial casting of aspersions either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4) At this time, insufficient evidence has been presented to warrant desysopping Kudpung.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed. But IMO there does have to be some kind of lesser sanction, or better still a commitment by Kudpung to avoid the behaviour that caused so much distress & time wasting for other editors.

The root of the problems seems to be K's overly "suspicious" mind, as he partly seems to see per his evidence. It's good for the encyclopaedia to have some people that don't take AGF to an extreme, and who police potential threats. But the various evidence submissions show K sometimes go too far when he falsely perceives a threat to the community, or possibly sometimes a slight to himself. The way he flew off the handle after GW's perfectly reasonable request seems particularly ridiculous. (Not that he was at fault for the informal mode of address before GW expressed a preference. There's considerable diversity of thought among generations even on much more sensitive gender related actions.)

What might be ideal is if K commits to 1) Re-setting his AGF meter to the max. 2) stepping back from policing the community at 'field operative' level, and focusses more a well deserved 'elder statesman' role. As he's already partly done by stepping back from NPP, helping to guide the Signpost at high level, etc. Then K could continue his very valuable contributions without the downside. (No harm with him continuing to block obvious vandals etc.) PS – sorry if this is too much analyses to put in someone elses section. I wanted to say something helpful, but don't feel I know enough about this case to warrant creating my own section. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all! Love the assessment here. Completely has my blessing. That's what it's here for. Buffs (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with FeydHuxtable. I think this is the best summation of what needs to happen. I don't believe he should be desysopped, but if the threatening behaviour and incivility continues, then this should be brought up again with ArbCom. We cannot allow admins to continue showing assumptions of bad faith and certainly not the threatening, intimidating and chilling behaviour we have observed so far. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, Chris.sherlock. Incivility of LOTS of editors and admins needs to be addressed site-wide. Buffs (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5) Kudpung is admonished by ArbCom for his word choice over numerous instances in the past two years. He is reminded to be be more collegial and civil in his communications with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is the least we can expect. Let's tone down the rhetoric and WP:AGF here, people! :-) Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This not specific enough. An admonishment is definitely the least of which we can expect, but I think this needs more clarity on how we address this if things don't change. We need to specify the procedure to bring this to ArbCom if Kudpung's choice of words, inability to be collegial and incivility does not change. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom is welcome to be more specific as they deem fit in their final decision. Alternatively, I welcome another version of this. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6) All editors are reminded that matters brought before ArbCom should exhaust all other avenues of dispute resolution before a case is filed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think this is the least we can expect. Let's tone down the rhetoric and WP:AGF here, people! :-) Buffs (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is appropriate. Kudpung is an admin and there are no other avenues to request a review of the behaviour of an admin. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes. But AC agreed to accept this case in the circumstances. Also, FWIW an arb., NYB, reached out to Kudpung in an effort to informally resolve this during the request stage. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung may be an admin, but that doesn't mean he cannot be blocked for incivility via WP:AN or WP:ANI. I agree AC agreed to hearing this, but I think different venues might have been more applicable for any remedy other than desysopping. Buffs (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NYB reached out to Kudpung because I felt threatened by Kudpung. I did not bring this case to ArbCom. This case has been brought here because quite a few people have felt threatened, intimidated or victimised by Kudpung. I may have inadvertently triggered this by my post to AN/I but I would like to emphasise that I was not the initiating party to the ArbCom case. It is unlikely I would have done so. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators who exhibit a pattern of failing to meet the conduct expectations described in policy may have their administrator tools removed even if tool misuse has not occurred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I thought that this was a well established fact pattern. Since people seem to be confused, this makes sense --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this might be a useful principle just in general, as it has come up in the recent Portals and RHaworth cases as well. Some people seem to be under the impression that tool misuse is the only behavior that can lead to someone being desysopped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite reasonable to me, I doubt anyone could seriously dispute this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern would be that this should be split into two separate statements. Keeping them together implies they are part of the same principle and/or contingent on the other, but the fact is each sentence can stand alone. I think that should be emphasized, but I do not object to the general message/statement. Buffs (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed (WP:ADMINACCT). Although no one is required to participate in an arbitration case, the decision by an administrator to not participate in an accepted arbitration case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be reasonably accountable for their conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is the second sentence policy-based?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on whether being involved in an AC case as an Admin is regarded as different to other venues. I cannot recall a case which has gone the distance involving an Admin. where they have declined to participate in the evidence and workshop stages. Having said that (a) there is still time and (b) Kudpung has today commented elsewhere regarding his non-participation here and about those involved in it. [8] [9] Leaky caldron (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would probably agree that not participating in the case filed against you might not be the best strategy. (Though I clearly see a difference between the US culture, where anybody can sue you any moment against anything, this is a part of everybody's life, and then whatever you think about the merits of the case, if you do not participate you are seriously screwed, and the European culture, to which accidentally both Kudpung and I belong and where one thinks courts would filter junk out first - not necessarily to mean this case is junk, but just to emphasize the difference). However, if I have to name one factor which I often consider while to take or not to take a difficult admin decision - that I know that a lot of people will not like it, which is ok, but some of them would go to my talk page with their arguments, which I have already considered by taking the decision, and insist that I answer every single objection, and every single time they do not like my answer they would remind me about ADMINACT, and after my answers they will bring new objections, and this will take way more time and energy from me than if I would just decided to shut up and not to take the decision in the first place. Now, if this proposal gets accepted by ArbCom, the situations similar to what I have just described would become routine.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited a bit to clarify that I'm referring to accepted cases, and that admins are expected to be reasonably accountable for their actions. It could probably use some further wordsmithing, but I think it conveys my point. I agree with you that administrators should not have to respond to every single query about their actions (for example, bad-faith/trolling or repetitive queries, etc.), but I think the fact that this has progressed to an accepted ArbCom case rules out the possibility that this is in bad faith or completely baseless. To answer your original question: the first sentence is copied directly from WP:ADMINACCT, the second is not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: I cannot recall a case which has gone the distance involving an Admin. where they have declined to participate in the evidence and workshop stages. There was this case where the admin involved did not participate beyond the case request stage, despite being active elsewhere. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case in which, I will note, the admin was desysopped by unanimous vote, in a remedy that explicitly mentioned WP:ADMINACCT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are admins expected to be accountable, but refusal to participate does not bode well that concerns will be taken on board, or that the behaviors will change, as evidenced by posts elsewhere made after the evidence phase closed.  [10] [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this issue I have to disagree. I think Kudpung has participated, he responded on the initial case page, and if he wishes to keep silent then I think that this is quite reasonable. Regardless of my opinion of Kudpung's conduct, I can only imagine that this is potentially extremely stressful for him. What I'm saying is said, incidentally, with the greatest of respect to those who hold the opposing view. I just don't think it's appropriate to force someone to speak when they don't wish to. Whether it is wise or not is not for us to decide. I think that the Arbitrators can read through the evidence and opinions here and form their own opinions, I'm not even sure if it would be helpful for the defendant to be made to participate, especially if they are stressed, worried, or upset about the case being brought forward. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely concur with Chris.sherlock's assessment. Just because he hasn't jumped into the fray doesn't mean he doesn't care. He has asked the Arbitrators to look at the situations in their entirety and has voiced no objections to the evidence brought forth and he is under no obligation to do so. Perhaps he feels that his point of view has been adequately explained in the acceptance of the case or by others. It is up to him to decide how much or how little to participate. It's completely inappropriate to force/compel someone to speak when they don't wish to. Buffs (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't wish to respond to reasonable concerns about my conduct as an administrator, you're correct in that it would be inappropriate (not to mention impossible) to force/compel me to. But it also would be unreasonable for me to expect to continue being an administrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that is a requirement to be an Admin, it should be spelled out in WP:ADMINACCT. As it stands now, that's your personal opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is spelled out in ADMINACCT: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed... Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for the following actions: .... Failure to communicate – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought) GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're reading WAY to much into ADMINACCT. Again, if we want to modify it to explicitly mention this, fine. Let's change it (WP:BEBOLD, WP:RFC, whatever), but it isn't explicitly spelled out. Buffs (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'm following you—to explicitly mention what? The green text is directly copied/pasted from the existing wording of ADMINACCT, it does not need to be added because it is already there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isaacl has posted on my talk page to say that they think you mean to explicitly mention that an admin may be desysopped for refusing to participate in an arbitration case about their conduct. That was not clear to me from the comment here. Since ArbCom has desysopped someone for that very reason, you (Buffs) are probably right that it's worth mentioning in the policy... but I'm certainly not going to make the edit myself, at least not while this case is ongoing, the optics of that would be pretty terrible. Either way it's hardly "reading WAY to much into ADMINACCT" when ArbCom has desysopped based on a finding that specifically cited the admin's lack of participation in the ArbCom case about them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a mischaracterization on the decision

