Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision
This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Ritchie333: As Joe Roe indicated on the main Case page, we are in the final stages of drafting the PD but not yet done. Hopefully the weekend will give us sufficient time to finish it, so it can be posted next week (no guarantees). While I can imagine the stress, rushing this will do no good either. Regards SoWhy15:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, "Joe Roe indicated" that it would be "a couple of days" on the 12th. It's now the 14th. This is a reasonable question considering we don't see anything at this point. Now it is maybe this weekend or maybe next week or possibly after that? I understand delays happen, but it very much feels like communication is only reactive based on complaints/queries. Likewise, ArbCom appears to be delaying its own deadlines (ones they hold others to relatively tightly. While we all want a fair and impartial result, I concur with Ritchie333...this has been going on for over a month now and the community/Kudpung deserve closure ASAP. Please expedite. Buffs (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the slipping "soon" that's a problem. I don't mind if you say "We will have it done next week" and it's done early. but when you say "a couple of days" and it turns into "hopefully sometime in the next 2 weeks", how accurate was the first statement? It feels like placating (not saying it actually is, only that it gives that impression). Buffs (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My experience, as a clerk, arb, outside contributor, and now, party is that arbs have a bad habit of being unrealistic as to how long it takes to draft a case. This is especially true when you have first time drafters, there is a pressing issue on arbcom-l, or when the drafters disagree. I've seen cases stall out for over a month at this stage. If something gets posted by the 18th, I will be impressed. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi21:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With no disrespect to any of the arbs (and I know I tread on flimsy ground when I write this), it's quite odd for arbs to write two days and then shift it to next week without informing participants, unless queried. I realise that closing of specific sessions in any arbcom case is a fluid exercise when it comes to the involvement of the full community. But the PD is in the universe of control by arbs. I would appreciate it if arbs follow some basic procedural structure and inform participants in advance if their own set deadline is going to be missed by them. Otherwise, you know how it comes off – bad analogy but akin to a judge who gives a date for the judgement, misses the same and just keeps quiet till asked by others. Lourdes 23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Proposed Decision date is intentionally called a "target" date as it is something to shoot for, not a deadline. The drafters are still working on the proposed decision. I don’t think it will be more than a week late, but if it looks to be trending that way, I will ask them to set a new PD target date. It’s better to reach the right decision late than the wrong decision on time. –xenotalk00:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I'm not sweating anything or rushing anything, I do have massive amounts of respect for the hard-working arbs, but I'm just wondering why the main page that lists Requests (WP:ARBREQ) does say the date that the PD is (qoute) "due" (endquote ☺). To me at least, the word due implies that the PD does have a deadline. To be clear I completely agree with you that the date is just a guideline, I was just wondering if the word due needs to be reworded because it isn't a deadline. Thanks anyway, Puddleglum 2.003:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
“
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.
The issue with a slipping "due" date, is about the appropriate managing of expectations. Has that been appropriate here? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But it is something for all of us to think about and try to improve upon. Paul August☎15:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought anyone objects to the Arbs taking their time to get the thing right etc. but the issue here seems to be the lack of communication. I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but either they are close to something to post or they aren't. If the latter, then they should say so here, with a non-binding guesstimate as to when the decision might actually come. — Amakuru (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They've already said they're in the final stages of drafting the PD and that hopefully the weekend would be enough time. I'll note that today is a holiday in the US for some, so may still be "weekend". GorillaWarfare(talk)18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru: I would say we are close but not quite ready. I’ve suggested to the drafters to consider updating the PD target date to the 25th for clarity. Puddleglum2.0: I’ll ask the clerks to consider changing it from “due” to “expected” or something like that - due does seem to carry a heightened implication. –xenotalk00:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the likely continued delay can I make a request - for consistency? During the Workshop a lack of tangible evidence in one of my contributions was challenged by another editor. I provided the requested links - but into the Workshop section where it was suggested that these links should be added into the Evidence page. The acting clerk declined that request due to formality of the stage dates. As the AC deliberations now continue well beyond the target date can I request again that the requested evidence (links) be inserted into the evidence page? Leaky caldron (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, and as everyone may realise that I had opposed Leaky caldron's evidence links during the workshop stage, I think that Lc's request seems fair and reasonable. Lourdes10:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that the last two cases, Portals and RHaworth, actually had the preliminary decision provided on the target date. This had not happened previously for a long time. The current arbitrators actually have gotten two cases decided on time. Thank you. Yes, I would prefer that all cases either start the decision process by the target date or revise the date and communicate the revision, but sometimes getting it right is better than never getting it right, with recent previous arbitration committees. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While really not my place to comment here, may i just suggest that when the drafting arbs know a designated target date will not be met, they just pop a quick note on one of the related talk pages before it passes? Everyone is a volunteer after all and everyone understands real life matters are more important, or that some things should not be rushed and put more thought into and so on. So, just give a heads up, maybe even change the date before the target passses and give yourself a comfortable margin for the next target. Looks better, common courtesy to all involved, really not much effort to do and people are surely more willing to extend good will when they are kept in the loop even a little bit. Anyway, just food for thought. Feel free to ignore. 84.189.235.124 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many commenters/Arbs here have been at the receiving end of an Arbcom case and know what it feels like, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to be commenting here at all - speaking out before, I was accused of 'doubling down', and later exercising my Miranda right was called 'no comment = total guilt = desysop', but I would like to point out that while I realise the Committee is possibly struggling with the challenge of meeting the right and equitable decision, this is becoming a double punishment like being held on death row for years before being finally executed anyway. Please don't rush your decision, and please do not assume arrogance on my part, but it would be good to expect something soon. Thank you for your consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung: I think that we could probably post shortly, with some of the finer details needing to be worked out on the PD page itself. I'll query the drafters. –xenotalk19:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks Casliber for placing the well-thought out principles, facts and decisions. I for one think the Arbcom has done a very fair assessment for the final decisions. I am not that sure about the community reminder. Logically right, but may seem tad affronting to the community. Just my personal opinion. Warmly, Lourdes02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, you have listed out various links about Kudpung's behaviour being discussed on community noticeboards. Can you please confirm whether these links were taken from the Evidence stage? Thanks, Lourdes09:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, thanks. I had quick queries here. These links were mentioned in the case report presumably by one of the arbitrators, with the following comment: "Please tell me if I missed some but from that I can't see that previous steps of dispute resolution were actually exhausted or even tried.[...]Except the current ANI thread, I see no evidence that this was attempted. Unfortunately, with the case request, the ANI discussion stalled and probably should instead continue. Furthermore, Kudpung has since elaborated on their comment and apologized to Chris and Chris has himself indicated that he is willing to work with Kudpung going forward. So as long as there is no evidence of the community actually attempting and failing to resolve the alleged user misconduct issues, this request seems premature."