"<ADMIN> has had multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute to support their claims and conduct. He repeatedly did not do so, such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case, despite actively editing other areas of Wikipedia..."

That user's lack of participation in the ArbCom case was ONE of things they cited, but it was not the only one. This situation is different. Kudpung HAS participated elsewhere and up to this point. There is a section in the Workshop for ArbCom members to pose questions of the parties. They have chosen not to pose any questions directly. If they had, I would have expected participation from Kudpung. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply Rubin's lack of participation was the only reason he was desysopped; it was, however, a contributing factor. Similarly, I do not think Kudpung should be desysopped only because he has not participated in this case; it is one factor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Seems more like a personal opinion than a principle. Kudpung has participated. He is not required to be at the beck and call of responding to every comment; and that's when it will be proved that he is above bar (jesus! really!) I respect GW significantly. Just don't agree with her here. Lourdes 09:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! Buffs (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support this seems pretty obvious. If you don't want to participate in ARBCOM proceedings that's fine, but WP:ADMINCONDUCT requires that admins address concerns of the community. Failing to participate is failing to address those concerns, and is certainly grounds for de-adminship. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After having read all the responses, I strongly oppose including the second sentence. It is not on the policy, and there is a good reason it is not on the policy - because it is not aligned with the spirit of the policy. Nobody can be forced to defend temselves against the accusations they believe to be completely unreasonable. Whoever wants it to be on the policy, must open an RfC at the talk page of the policy, and not try to use the ArbCom as a backdoor.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it would be backdoor as such but maybe an RfC is preferable. But if they decline to participate here but comment critically elsewhere during the same time-frame as the case, at least one conclusion to be drawn is that they are thumbing their nose at an important part of the community governance process. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think he was also very clear why he refuses to participate: He believes that whatever he says to defend himself will be considered as "doubling down" as it already happened in the past. I personally do not think this is a good strategy, but this is not the same as automatically default on the case and accept that what everybody is saying is literally correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is interpretation of the existing policy, not a change to policy. Interpretation is exactly what the ArbCom does, and as I have noted elsewhere they have interpreted policy in this way before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arthur Rubin case decision says Arthur Rubin's general absence and inability to adequately explain their actions and conduct has shaken the community's confidence in them. Arthur Rubin has had multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute to support their claims and conduct. He repeatedly did not do so, such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case, despite actively editing other areas of Wikipedia. These factors strongly contribute to a lack of accountability regarding their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT as an administrator." It does not say "Arthur Rubin refused to participate in the case, therefore his actions fail ADMINACCT". These two are different statements, and IMO none applies to Kudpung.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Ymblanter. I was just about to write exactly what you wrote. And this is exactly what I'm worried about. Policies, guidelines, arbcom principles/findings/remedies are being given novel interpretations to match one's own objectives. This is not against GW. In fact, I have to applaud her for pointing out mistakes in the arguments of some other editors opposing Kudpung. But take a read through this workshop, and you'll see what I'm referring to. Lourdes 17:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what's worrying; these are just the views of various parties and onlookers in the case. I've given mine. Perhaps the ArbCom will agree, perhaps they won't. I trust they will make the correct decision, whichever it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

^{Folks, this format is all Greek to me. Will any clerk or other editor spotting mistakes please go ahead and correct?}