Bradv, I am asking this as I am unclear about the procedure. Is it okay for an arbitrator to pick up links which were not discussed during the evidence stage, and create a proposed finding of fact out of them even though nobody got a chance to discuss them during the evidence stage? And especially links that an arbitrator has said do not prove community participation? Pinging SoWhy and Casliber. Thanks, Lourdes17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes, the arbitration policy contains a list of what sort of evidence the committee may consider, and there is no stipulation that this must be presented on the evidence page. When the evidence consists of allegations of wrongdoing, I would consider it good practice to allow for rebuttal at the evidence stage, but this is just a list of prior attempts to address Kudpung's behaviour. And, as it was already presented during this case, there was, and continues to be, opportunity to provide feedback on this finding. – bradv🍁18:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv thanks again for the response. I understand your point of view about rebuttal. However, you and I both know that this is a wrong way to re-insert links that were not placed in the evidence stage for discussion.
Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Voting, which clearly mentions: "After considering the evidence and workshop pages, and any private discussions among the Arbitration Committee, one or more arbitrators will write and post a proposed decision. This clearly does not mention the case page or any other page across the project – and for a reason, so that editors don't randomly insert links without having given the community a chance to respond.
The stage for discussing evidence is over, and it is, just in my opinion, absolute bad form on your part to incorporate links arbitrarily in this manner, and you are an arbitrator. I would request you to remove those links and the finding of fact that you have created without providing the community an opportunity to discuss on the same. This is a bad use of your position, to be honest. In my view, your move contravenes Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators. Please reconsider and don't go down this path. Lourdes03:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to ask the committee to review my actions. I saw a finding of fact that I consider to be incorrect, and so I provided a corrected version. That's very much a part of the decision process, and I would expect any other arbitrator to do the same. – bradv🍁03:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. No, I would not wish to ask the Committee to review your actions. But I would wish to point out to you (and to Casliber, Joe and AGK) that it is unreasonable and unfair to include these links at this stage. At the least, I would hope the community sees the mistakes in your action, of being the collator, investigator and decider, all in one, and the subsequent misrepresentation of the links. I'll leave it at this. Thanks, Lourdes15:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
← Lourdes: I'm not sure I follow the argument that the proposed decision must exclude material submitted during the request phase of the case if that material is not also re-introduced into evidence. Those opening statements form the justification for opening the case in the first place, so the committee needs to be able to reference that information in the final decision to be able to contextualize their actions. Yes, the evidence phase is for participants to submit evidence, and to challenge that evidence. The proposed decision stage also affords all participants an equal opportunity to challenge the evidence referenced in the decision by posting to this page. –xenotalk20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
xeno, for one, these links were introduced by an arbitrator on the case page, never discussed on the evidence page by the community, and then suddenly re-used by another arbitrator on the PD page. Is there integrity in this procedure?
My related rhetorical query is, if the links had not been introduced in the case page, would Arbcom still have allowed an arbitrator to use them at this stage? If your answer is no, then I presume it is so because of procedure. In the same lines, upholding the highest levels of procedural integrity expected of arbcoms, the arbitrator in question Bradv should not have used these links unilaterally here before allowing the community to discuss these links during the evidence stage. If your answer to my query is yes, then there is no point of my arguing here as then there is lack of some level of integrity in this procedure. Any arbitrator can then decide on their own links to trawl and make up their own interpretation of findings of fact without being one step away from the procedure of evidence collation and analysis.