1) Per the recent Portals case (paraphrased), "editors are expected to behave reasonably & calmly in their interactions, to maintain a collegial atmosphere and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on Wikipedia." I would add to this: "making repeated, generalised, unsourced negative attacks aimed at unidentified editors"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree with GorillaWarfare that some people incorrectly consider that only tool misuse can result in a desysop decision. This might be a useful general principle to clarify in WP:ADMINACCT Leaky caldron (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the last statement being added. Doing so would add a chilling effect to those seeking assistance or mentorship. Otherwise, yes. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors (WP:ADMINCOND). Although no one is required to participate in an arbitration case, the decision by an administrator to not participate in a case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be accountable for their conduct. This is exacerbated when the Admin. is simultaneously engaged in critical discussion elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It is neither wise nor respectful to thumb one's nose at the judge and jury after evidence submission closes. [12] [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme disagreement that any amount of participation should be mandated. If we want to change policy, we should do so. Nothing we have currently compels participation in any discussion. Buffs (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. WP:ADMINACCT specifically states that Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree "the decision by an administrator to not participate in a case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be accountable for their conduct" The decision by an administrator to not participate in a case about their conduct is evidence of their extreme frustration at the one-sided view about their contributions and interactions. It's almost like a poll of "how many of you people are critical of Kudpung; let's get together and discuss this with him." There's no surprise that he isn't participating. It's not culpability; it's frustration; and quite expected, given how the evidence has been taken with a single-sided view. Lourdes 14:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what you mean by the evidence has been taken with a single-sided view? And by whom? There are plenty of comments on this page and in evidence that defend Kudpung. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented has been very slanted/biased against Kudpung including some analysis/takeaways that can charitably be described as "spin". Until the workshop, there was little defense. I think the evidence and analysis is quite clear; I'm not certain what you'd expect Kudpung to contribute that would change anything. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely the same remark applies to those on the other side of the debate Buffs, including some of your representations. It tends to be the way evidence is presented and evaluated. It's called discussion :) Leaky caldron (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving negative feedback is one of the hardest things for anyone to go through. (Providing negative feedback in a constructive manner is hard, too.) It's understandable to feel frustrated and defensive. The more structured nature of arbitration hopefully makes it feel more considered than discussions at the incidents noticeboard, but it's still hard to hear criticism. Third-part observers can give their viewpoints during the evidence and workshop phases, but they aren't able to provide insight into the subject's thoughts. For better or worse, the subject is the one best able to provide a greater understanding of the behaviour in question. Within the current format, if the subject isn't expected to provide greater context, who should be, particularly in a volunteer community? isaacl (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) The collective weight of evidence across a range of conduct-related issues is compelling and well supported by diffs. This includes Kudpung over-reacting to what might best be described as "business as usual" matters of little consequence in the general scheme of normal discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Too vague. Buffs (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) An ongoing pattern of behaviour that falls short of the conduct expected from administrators has been established, including spontaneous angry / adversarial responses. There has also been repeated rhetorical (without evidence) criticism of an unidentified group of editors broadly construed as the "enemy" of the Admin. group.
^{(now outside of evidence stage - this is continuing today- (1/2)....so I hardly have time for those who use their claims of PSTD (sic) as an excuse for their behaviour to insult, harass, and bait admins in the hope of a reaction they can complain about, or get away with paid editing. [14]. Another example of disparaging, belittling and failing to AGF comments)}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

And the pattern continued shortly after the evidence phase closed. [15] [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is anything other than a very stressed and upset person sounding off in general. I think we should excuse them for this outburst, in my opinion they were having a general spray and I didn't see anyone pointed out personally. IMO, though I can see that it looks sort of bad, I think it best we just take into consideration this is how Kudpung generally feels. I have certainly seen much worse comments, and this is one of the mildest comments, said to another user who Kudpung appears to be friendly with. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the evidence presented Chris is that this is another example of the complained about behaviour. And referring in this way, albeit anonymously, about someone who has presumably mentioned that they suffer from PTSD is ad hominem - and nasty. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not aware that anyone other than myself has PTSD. I was saying that ArbCom cases are stressful and can be unpleasant to deal with. Nobody mentioned to me they had PTSD, and nothing in my comment even suggested they had such a condition. As a person who does have PTSD, I’m well aware that you can be stressed and upset without actually having PTSD. If I did accidentally cause offence, however, I apologise. I can definitely assure you that nobody ever mentioned they had PTSD to me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I reread the comment and I see what you mean! I missed that PTSD bit. It never occurred to me that he was talking about me, I thought you meant I was implying he had PTSD! Well, I’m fairly open about my condition, so I’m not terribly worried about that. In regards to his shot about paid editing, I think he’s talking about the fact that I help a good friend with an acquarium shop, and I have been contributing to fish-related articles and have taken the opportunity to upload some Creative Commons pictures of fish to commons, having noted it is at my friend’s store that I took the photos, with a link for attribution.

FWIW, as I can’t recall mentioning to him on Wiki that I have PTSD, he can only have known about this via private correspondence with myself. If he has decided to reveal this, even obliquely, in a message then I guess that’s his perogative. If it is the case, then it’s not really terribly ethical.

If this is what he thinks is “paid editing” then he has some serious paranoia issues, and more evidence of him seeing nefarious plots where none exist. I have been extremely open about my relationship to Nanotanks Australia, and can assure you I’ve not been paid a cent for editing Wikipedia. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote I gave did not name anyone. I apologise if, in revealing this link and quote, it has caused you any distress. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s ok :-) I have been reasonably open about my mental health issues, in fact now think of it I believe I even mentioned PTSD at some point on ANI. You didn’t cause any issues, thank you for your concern though, it means a lot! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. in case anyone wants to know, I disclosed my potential COI some time ago, it is prominently linked on my user page. The declaration can be found here. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This example is why I oppose including language like "making repeated, generalised, unsourced negative attacks aimed at unidentified editors". This interaction about PTSD is generalized and unattributed/unsourced. Adding it would basically make it where you couldn't seek assistance from anyone "Hey, so I'm having an issue with another user where <describe situation>. How should I handle it?" Such a person could ask for counsel and, in turn, be blocked for trying to better their behavior. If it's vague, just assume it isn't directed at you rather than assume you're the one who they are talking about. Let them make their point and move on (just like Chris did above here).

I see no need to re-open the evidence gathering stage. and this is doing so. The entire statement is too wordy/vague. Buffs (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not evidence but it is fully attributed and linked to source. If the protagonist in a case discusses the case on en-WP but not on the case pages it is perfectly acceptable to cite it as part of the workshop. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking to cite what you're referring to, not vaguely say "all of it". If you say "All of user X's behavior has been boorish and, therefore, he is blocked," all it take is one example of non-boorish behavior to be cited as an example of inappropriate behavior and suddenly what was intended was not as defined. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it needs to be clearly cited. Buffs (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fairly certain the PTSD comment was aimed at me. That is the problem with making wide sweeping statements about unspecified editors though. Every editor who Kudpung ever had a run in who has PTSD may consider this, rightly or wrongly, to be a comment aimed at themselves. The comment also passed doubt that the party that he was referring to either has PTSD, or was using their PTSD as an excuse to attack them.