In such a case, I would suggest arbcom updates Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Voting to mention: "After considering any page on Wikipedia, and any private discussions among the Arbitration Committee, one or more arbitrators will write and post a proposed decision. instead of "After considering the evidence and workshop pages, and any private discussions among the Arbitration Committee, one or more arbitrators will write and post a proposed decision. Thanks, Lourdes00:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lourdes: I would be hesitant to restrict the committee from ever considering evidence outside that which is presented on the evidence and workshop page, though I understand your concern that the noticeboard links might not have been subject to scrutiny and discussion in the earlier phases. However, to prohibit inclusion of the links (and possible passing a somewhat misleading finding) merely because they weren't put onto the evidence page would be to allow the triumph of form over substance. There are potentials for cases where participants - for whatever reason - do not submit evidence (or enough evidence) to craft a fair decision, and the committee would be required to source it themselves. One thing that was suggested, and that may have allayed your concern would have been to post the proposed decision to the workshop for community comments prior to putting it onto the PD page. We did have a few days until our "new target" PD date. Alas. We are here now. It seems the objection over the noticeboard threads was not expected, given they were present on the ARC page, and for other reasons discussed in this thread. All that being said: you are still free to challenge the substance of the finding that those noticeboard threads are attached to it at this stage and I will consider your concerns in that context. –xenotalk02:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb, who has decided and at what stage have they decided that these links provide evidence that Kudpung is "wrong"? You, right now while typing your message? (yay to arbcom procedures then, right) Or Bradv? – who never introduced the evidence in the evidence stage (and why did he not introduce the same? Would it have been considered procedurally incorrect as arbs are expected to be at least a step away from being the investigators?). Or others, who have had bad experiences with Kudpung, but never posted these links to discuss them through the full evidence stage of the case? The same links that were given by an arbitrator and not by any community editor? And links which an arbitrator on the case page clarified have no relevance to the premise of the case! The same links, the PD of which have two arbitrators opposing in the PD page? If your submission is that all is fair game (given Bradv's contention that "there is no stipulation that [links] must [have] been presented on the evidence page"), and that I too can introduce some more links for analysis here, then why don't we merge Arbcom with ANI? Lourdes01:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any procedural rule about when or where evidence in the PD should come from. As a general principle, ArbCom is not a court or adversarial process. Our job is to establish findings of fact to guide our decision on how to resolve a dispute. When drafting the PD I also did my own research beyond the evidence submissions – the only difference here is Bradv found something just after we moved it on-wiki. If we ignore it for procedural reasons, we'd be in the awkward situation of having a finding of fact ("there had been no community-wide dispute resolution attempts") that we know isn't true. – Joe (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, from the page itself, in big bold letters - Arbitration is not a legal process: With no fixed approaches to problems, all actions, conduct, and relevant evidence may be taken into account.@Lourdes: I note that the segment you highlight would seem to be at odds with the big prominent bit highlighted here, so I think it is a good idea to talk about it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the proposed decision was written on the arbwiki, which qualifies as is a Private Discussion. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC) Ah okay, I see that. Still, I don't have a problem with Bradv's edit. We are elected to be arbitrators and to use discretion and foresight to come to conclusions that we feel to be the best and fairest for wikipedia and its community. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that I appreciate the time that all of you have taken to respond to this issue. While I am still at odds with your perspective, I respect the fact that you've given it proper attention (and hopefully, going forward, maybe this issue is resolved out of the grey area). Warmly, Lourdes12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast, the Arthur Rubin case was one where the main individual provided a statement during the case request, which included evidence, but did not participate in the case's evidence and workshop phases. The committee was sharply criticized by some in the community for noting their "non-participation in the Arbitration case" in FOF#6 and it was argued that the ARC statement and evidence was sufficient. In other cases, often people will submit a link to an entire ANI or AN thread and state that everything necessary for review can be found there. It is clear to me that many people have different ideas about how the process should run, but in my experience, few believe that ARC should not be taken under consideration during a case, or for ARC to be seen as outside the arbitration process. Mkdwtalk18:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: In [1] it appears you view desysop as punishment, perhaps SoWhy has a similar view. I think that is a fundamental category error for an arbitrator. There is no punishment in being placed in the central position of editor on this website, especially until a new community consensus can be formed to give additional permission. Sysop is not a reward, and desysop is not a punishment. Desysop is for upholding obligations voluntarily entered into by administrators. And desysop is already elaborately protected from occurring, but now if desysop is viewed as punishment, it can likely never occur, at least not while upholding the fundamental principles of valid action (ie. not punishment). It would do much good for the project if you worked to dispel the notion that may well be common among some administrators and others that desysop is punishment. Moreover, as arbitrators, the only people who may desysop, you can no longer afford to view desysop as punishment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that post, I am not considering the removal of user rights to be the punishment (which will not be much of a punishment to Kudpung, and should not be seen as such: I agree, they are no big deal) - the formal, public, permanent, nigh-irrevocable censure on the arbitration page is the punishment. And to place one on Kudpung while not taking the opportunity to also explore remedies that would have (in my written opinion) greater preventative effect was why I put forward alternative remedies. Simply returning a user to rank in hope that all the other problems work themselves out is another form of kicking the can down the road. –xenotalk13:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response. But the Arbitrator's job is the hard task to formally and publicly say whether conduct complies with obligation, and to publicly remedy--that cannot be a punishment, either, unless one views the committee's very operation and purpose as punishment. At any rate, thank you. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for Xeno but I don't think it's a punishment per se but it is somewhat of a reversal of a prior community consensus to grant the userright. As such, before doing so, the user in question should at least have had a clear warning that this will happen if they continue a certain kind of behavior. I think I have made it clear that my comments were based on the fact that the community has for years expressed tolerance for Kudpung's behavior even when it has been discussed and thus might have inadvertently caused some of the problems now under discussion. Regards SoWhy13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I suppose, when enough is enough, and whether enough has been said is always a judgement you will be called upon to make. Best wishes and wisdom. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will add, be sure you are not underestimating how much we as a community rely and have relied on the self-circumspection of the user involved in the cases that come before you, even more so the administrator. We have little choice but to so rely, especially with administrators. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Xxanthippe about proposed decision