IMO, this is just further evidence that Kudpung is unaware of the general affect his comments have on the wider community. Complaining that an unspecified group of editors has it out for oneself is rarely helpful. Making oblique aspersions against editors you are unwilling to name is poor judgement, because those reading the criticism may wonder if they are being unfairly targeted. What I think is clear is that there is a pattern to this behaviour. Kudpung obliquely referred to an unspecified admin misusing their tools. Kudpung stayed that he was trying to prevent fall out for two editors who he felt were potentially abusing Wikipedia. Kudpung made vague statements that he was researching another editor (me). He has made other vague comments that could potentially be considered threatening to those who read them. He has made vague comments about potential consequences to other editors he has disagreed with. Overall it causes a chilling effect for many people, and as a pattern of behaviour it needs to stop. Unfortunately, it is very hard to make it clear to Kudpung because he is so incredibly defensive, and his self described “bark” is very often a verbal attack.

The best example of this was when GorillaWarfare politely asked him to refrain from using her real name instead of her username when being referred to with a group of men who were referred to by their usernames. In response to this request, Kudpung implied GW was a “man-hater” and things escalated to the point where he withdrew all support for the Women In Red project solely in reaction to GW’s request, and furthermore directly blamed GW for causing him to take this action. He has also demonstrated on many, many occasions that if approached about his behaviour on his talk page that he will ban the person from communicating with him. Kudpung has never acknowledged that others found this strange and boorish behaviour, nor has he ever shown that he understands that this reaction was disproportionate to the request that was being made to him. Now I don’t think he should be prevented from preventing people from messaging him on his user page, but here’s the rub: If you show that you respond to criticism time and time again by banning those bringing their concerns to you directly, then it highlights the fact that you are unwilling to even listen to criticism. In short, you will be considered by many to be an unreasonable person, and as an admin you will seem to be unaccountable for your actions. Many ordinary editors, and quite a few admins, consider that unaccountability to be a disqualifying quality for an admin. Whilst I don’t believe Kudpung should be desysopped, it should be of no surprise that some are asking for his admin rights to be revoked.

The consequences for all of this is that you become seen as unaccountable, your inability to countenance that you may have erred or caused offence becomes apparent and people will start to question not only your judgement, but whether you are acting maliciously towards them. The sad fact is, showing whether this is true or not it is within the purview of any admin (or editor!) to prevent this by being more polite, to be willing to accept criticism (never any easy thing, but something we expect admins will be capable of) and to not overreact like we have seen Kudpung do on multiple occasions. Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) Kudpung is desysoped. They may apply to regain administrator privileges via WP:RFA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I cannot agree on this one. Desysopping Kudpung should only be done if he will not acknowledge that his behaviour is problematic. If he will not acknowledge this, I suggest that ArbCom make it clear that if the behaviour continues that the next time an ArbCom dispute is raised, if sufficient evidence can be shown that he has not changed then he will be desysopped. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping Kudpung should only be done if he will not acknowledge that his behaviour is problematic. Has Kudpung acknowledged his behavior is problematic anywhere? I agree that if Kudpung doesn't acknowledge his behavior is problematic, he should be desysopped, and so it would seem the logical conclusion from this would be that he should be desysopped. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no evidence of this. However, if ArbCom make a finding that his behaviour is unacceptable and incompatible with adminship, I feel that he should be given a chance to modify his behaviour before anyone desysops him. It is a genuine pity that things have had to escalate to this point. I have reviewed Kudpung’s overall contribution to Wikipedia and he has many good qualities. Whilst I believe he needs to be more careful in tagging articles, overall he makes correct judgements. Kudpung has made important contributions to admin policy and procedures. He tirelessly works on backlogs. He is very intelligent and I feel his life experience is invaluable to the project. He is clearly a committed Wikipedian who has made valuable contributions to Wikimania. I think whilst there are some very obvious issues that he needs to acknowledge and address, I personally think it would be quite within his ability to do so if he so desires and I think that we should take his contributions into account before we take any drastic actions like desysopping him.

GorillaWarfare, I know this is hard on you. His reaction to you was absolutely unacceptable and if I was on the receiving end of such a reaction I would be beside myself. In actual fact, I was beside myself with anxiety when he told me he was “researching” me. I know that as a result of his behaviour you are rightly upset with him. I really have no right to ask this of you, but I will anyway: can you put aside the hurt and anger he caused you to feel to ask ArbCom that they advise him of his issues and direct him to change his behaviour before they apply any sanctions? This would give a valuable contributor a chance to reform, and would show that we give people a chance to acknowledge and change their ways. Obviously if no change was to happen, or the behaviour stated to reoccur, then at this point sanctions should be put into place, but this may never occur. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I trust the ArbCom to make their best decision on the issues at hand; if they think the best course of action is to only ask Kudpung to change his behavior at the end of all this, then so be it. But I do not happen to agree that that is the best way forward. I won't pretend Kudpung's behavior towards me hasn't bothered me, it has. But my opinions in this case are not coming from a place of anger; they are coming from my beliefs on the standards we as a community should be holding our administrators to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this as the appropriate remedy. Buffs (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Desysopp. Kudpung has given no indication that he is prepared to change his ways. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose Reasonings given below in another similar remedy. Kudpung has many a time acknowledged his mistakes. If during the evidence phase you had asked for such evidence, the same would have been provided. Making a statement that Kudpung has never acknowledged his mistakes, and therefore "the logical conclusion" is that he should be desysopped, is again imagining up an absolutely false scenario to match your remedy. Not done. Lourdes 09:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Kudpung has acknowledged any mistakes relating to behaviors described in evidence, I haven't seen it. As for asking for evidence, that's what the whole evidence phase is for—for editors to present and refute evidence on the subject. It's not accurate to say no one asked for evidence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GW, unfortunately, an Arbcom case is frequented more by the slighted parties and not by parties who have had great interactions with the editor concerned. So obviously, the evidence phase will only showcase a significant amount of evidence from the parties that feel slighted. That's one flaw of this procedure. If Kudpung has to acknowledge the line mentioned above by you – "Has Kudpung acknowledged his behaviour is problematic?" – I would say his behaviour is "not" problematic, so there is nothing to acknowledge here. That you and specific other editors have had bad interactions with him, does not mean "his behaviour is problematic". That is what I'm trying to get too. Warmly, Lourdes 06:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to follow the logic on this one. Do you believe that Kudpung’s behaviour has been problematic?

For myself, I believe there is sufficient evidence that Kudpung’s behaviour is problematic as it stands. If Kudpung acknowledges this, then that does not negate his previous actions, but it does show that he at least understands why the case has been brought to ArbCom. What it would show is that he now understands that he has a problem that he needs to rectify, not that he doesn’t have a problem.

Furthermore, Kudpung has not so far acknowledged that he has issues he needs to address, despite being told this by numerous people. Ironically, if you agree that he does have a problem, then his lack of insight into his behaviour absolutely confirms there is a problem. So with respect, I’m not sure I agree with your line of reasoning. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Regardless of the outcome any other remedy, Kudpung might consider discussing in private with those with whom he has been in conflict to attempt to reconcile differences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

FWIW, Kudpung already did reach out to me in private. I think he should be commended for this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A statement where anyone "might" do anything is not a remedy that ArbCom could possibly effectively impose. Buffs (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it makes sense to recommend this—I know a fair number of Wikipedians prefer to avoid private communication. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this approach has been subsequently suggested to Kudpung in their off-case discussions. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3) Kudpung is admonished, reminded of his responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT & WP:ADMINCOND, etc. In future any editor should be able freely to challenge Kudpung regarding his comments without fear of a hyperbolic reaction. When Kudpung has unresolved issues with editors they should be encouraged to use existing dispute resolution methods before resorting to resolution-stifling Talk Page bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#"Banning" otherwise constructive editors from your talk page the wide use of talk page bans is a sign of problematic editing --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose WAY too much is conflated here; each sentence could/should be assessed on its own. Imagine a school bond for $100M for badly needed elementary schools and a $50M private jet for the superintendent of schools. You could certainly oppose one and not the other. In an all-or-nothing bill, support or opposition could be conflated to supporting an unnecessary extreme luxury or opposing something that no one in their right mind would oppose.

I see no evidence presented of widespread banning. Likewise, it is also permitted under WP:USER. If there is more evidence that isn't being considered that we should, we need to petition to re-open the evidence page.

I believe an admonishment of some kind is in order, but not this. Buffs (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "In future any editor should be able freely to challenge Kudpung regarding his comments without fear of a hyperbolic reaction. When Kudpung has unresolved issues with editors they should be encouraged to use existing dispute resolution methods before resorting to resolution-stifling Talk Page bans." Who is cooking up this stuff and these words like "hyperbolic", "resolution-stifling"? Are we saying here that Kudpung is ordered to smile, grin and welcome every critical editor when they land at his page and spew their stuff? Please. Get someone to review your posts before posting. Lourdes 09:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes The case has been accepted. I get that you don't much care for it or for the suggested remedies. This however is pointy and unhelpful. "Get someone to review your posts before posting". A cheap shot. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaky caldron, you know that I get along with you well, like your contributions a lot and don't wish you to get this otherwise. With no qualifiers, my apologies for the statement. Warmly, Lourdes 13:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4) Kudpung has now responded and I am grateful. On the specific matter of using disparaging phrases to describe a non-cohesive group of editors opposed, inter-alia, to Admins., I am not convinced that Kudpung gets it. Suggesting that there are only 22 occurrences is against all available evidence (and anyway, 22 admitted is too many).
Saying that it is not a personal attack is a statement of the obvious and no excuse. It is an attack on the ethos of the project. Describing an amorphous group as a "brigade" is a non-sequitur, a brigade, typically, being well organised.
If there is a need for action against anti-this-that-or-the-other editors, competent measures / venues exist. Simply chuntering at TPs is not an appropriate response (might add here, especially for an Admin). To quote from a recent page with which he will be familiar, " but @Kudpung, your comments here about "admins who appear to have fallen foul of either simply doing their job", "those who have demonstrated for years a general antipathy towards the corps of adminship", "editors who have been cruelly desysoped" etc seem to be another variation on your "anti-admin brigade" theory laced with what comes across as a rather creepy idea that admins constitute some kind of Wikipedia aristocracy who should be treated with more respect than the peons". This almost sums up the entire case.

I would simply hope for Kudpung to desist, to deal with complaints about editor conduct in a more conventional way and attempt to appreciate more the impact that his particular authoritative (overbearing?) style can have and to think twice and type once.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) User talk pages are an important way of communicating with other editors. Regularly banning editors from your talk page that you disagree with, especially to suppress criticism of one's edits, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From WP:TE --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: I agree that the lines are blurry, but there is a difference between banning one person a year (which isn't anything to write home about) and using it as regularly as TLC does below. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think we need to be careful. There are some editors who will take advantage of this. If I had thought to do this with Kudpung, it might have saved me some hassle. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EXTREME Oppose This is not supported by WP:TE. It is explictly allowed under WP:USER. Likewise, ArbCom doesn't have the authority to regulate the community like this. They can rule on Kudpung's behavior in this case, not create new rules. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would worry about enforcement of this, given how open to interpretation "regularly" is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TE is not a policy or guideline, which are more suitable for case principles—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pile-on. Please don't push interpretation of our policies and guidelines to match principles. Lourdes 09:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Kudpung (talk · contribs) has been a Wikipedia editor since the beginning of 2006, becoming an administrator in 2011, and has performed over 14,450 administrate actions. (Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Kudpung has been uncivil to other editors ([17][18][19] as well as Headbomb's evidence and GorillaWarfare's evidence) and has regularly cast aspersions on other editors he disagrees with by labeling them the "anti-admin brigade" ([20])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Casting aspersions is 100% a problem --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Scratch the "by labeling them the 'anti-admin brigade'" and you have agreement from me. A mere label by itself though is not uncivil. Buffs (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Kudpung has been uncivil to some few. He has been "regularly" civil to others. So using the term "regularly cast aspersions" in one sweep seems like simply collating and picking the cherries of the evidence to match the finding – this is a fail, if the final objective is to purely get the man off his admin tools. Lourdes 09:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I've ever seen an interpretation of the civility policy to mean that one must only be more frequently civil than they are uncivil. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also never seen an interpretation where, when an editor through many years has some bad interactions, he is labelled as having "regularly cast aspersions" on editors he disagrees with. It can't work just one way. Requesting Kudpung to tone down for some interactions, is far different from claiming that he is totally uncivil and therefore should be penalised. Lourdes 06:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Kudpung has used talk page bans to suppress criticism of his editing (Evidence from Leaky caldron [21])

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is something that jumped out to me. It is unknown how many people Kudpung has banned from his talk page. Will I get the ban hammer if we have a dispute and I post on his talk page because I filed this case? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose as written If it's unknown how many people have been "banned", then there is not evidence to back up the claim. Only one such ban has been found. Assuming a worst-case scenario with no evidence to back it up is a bad conclusion. Also, @Guerillero: no, by definition, such required notices are explicitly allowed. Even if he did ban you from his talk page, you have many other venues to air any grievances. Preventing anyone from asking others not to post to their talk page is infinitely gameable by disruptive editors. I've personally been accused of murder on my talk page. Buffs (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a simple search in his talk page archives I can see 6. How many would you consider as sufficient proof of a tendency? Leaky caldron (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pop in as many diffs as you feel necessary on the page. If extreme, I would consider re-opening the evidence to include them. Buffs (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