If female editor Brownhairedgirl was desysopped[2] one month ago for behavior over a rather minor matter (portals) and male editor Kudpung is merely admonished for much more insidious behavior towards other users, some editors may feel that this is another example of Wikipedia not being gender neutral. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Male/female, minor/insidious, portals/other editors... Of the contrasts, the first is probably undisputed, the second is what the ArbCom is there to deliberate on, the third one is outright wrong. So, I disagree. Usedtobecool☎️04:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very generous description of repetitive attacks on the intelligence and honesty of several other editors, combined with a refusal to listen to anyone who objected to this behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced gender is really the deciding factor here. More likely ArbCom just don't want to desysop three times in a row because it'd make them look like Hanging judges. That's why they're scrambling around looking for reasons to let Kudpung off the hook. It hasn't escaped anyone's attention that remedies like "12 month admin probation" weren't considered during BrownHairedGirl's trial. I strongly suspect that, if Kudpung's case had been opened first and BHG's last, they would have been more inclined for harshness towards Kudpung and leniency towards BHG. It's still early in the voting, but if it ends with Kudpung remaining free to make vague yet forceful threats against people and nuke IP editors for correctly placing maintenance tags, while BHG lost her bit for nothing more than chronic grouchiness, I will be disappointed but not surprised. ReykYO!06:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe, what on earth has Wikimania 2020 got to to with this? I really think you've said more than enough during this case, your 'evidence' has been noted and comments are officially closed, and whichever way this case goes for me, you need to consider stepping back. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, considering your own lack of involvement in a case that centered on you (which some might interpret as disrespectful to the community), you aren't really in a position to criticize the extent to which other users participated in this case, are you? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring the gender thing into this, please. Anyways, it does indeed taste bad, if one administrator looses the tools & the other doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that there were also sanctions between an admonishment and desysop proposed in the Portals case, and the vote for the desysop over those was very close. – Joe (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: although we will leave the current responses here, if you wish to continue the above conversation, please respond in your own section per the instructions at the top of the page. CThomas3 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General comment. I am surprised by the drama and passion that this case has engendered. We are told by Kudpung that becoming a Wikipedia administrator is no big deal.[5] Relinquishing the tools (which he does not use very often anyway[6]) should be no big deal either. After a period of rest and reflection, anybody who feels that they retain the confidence of the community is free to reapply for the admin tools to be restored to them as Kudpung has done once before (although his application was adjudicated by a Bureaucrat rather than in a RfA). Indeed, an enforced period of R&R for all administrators every few years might be beneficial for their health, the same for ordinary editors too. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe: I will come back to your concern of form. This page is really to source opinions on the substance, though. Could you let me know your thoughts about the remedy on the merits? –xenotalk17:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My view of the suspended remedy (1.1) proposed by you after interaction with Kudpung which you initiated out of sight of these ArbCom threads while the case was open, is that it is an unenforceable slap on the wrist. I support full desysopping of Kudpung. It is clear that he would never pass a RfA after the evidence revealed in this investigation. I have gained the perception that the arbitration process may have been tainted by cronyism. Whether or not this perception is justified, for the sake of ensuring that the process is seen to be above suspicion, I suggest you recuse. (Off topic: I also have been advised of multiple failed attempts to log into my account, not by me. It would be interesting to know the IP addresses responsible. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The "probation period" is certainly an interesting idea, an I'm not sure I've heard of this in the ArbCom toolbox before. But like Xxanthippe above, I would have to ask the ArbCom why that option wasn't considered for BrownHairedGirl? Her civility issues were limited to one area and although I do think some action was needed there, this probation option sounds like it would have been perfect there, allowing her to continue her admin work with the guarantee of action if problems recurred. I don't suppose it's gender bias, but it does strike me as unfair for BHG to be desysopped outright while Kudpung is just probationed. Probationing both would have been fairer and a better outcome for the project. — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru: A lesser option was considered in the Portals case: remedy 5, which involved an admonishment with an explicit warning that desysop remains in abeyance (this is probation without using the word). –xenotalk01:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Personally I would consider that remedy to be less stringent than the one proposed here - "she is warned that further behavior of this kind can result in desysop" is somewhat vague and really describes the sort of thing that could apply to anybody. Whereas this "probation period" is quite explicit in saying that repetition of the conduct mentioned would be immediately dealt with by ArbCom. I don't know if the availability of a clearly-worded option like that might have persuaded some Arbs not to desysop BHG on the spot, but it seems possible. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only offer the mea culpa that the Portals case went into voting only a few weeks into my term, and there is a rather lot of stuff thrown at you those first few weeks. –xenotalk05:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Thryduulf
@Casliber: Why is "length of service" relevant to whether someone has or has not upheld the standards required of administrators? (I haven't read all the evidence in this case, so I don't have an opinion about whether they should or should not be desysopped but I don't understand why length of service is relevant to the decision) Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it directly bears on the decision of whether there's been a failure to meet ADMINCOND or whether a desysop is an appropriate remedy. But it does provide context to the rest of the conduct evidence in the case. As a hypothetical example, we would probably look differently at an admin who had made three serious mistakes in three months with the bit vs. one that had made three over ten years. – Joe (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SandyGeorgia
People, the top of the page says to post in your own section.