13 easy finds using "stay off" & "post here". Do not doubt that many others exist using forms of request that cannot be identified: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] x2, [29],[30],[31],[32],[33]. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interacting with as many users as he has, 13 over 10 years isn't too extreme, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misinterpret what I have presented. I made it clear that these are some easily discovered examples using obvious searches. Since Kudpung is a linguist you can be sure that he uses the full breadth of the English language to dismiss editors from his talk page and they are impossible to find. I would also encourage a reading of some of the antagonistic language used. It isn't a simple please stay off here. For example, "FYI, {redacted} I did not block that account. I'm not interested in your snide innuendos - WP:PA is also a blockable offense with a low threshold of tolerance. Please do not post here again." Seriously, too readily provoked. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose An lol finding, if I should say. This is Wikipedia. Any editor is free to criticise any other editor on any page. If an editor advises another critical editor to move away from his talk page, the other editor has multiple venues to post his criticism. This should be the least of ArbCom's worries. Lourdes 09:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability and Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct, Kudpung (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Buffs: I have voted to desysop people before who never abused the tools. Conduct unbecoming desysops arose 9 years ago and have been standard ever since then --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support desysopp. Kudpung has given no indication that he is prepared to mend his ways. Desysopping is the only way that the matter will be resolved. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose per previous opposition to desysopping + (addressing "comments by others") there is little/no evidence of any administrative abuse, therefore, desysopping will not prevent the problems presented here. If you want to remove the bit because you feel that Kudpung has not upheld community standards, fine, but the conclusion here isn't a lack of trust in desysopping, but that it's the only thing that will satisfy those who have a grievance.

Lastly, as a general rule, I also object to any statement that claims "XYZ is the only way..." or "The only thing you can conclude from XYZ is..." There are, in fact, an infinite number of options. Buffs (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is such syntactical pedantry helpful to the debate? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

When we are trying to be specific, yes. Unless you're advocating for sloppiness. These findings are part of the basis of our policies. When they are affirmed, noted, etc, they are indeed precedent (as much as ArbCom says they aren't...they are...). Buffs (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero My remark was in response to Xxanthippe's remarks "Desysopping is the only way that the matter will be resolved." I'm not saying that admins shouldn't be desysopped because of nefarious and inappropriate behavior. I'm saying that desysopping by ArbCom is an indication that the community has lost confidence in the individual. However, in this case, the behavior in question isn't related to his function as an admin and desysopping alone won't prevent anything. Such verbiage should be reserved for the abuse of admin tools. This format does not always lend itself to such clarity. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as an overarching and forced solution to an issue that can be resolved by taking wide acceptances from Kudpung on areas where the Arbcom may wish him to improve. If the Arbcom goes ahead with this, there would clearly be a wide disconnect with relevant finding and the proposed remedy. This is absolutely not the remedy to advise someone to be more caring in their responses to "some" editors. Lourdes 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some editors have gone around nit-picking every section of this Arbitration Request in a way that seems obsessive. It should be pointed out that the stakes here are not high. There is no proposal to site-ban Kudpung and there is no proposal to ban him from being an administrator for eternity. The worst that can happen is that he looses his administrative authority for a time and then is able to reapply through another RfA. There seem to be plenty of editors ready to nominate him. This will give the whole of the English Wikipedia community, which is the ultimate authority here, the opportunity to assess his fitness to be an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Desysopping is a severe step, therefore the stakes ARE high. Your entire rationale is "desysop him and the community can !vote". The community HAS already !voted. You're asking ArbCom to change that. Likewise, claims that Kudpung is vaguely criticizing people is inappropriate when you are doing the same via "Some editors have gone around nit-picking every section..." Buffs (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following that logic, the ArbCom could never desysop anyone. (Which perhaps you're in favor of, I know some folks would like desysopping to be a community option, but as it stands now that is not the case.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs' argument that the community !voted 10 years ago therefore should not be asked again is irrational. There are many examples of a Admin being desysopped by AC who then go on to a fresh RFA, some successfully[34]. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desysopping is not a severe step and I am surprised by all the passionate drama in this AR. A person is desysopped, takes some time to reflect why, and, if they feel confident, apply for another RfA to regain the confidence of the community. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have to agree. I have the dubious distinction of having been desysopped three times. I was quite fine on Wikipedia without any admin tools, and I remain an effective member of the project without them to this day. Admin tools are just that - extra tools to manage the site. They need to be used wisely, but then again we expect editors to also act wisely when they click the edit link on articles. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Kudpung confirms that he uses the admin. tools scarcely. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Following that logic, the ArbCom could never desysop anyone" No, GW, that isn't what I said. I'm saying that stating "it isn't a big deal" isn't true. Likewise, I'm not advocating that ArbCom can't do so or shouldn't do so or should even be prohibited from doing so, merely that it shouldn't be done flippantly. They should have good cause to remove the bit, not punt it to the community. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010, huh. —Cryptic 08:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Kudpung is prohibited from banning editors from his talk page without first gaining consensus to do so on WP:AN or WP:ANI