I had my say elsewhere in these discussions about how well probation usually works, and how the community was left to deal with a problem that festered for years after the arbs did not act. On cue, Kudpung's latest post here, minutes ago adopts the very threatening, intransigent and unremorseful tone that brought us here, and gives us a very good indication of how well probation is likely to work. Telling another editor they "need to consider stepping back" during an arbcase examining that very behavior is utterly brazen. Kudpung does not seem to understand or recgnize that being told to "step back" by an admin is threatening, that they have no right to make such a statement during an arbcase reviewing their threatening conduct, and in the context of Kudpung not having participated in this case, this is a pretty good indication that they have not taken on board the problems that brought us here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Leaky caldron below, this is not a good sign that anything has been taken on board. Criticizing the arbs as biased and dishonest after failing to participate in the case himself, when most of the arbs haven't even voted ... <sigh> ... this is looking more and more like an entitlement issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno, Maxim, SoWhy, Casliber, and David Fuchs: the "Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy), 1.1" was proposed on 25 Feb, stating that Kudpung had made a commitment to take on board feedback made during this case". Part of the wording is that Kudpung is advised to "consider criticism objectively, and assume good faith ... and refrain from suggesting editors critical of his actions are making personal attacks or engaging in sanctionable behaviour ... and refrain from personalizing disputes or making vague or critical references about unnamed editors".
This proposal was put forward and supported only days after Kudpung posted a personalizing response to an editor who was critical of his actions,[8] (perhaps from your vantage point as arbs, you may not realize how non-admins perceive being told to step back as a threat), while also failing to assume good faith and being critical of unnamed arbs.[9]
The remedy further reads, "If any editor feels that Kudpung's behaviour does not accord with the letter or the spirit of this remedy, they may file an amendment or contact the committee privately to request the remedy be enacted and Kudpung's administrative user rights be removed."
Two questions/issues:
Please help me (or the community) understand why you would propose a remedy only days after the same behaviors were observed. With evidence to the contrary posted to this very page within days of the remedy being put forward, what is it that leads you to believe that Kudpung has committted to take on board feedback?
Several editors on this page already "feel that Kudpung's behaviour does not accord with the letter or the spirit of the remedy" because of the two posts (and others) Kudpung made in the last few days; do you see that you are setting up the same ongoing failure to address a problem that we had in the case I linked above?
My support for proposed remedy 1.1 is based on my comment on remedy 1, i.e. that I believe that the community has for a long time signaled Kudpung that his behavior is not that problematic, mere "grouchiness" that does not require any intervention, as seen by the discussions mentioned in proposed FoF 4.2 and that this Case - once it's over - serves as the warning the community has previously failed to give. Consequently, a failure to abide by a remedy can only be sanctioned once a remedy has actually been implemented. Regards SoWhy08:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Ajraddatz. At any step in this process, that would have satisfied me. We are all human, and acknowledgement of mistakes and realization we need to do better goes a long way. It didn't occur after The Signpost incident where I found Kudpung's comment so disrespectful, it didn't occur after the ANI where Kudpung kept doubling down, it didn't occur when the Proposed decision was posted, it hasn't occurred yet. I don't believe the one thing that Kudpung did post went as far as needed, as explained by Ajraddatz, which would give some assurance that he understood. Now, it's too late for me to believe it is possible, but I would still like to know why the five arbs above believe there had been indication that Kudpung has taken the concerns on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung saying "you need to consider stepping back" versus BrownHairedGirl saying "you are not telling the truth". The first sentence is not true, while the second one is not false. What is worse ? Many weeks are required to decide. Pldx1 (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some days later. Kudpung reiterates, discarding criticism as peanuts thrown from the peanut gallery. Isn't there a coconut gallery, in charge of coconut/desysop throwing against such behavior ? But hands are shaking in the coconut gallery. Coconuts are rather for the not-guilty cases. Because, as stated at the Super Mario Café, a well-deserved coconut would be too harsh. Pldx1 (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Levivich
The probation thing has been done before, eg the Giantsnowman case. BHG’s and RHarwoth’s cases should be reopened to consider probation, as it is being considered here. It’s not too late. We have alternatives to deletion; we should have alternatives to desysop as well. Levivich (lulz) 15:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has the committee ever walked back a decision to remove administrative privileges before? Not intentional temporary removals, which I understand occurred 9+ years ago, but vacating a desysop and directing bureaucrats to resysop someone? Would the community be accepting of that? Is it permitted by arbitration policy? I suppose the committee could pass a remedy indicating the earlier remedy is suspended in favour of new conditions and allowing the user to seek simple restoration at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. That would send it back to the community, but I wouldn't envy the bureaucrats that would have to sit on that resysop request. –xenotalk13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must fully agree with the comments above which express a great deal of concern over the ways in which BrownHairedGirl and Kudpung are being treated differently by the Committee. I'm especially confused given the damning findings which have been presented - threats of taking actions against those he perceives himself to be in dispute with, threats of investigations and implying subtly that he's quite happy to engage in stalking behaviour, which are, of course, behavioural issues which we routinely deal with by lengthy or indefinite blocks where that user doesn't have the misfortune to hold advanced permissions. Their general administrator accountability is lamentable, even when taking into account the areas he works. The new page patrols and new page reviewing work does, sadly, result in many questions from inexperienced users and many allegations of untoward behaviour, but this can normally be dealt with without resorting to defensive or abusive tactics, making allegations of "trolling" and invoking the mythical "anti-admin brigade".