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

People have the right to manage their talk page how they see fit. However, Kudpung has shown that he likes to ban people people from his talk page. It seems appropriate to give the community input --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose per previous remarks on the subject. This is infinitely gameable. Buffs (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Buffs. It’s remarkable how people would game this. Kudpung does deal with many unreasonable editors and I think it unreasonable to impose this upon him. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We're not slaves to be asked to not ban people from harassing us on our talk pages; and this goes for Kudpung too. While you can ask Kudpung from not leaving messages on a third party's page, it seems odd to take away his freedom on his talk page. Of course, no user owns any talk page; yet, this is absolutely weird. Lourdes 09:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators are trusted members of the community. They are expected to lead by example, to assume good faith, and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. They are generally not expected to be provoking others or escalating situations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I 100% agree with this. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on board here 100% too! Buffs (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) In October 2019, Kudpung stated that he's not as mean as he might come across: As others have remarked and I freely admit, being British and 70, the North American culture of routine and often effusive politeness largely escapes me, but my bark is worse than my bite.[35]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thank you. I think that in that quote we see a problem. Kudpung should not be “barking” at editors. Again, I do t think he understands the issue that some of his statements have on people who are trying to edit Wikipedia. Admins should not be adding to discord on the project! If one’s “bark” causes other people discomfort then it is not they who need to change, but the one doing the “barking”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general politeness, yes, I would concur that if someone is generally considered to be "barking", then, yes, they need to change their behavior to something more civil. However, this is also infinitely gameable and can quite literally be used to dictate behavior. If I can exert control to tell you what words to use by saying "I'm uncomfortable; you need to change", I can dictate that may OR may not be warranted. Without stating that civil behavior is what is generally agreed upon behavior, anyone can claim "I'm offended" and dictate changes. It's a slippery slope. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is also infinitely gameable ...: This is proposed FOF. It's neither a remedy nor enforcement (though can be the basis for them), so there is nothing to game.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bark is worse than my bite" is an idiom. It shouldn't be taken so literally. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just now saw this is closed; please revert if necessary. I will refrain from further posting. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion In general, I don't disagree with this statement being introduced as evidence nor used in a conclusion except that it was not presented on the evidence page nor was it generally construed (and this is only providing a link now). As such, I do not think it should be considered without re-opening the evidence page. We shouldn't be backdooring evidence on the last day of the Workshop.

This is a last-minute addition of evidence to the case that has already been through the evidence phase and nearly all of the workshop. To introduce something "new" now is inappropriate. Even if it weren't, I think that Kudpung's attitude and mannerisms has ample evidence without this. Buffs (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new, it's from link 20 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence#Kudpung_behaves_&_responds_impulsively,_quickly_accelerating_issues_to_conflict.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to include a finding that an editor is "not as mean as they come across". If I was objectively uncivil to another editor, and then I said "I'm not as rude as I seem", surely I was still rude? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed FOF is a fact that he said it. It adds context, but is not a statement on how it should be interpreted e.g. is it a plausible explanation based on generational and cultural differences, or is it self incriminating?—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba I know this is closed and all, but what does FOF mean? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LakesideMiners: FOF in this context is an acronym for "Finding(s) of fact", which are components of arbitration cases along with Principles, Remedies, Enforcement, etc. –xeno^talk 14:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know plenty of people of this age from the U.K. who are not at all like this. It is a massive stretch to say that if one is not of North American descent and over 70 that intimidating behaviour should be overlook and tolerated. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the demographic to draw a conclusion, but the comparison should be to other 70-year-old Brits who are active leaders as opposed to a retiree who was deferential during their career. Also, even if there is a similiarity, I'm not at a point to suggest whether a remedy is needed or not.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison should be made to the standard of conduct of the average Wikipedia editor. Age, culture or medical condition should be irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Age / nationality / gender is no excuse for the type of behavior under consideration. And as someone from the UK and by no means "young", I take exception to the suggestion that there is an excuse to be made in being an elderly British male. While he has exercised silence throughout evidence and workshop, Kudpung has continued to offer his views on the state of Arbcom "new sheriffs in town" and the type of people introducing evidence, including: "half-truths, and bullshit, by those having or showing a strong or lingering desire for revenge, pile-ons by those who are not even involved, and those who have demonstrated for years a general antipathy towards the corps of adminship.". There is also some highly salient advice offered to him. [36]. Most regretably it has not been given as formal evidence or workshop material here, but it is the best write up by far. ^{(I assume it is ok to reference this?)} Leaky caldron (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

The record of Kudpung using a less formal name for a female administrator than for male administrators, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence&type=revision&diff=936325036&oldid=936242548&diffmode=source , is very strong prima facie evidence of systematic, and intentional but subtle, denigration of women as a class. Unless it is plausibly explained and rebutted, it indicates that there is reason to doubt Kudpung's ability to treat female editors with respect. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re:using a less formal name for a female administrator than for male administrators, ... is very strong prima facie evidence of systematic, and intentional but subtle, denigration of women as a class." is casting unwarranted aspersions, as it is impossible to deduce intention from it (and this case can decide what people have said and done, but it can not decide people's intentions.) And, it is simply not possible for single statement to indicate anything systematic. GW is the only one in the list of people who publicizes their real name on their user page, and Kudpung was only trying to be friendly - had he been familiar with the real names of the others and had they used them themselves, I expect he would have used them too. There might be issues with the subsequent interactions, but there absolutely was no malice or bad intent in the original statement (which GW herself has said she assumed to be a innocent use of her real name), and you should not be using this phase to fabricate further accusations out of nothing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as for "Unless it is plausibly explained and rebutted, it indicates that there is reason to doubt Kudpung's ability to treat female editors with respect", can you please show me the consensus by which the English Wikipedia community adopted a "Guilty until proven innocent" stance, and swapped around WP:AGF and WP:ABF? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said this before (and in my evidence), but I give Kudpung the benefit of the doubt that he was using my real name for any of the multitude of non-sexist reasons one could do so. Boing!'s explanation that I'm the only one (aside from Joe Roe) who is public with their real name among the other administrators who were named is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he would use my real name and not theirs. However, because I am familiar with the sexist practice of referring to women less formally, I decided to kindly ask Kudpung to avoid doing that going forward—simply because it rubbed me the wrong way, not because I thought he was using my name out of any malice or sexism. It wasn't until he responded so explosively that I began to think there was a problem with misogyny. I do not think it is accurate to say that Kudpung's original message was intentionally sexist. It's possible it was subconsciously so, but it also may not have been, and so I disagree with this analysis. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the evidence to substantiate this charge. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go one step further. Leveling such a charge for a single instance is unwarranted, hostile, and indicative of some of the responses of Kudpung has been dealing with. Such uncivil remarks should not go unanswered. Buffs (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that users should be referred to consistently, independent of gender. It's known behavior in the real world that can be used to undercut non-males.[37][38][39] FWIW, I ran across a couple diffs where Kudpung refers to males by their real first names and not their usernames.[40][41] Without having interacted with him much and barring further evidence, I find it conceivable that he might not have been maliciously using GorillaWarfare's first name. However, his reaction to her request did seem overly defensive too.—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be evidence, but it's not prima facie evidence. There's half a dozen plausible scenarios where one could do that innocuously (e.g. you don't know the names of the other parties, but you know the name of someone else). The problem is the vitriolic explosion following a polite request/reminder to be mindful. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence[42] of User:GRuban may be taken as it is (or as it was [43] before a clerk suggested amendments). However there is one matter that might have been mentioned in it. User:GRuban was nominated for RfA by User:Kudpung on 26 October 2019. The RfA was withdrawn by the candidate before the scheduled closure time after a number of oppose voters mentioned hounding of, in some cases, female editors. In the interests of transparency also, I mention that I was one of the oppose voters. The nomination raises questions of Kudpung's judgement and the depth of his investigation of the people he nominates (although this is hardly a hanging offense). Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"there is one matter that might have been mentioned in it"; no, not really. See, there's a word limit, and I'm afraid I might be a bit past it already. Most of my recent edits were "shorten, shorten, shorten", so there was nowhere near room to mention all the interactions I've ever had with Kudpung or GorillaWarfare without cutting out the, you know, actual evidence. But if you think the RfA is crucial to the case, I would point to User talk:GRuban/RfA, in which I have a rather long discussion, and ask both Kudpung and GorillaWarfare to nominate me. GW didn't, writing that she was busy at work, but I did ask her if she thought I was not ready, and said that if she thought I wasn't, then I wouldn't run, and she did not object. I respect them both, but have known GorillaWarfare longer and have interacted with her more. Kudpung I mainly know through his Signpost editorials asking for more people to become admins, which is why I asked for his advice and co-nomination. As may not have come through, I don't blame just one of them for this sad case, and I know they can each do better; they do usually each do better, and deserve our respect. And the RfA did get 101 supports to 62 opposes, so while it was unsuccessful, I can't see it being bad nominator judgment. I may not have earned the mop, but that's not at all my nominators' fault. --GRuban (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GRuban. If someone was disruptively creating RfA noms it might be relevant to a case, but I don't think that Kudpung nominating GRuban and failing to remember/discover the incident or predict the way it might influence the RfA is a valid thing to hold against him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing to hold against Kudpung on this matter. I completely disagree with the absurd idea that someone's failed/withdrawn RfA should be held against a third party. Buffs (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, what sunk GRuban's RfA (which I initially supported but later retracted) was his exposure of the contents of an e-mail, something that (as even SoWhy said) could not have been foreseen by Kudpung or the other co-nom Lourdes. As such, I fail to see its relevance for this case. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bit of a red herring. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I obviously take offence that no one here has questioned my judgement for being the co-nominator in GR's RfA, and that of the many supporters... Lourdes 08:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Ok, Lourdes I'll question your judgment for the sake of equality ;-) . But considering your were a co-nominator, I'll only question it halfway. Buffs (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Kudpung