I am also greatly concerned that the Committee is failing to address Kudpung's failure to adequately involve themselves in the case; that sets an unfortunate precedent moving forward, telling other administrators that one way to retain adminship is to ignore the RFAR. I'd personally advocate a zero tolerance approach and would like to see 'failing to participate in a relevant arbitration case' as a legitimate ground for desysopping as part of an enhanced admin accountability policy, but that's just me.
There's more than enough here to see any ordinary user blocked for a very long time, Kudpung being an admin has got them out of trouble, whether they realise it or not, too many times and it really is about time that 'diplomatic immunity' was removed, not just for Kudpung, but for all of us.
@Nick: Only two arbs have voted on the remedies so far and they're split across the desysop, probation, and admonishment – so it's a bit early in the day to be comparing outcomes. The purpose of the proposed decision is to consider a range of options. If you look at the PDs for both Portals and RHaworth, there were multiple proposals for sanctions between an admonishment and desysop. – Joe (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: That's true, but given the outcomes of those cases/where the new committee has set the bar for administrator conduct, together with the evidence presented for the findings of fact, some of the proposed decisions available seem a little incongruous. Nick (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean concern over how Kudpung is being treated differently than BrownHairedGirl; or do you mean concern over how Kudpung and BrownHairedGirl are being treated in comparison to other ArbCom cases about administrative conduct? While the Portals case and this case are inherently different in many respects, I believe there are overwhelming grounds for desysop in both cases.
The Arthur Rubin case and Enigmaman case were two recent examples that went on to full cases and where the leading named parties involved did not materially participate. In both examples they were swiftly desysopped for failing to meet ADMINCOND and their non-participation in the case was cited as a contributing factor to the decision. To some degree, FOF#8 speaks to Kudpung's non-participation in the case. Mkdwtalk21:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's drifting towards being a moot point, but it's the unease (for me) with which the findings of fact sit with those proposed remedies short of a desysop. I understand why these proposed decisions are presented but it is somewhat unsettling to see admonishment being considered where we have several instances of harassment and intimidation being shown clearly. These are findings of fact, as I've said previously, which would result in a normal editor being blocked for a significant period of time. Kudpung has, regrettably, been allowed to get away with harassment and intimidation for a long period precisely because he's an administrator and even more regrettably, because other administrators (most likely including myself) have circled the wagons and given him undue protection to behave in this way. Nick (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
isaacl's section
Given that providing constructive negative feedback to someone is a very difficult task, if the arbitration committee wants to remind the community to do this, I suggest it should remind editors who feel they are trusted by the editor exhibiting sub-optimal behaviour that they are in the best position to try to ward off future problems and conflicts. Additionally, I suggest reminding editors receiving feedback to strive to put aside any poor wording and look for ways to defuse future disagreements. Yes, there will always be hateful messages that can be filed directly into the trash. But most do have some kernel of insight that can be considered. This doesn't necessarily mean changing one's viewpoint; sometimes all that is needed is a change in how one responds to other editors. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the conversation with xeno: I don't know if recusal would accomplish anything, since all of the arbitrators were made aware of the conversation and so there's no unringing the bell. I recall thinking that it was a bit weird to essentially ask the subject of a case how to sanction themselves. With this particular case, it could be seen as a novel way to get the subject to engage. I would be more comfortable with this approach if it didn't seem like a one-off situation. isaacl (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, a particularly unusual aspect was discussing possible sanctions without any prior discussion of whether or not sanctions were appropriate in the first place. Entering into discussion is good, but I think it was premature to ask questions that assumed sanctions were necessary, without first seeking the subject's point of view on the circumstances. isaacl (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point, but at the time of the conversation the draft PD was naught but a shell. Hence, the speaking in hypotheticals. –xenotalk06:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you said before, I don’t think there were any illusions as the potential applicability to the ongoing case. But even so, with a proposed decision not yet posted, all the more reason to first make a good faith attempt to understand their point of view of their actions. Why start with looking at possible remedies, instead of trying to understand more context for findings of fact? isaacl (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is: I wasn’t a drafter. So the question was hypothetical because I hadn’t taken a deep dive into the case yet. Discussing a potential remedy does not automatically imply that the remedy is indictated or the best choice, besides. That’s why I wish some (not you, isaacl) would dial it back just a bit while the committee comes to their decisions. The ink is still wet, this is a collaborative process, we need the space to be able to explore alternate remedies. –xenotalk14:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear once again on your response to my question on starting with asking about the circumstances of the various incidents that took place: whether or not you were a drafter, or if your questions were hypothetical doesn't, in my view, affect your choice of where to start. Nonetheless, I appreciate your saying it is a fair point.
On the other matter, I agree arbitrators should be free to discuss a wide variety of options openly. Various editors have called for more transparency in deliberations. Inevitably that will mean an array of possibilities will be presented, some of which may have a direct correspondence with other cases, and some of which may not. A number of years ago, some drafting arbitrators would have made use of the workshop period to present and discuss these choices, but it wasn't commonplace, and hasn't been the trend for a while now. isaacl (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding community feedback: I believe it should be borne in mind that most editors have no desire to confront others over their behaviour. Personally, I don't like to give feedback unless I can glean some indications that the editor will be receptive to it. It's particularly daunting to raise an issue with a long-time experienced editor that has many friendly talk page watchers, as they'll quickly defend the editor, sometimes in aggressive ways. And I understand why that's a natural impulse, when many trolls or biased editors show up on the talk pages for active editors: with editors who truly aren't here to improve Wikipedia, a brusque response can be the more time-efficient way to deal with them. For well-connected editors, this sheltering effect extends to the incidents and administrators' noticeboards as well. As a result, it's hard for legitimate concerns to be raised, and most editors find it easier to just avoid the editor or avoid discussing issues that may trigger them. I agree ideally we'd sit down and talk out the issues in all cases, but realistically there are situations where the moving pieces (such as a clear incident, feedback from respected editors, a receptiveness to understanding the point of views of others, few mitigating circumstances that can be used to excuse behaviour, and so forth) don't quite fit together well enough to enable this to happen. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Leaky Caldron
In agreeing with the statement by SandyGeorgia, I also wonder whether any genuine community concern is considered significant enough for Kudpung to respond with a positive mindset. There is enough factual evidence presented to indicate the existence of "a problem" - I think that is undeniable. But, rather than engaging directly, Kudpung goes to supporter's talk pages to attack the integrity of those who have participated or to pass derogatory remarks about the PD drafters. Today for example, ...."I would have expected the drafters to at least be honest. What see (sic) here is partially deliberate bias and blatant distortion of the facts by the drafter(s). I don't mind complying with an Arbcom verdict, and what I do afterwards is up to me, but if it has to be a permanent and unappealble desysop, it should correctly reflect the facts.". And this is not an isolated, recent understandable venting of exasperation. It's a trend. Yes it's tough to be referred to Arbom., but the realisation that "words matter" seems not to be sinking in. No editor, regardless of their personal background, quantity of edits, length of service, can be an island able to disregard standards which they, as an Admin., are expected to uphold. Arbcom drafters dishonest, biased, blatantly distorting facts.... really? Leaky caldron (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the valid point made by Xeno regarding evidence, just an anecdote. During the Workshop my evidence supporting a FoF was challenged and 10 evidence links produced as requested in support of it. In fact it was suggested that this be included retrospectively into the evidence page but unfortunately the request was at first declined by a clerk and a subsequent request not responded to. But there was no dispute (indeed there was agreement) that the evidence could be recorded in the proper place, subject to clerk approval, despite the stage being "officially" closed. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RM Trolling - evidence
Xeno. It isn't clear what point you are making in highlighting one part of my evidence by saying Although he is removing a post with the edit summary "rm trolling" [16], the removed post was criticism directed at another editor, not Kudpung.. For the avoidance of doubt, the whole part of that evidence should be read in full context. Selectively highlighting a particle of the evidence is incongruous. The fact is that it was not "trolling" of any kind. It was a genuine attempt to curtail the concerted attack on Kudpung. It was dismissed / deleted in a typical act of bad faith when Kudpung saw who it was from - me - who he could only possibly consider to be a troll. A personal attack, IIRC. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno The single diff you have provided doesn't, no. The whole piece of evidence with diffs does. In August 2018 I was surprised to receive a Barnstar from Kudpung [10] and took this to indicate that I was now probably welcome to comment there [his TP]. In March 2019 I noticed him having a particular rough time relating to his role as Signpost co-editor in chief: [11] and added a message requesting an editor to ease off. [12]. Within a few hours my message was removed with the edit summary “RM trolling”[13]. I asked about this and the curt, dismissive response is here: [14].Leaky caldron (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I would expect to see next to a claim that He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it as "trolling" or similar would be several instances of him dismissing/removing criticism and calling it trolling or similar, not a single instance of him removing criticism directed at another editor as trolling. –xenotalk23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That bit in quotes comes from the PD drafters, as you know. They have provided various links under Kudpung's accountability as an administrator 3) Kudpung frequently reacts to feedback on his conduct unobjectively and without assuming good faith. On multiple occasions, he has interpreted criticism as a vendetta against himself [9][10][11] or admins in general, making numerous references to an "anti-admin brigade".[12] He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it as "trolling" or similar [13] or by requesting that users not edit his talk page (at least six times, by Kudpung's own count).[14][15]
As I said in evidence, my example was a personal anecdote. The drafters have decided to use it, along with other links they have aggregated under the consolidated PFoF 3.2.3. Maybe I have incorrectly read your concern as being aimed at my evidence rather than directed towards the drafters, in which case please accept my apology. Leaky caldron (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber. If I may, jumping on the length of service as mitigation raised by 3 or 4 others on this page, maybe it plausible in some rare cases. But surely it cannot mitigate in a situation when some of the behavior which has been raised as concern in the case dates back nearly as long as Kudpung has been an admin? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As drafter SoWhy,XenoKudpung desysopped (suspended remedy) Does this remedy include non-personal, offensive references usually found on senior friends talk pages describing unspecified members of the community as "peanut gallery" and, of course, "anti-admin brigade"? I fear that anything not specifically contained in the remedy will simply be regarded as "not covered by the remedy" and the generalised abuse will continue. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Casliber[reply]