In my first statements on the Arbcom case request page, I said all I thought would be necessary for my participation here - simply because any defence I offer or any rebuttals are characterised as 'doubling down', so it is difficult to know what to say without it it being misinterpreted and/or taken out of context. I think the evidence presented here and the analyses by the various participants speak for themselves; I therefore see no real need to contribute beyond what I've already said; my non-participation should not be taken as a refusal to take on board any objective criticisms or that I don't consider anyone else's opinions to have any validity. Those who have spoken in my defense - for which I am grateful and humbled - are not part of a 'Kudpung inner circle' (there isn't one), in fact I I've never even interacted with one of them whose words are in fact more of an appeal for an equitable review of the evidence by the Committee. I will take the feedback here, trust the Committee to make that thorough investigation, accept their decision and apply it accordingly. I will however offer the following corrections to some of the claims that have been made:

With 2,696 different users having posted to my talk page over the years (total number of posts 19,355) I believe it is indeed 6 users who have been asked not to post there; in the course of my work there have been some heated comments and some by trolls, and I have politely asked some users to take their insults and baiting elsewhere, but I do not believe that 6 makes me a serial multiple banner of people from my talk page. I did not coin the phrase 'anti admin brigade'. It was first used by another editor but I thought it apt and used it a few times. Among the 22 or so uses of the term throughout Wikipedia, 3 are in a comment by Robert McClenon concurring with the description of the phenomenon so I fail to see how it is a personal attack. [44] Indeed, according to Jehochman, A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity.[45]. I occasionally make warnings but no threats, and the few blocks I have made (considering I have been an admin for almost 9 years, I have never actually used the admin tools very often in my 100,000 edits) have been almost exclusively to vandals on a spree (I don't patrol the AIV page), and very clear cases of spam users. The use of justified warnings, whether templates or free-hand are something that every single editor is permitted to make, and I certainly do not bite or scare newbies.

I don't understand where I have criticised the current Executive Director of the WMF for being a woman - it's just not something I would do. I make no secret of being critical of the Foundation and its management and job descriptions, but my opinion is the same whatever gender they are in the positions they hold. The article in The Signpost which appears to have been interpreted as a deliberate misogynistic attack, actually speaks of Ms Maher as ' doing an excellent job as ambassador for the movement ', while, Cullen328 makes some poignant and accurate comments as to how that executive position could be improved. [46].

I have already admitted to occasionally not standing on ceremony and having 'a bark that is worse than my bite', but that is an idiomatic expression whose true meaning may not be evident to everyone. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:'

As one of those most concerned about your behavior - you know that despite your Barnstar 2 years ago - I do welcome this, there is a tone of amelioration which is appreciated. But the numbers you have mentioned (6 talk page bans / 22 anti-Admin brigade) are provably inaccurate (13 TP bans are linked from the simplest of searches and anti-Admin brigade - possibly hundreds). It is carefully worded, lacks an awareness of impact on some individuals and should have been provided sooner, suggesting it has been prompted by those he has been in private discussion with. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too appreciate your inclusion here, but I hardly feel it's mandatory. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung FWIW, like Buffs, I feel that you should not have felt compelled to respond here though I appreciate you doing so. Can you understand that there are some issues that have been raised that you need to modify? I am completely opposed to you being desysopped and, whilst we have been in conflict and I believe you have some issues that must be addressed, I hope you understand that overall I respect and thank you for your substantial contributions to Wikipedia. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Xxanthippe: Kudpung deserves credit for acknowledging the existence of the complaints against him, but he reveals little inclination to change his behavior. The way for Kudpung to show that he still retains the confidence of the broader Wikipedia community is for him to stand for another RfA after relinquishing his admin status, either voluntarily as he did before, or by a desysopp. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Well, some of the complaints... Mine (and Missvain's, and others) seem to have been skipped over entirely. I do appreciate Kudpung engaging commenting here, though wish it had come sooner than at the very end of the last community-based phase of the case (after the workshop phase was meant to close, and shortly following the notification that it's about to actually close.) I think it's also telling that Kudpung has been told he's "doubling down" (though where and by whom, I don't know)—perhaps that goes to show his attitude towards the complaints against him so far. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]