Strange behavior - effective collusion and lobbying
One of the concerns is about Kudpung's lack of participation here. And yet, in this prominent thread on Successful_RfAs_following_clouds, [16], he is guiding readers to the very discussion [17] that seems to have led to Xeno's suggested remedy Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy). All under the pretext of understanding another AC member's rationale for asking about historical cases (with no mention of Kudpung anywhere in that thread how could he possibly interpret Maxim's request?). Are semi-back channel discussions really appropriate when they have pointedly avoided participation in the case? This is similar to obscure behaviour when he temporarily resigned during the Signpost fiasco - nothing is simply out in the open with this guy. Friendships and hidden influence appear to play too big a part in his MO for the clarity needed in community dealings concerning his behavior. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno"The community is looking for much more than just the removal of a toolset. There is no guarantee that simply removing the user rights will have the desired effect". In what way is doing literally nothing - other than offering an unenforceable threat, "much more than just removal of a toolset?" It looks - it is indeed - far less in practical terms. Tools are given to those who are trusted based on track record of all sorts of characteristics including TRUST - not evidence of tool capability. Ask yourself this - given the irrefutable evidence, would Kudpung be likely to pass an RfA now? And if you believe he would, the remedy is straightforward without putting him through a year of misery. And by the way, what about after 12 months? Leaky caldron (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Xeno[reply]
"I cannot speak for Xeno but I don't think it's a punishment per se but it is somewhat of a reversal of a prior community consensus to grant the userright. As such, before doing so, the user in question should at least have had a clear warning that this will happen if they continue a certain kind of behavior. I think I have made it clear that my comments were based on the fact that the community has for years expressed tolerance for Kudpung's behavior even when it has been discussed and thus might have inadvertently caused some of the problems now under discussion. Regards SoWhy 1:28 pm, Today (UTC+0)"
SoWhy Seriously, for years expressed tolerance? No, never. They've put up with it (the behaviour) absent any sign he would do something about it because he's been impervious to and totally dismissive of criticism. And probably, for most of the time, had enough Admins. to prevent any attempts to rectify his sense of entitlement by any practical means. I cannot believe that you understand that that the community has "expressed tolerance" for ten years. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You call it "putting up", I call it tolerating. The sentiment and the end result are the same. Just look at the discussions linked to in FoF proposal #4.2 with comments like
Those are not the comments of a community that thought it might be required to intervene because of problematic behavior. If anything, they signaled that the behavior is okay and there is no need to worry or change. Regards SoWhy14:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy Highly selective and likely not representative, or anywhere near. Even Kudpung has ardent followers who see no wrong in anything he says or his grotesque reaction to minor situations. Are you really saying that the weight of evidence produced dating back 10 years is not just "no smoke without fire" but actually quite a significant blaze? And then there is the attitude towards specific editors more recently. I get that he has fostered close personal relationships with several AC members - hence the recuses - but don't duped - even some of those are not impressed by his antics. Anyway, the place to test what the community really think is WP:RFA. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot judge that. I have however not seen evidence of any AN* discussions that were radically different until the 2020 one that was cut short. I don't know about close personal relationships that others might have but anyways, I am all for clearly stating that Kudpung has crossed lines and should be admonished for it, something the community has in the past failed to do. I just also recognize that some of that behavior might have been encouraged by the lack of opposition in the past. Regards SoWhy19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Comments by Martinp
When "the prisoner in the dock" (not my expression) states clearly in their limited contribution to the main case page "it is midnight here where I live and I will not be at the beck and call of a pitchfork-wielding mob. That's all I have to say and if the committee votes to take the case, so be it and it can take its course" I can see no good reason other than subterfuge for discussions held elsewhere attempting to exert influence on their potential remedies. It is completely disingenuous - so add that to the charge sheet. They didn't wish to engage in the allocated public venue but instead hoped to garner support from influential friends out of immediate public scrutiny. Shocking that that can be advocated. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Lepricavark
The diff provided by Leaky suggests to me that nothing has been learned thus far. Furthermore, you can add me to the list of those who don't see why 'length of service' is relevant. I also agree with Nick that ArbCom would be justified in desysopping Kudpung purely for lack of adequate participation in the case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any precedent for using suspended desysopping in the past? The cynic in me believes that excessive leeway is being given to an entrenched, well-connected admin. If his actions merit a desysop, take his tools away now rather than kicking the can down the road. If they don't merit a desysop, then there's no reason for a suspended desysop. This is a half-measure. Neither BHG or RHaworth were given a suspended remedy. What makes Kudpung any more deserving than they? He barely even participated in his own case, for crying out loud. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to ArbCom for posting the decision. For those who want to revisit the decisions on RHaworth or BHG in light of this ruling, let's see what the end result is here first. We can then refer to WP:AE any necessary appeals. I look forward to the result. Buffs (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I found your analysis on FoF#6 quite compelling. Kudpung has not been accused of treating new Wikipedians poorly nor has evidence been presented to state otherwise. If anyone else has evidence to back anything other than the middle sentence, that too should be considered. Otherwise, I don't see that it has a place here. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You meant Principle 6, of course. From what I’m gathering, Kudpung’s NPP efforts bring him into contact with new editors and I guess that’s what’s being focused on here, but I don’t see anything in FoF concerning new editors specifically. I will have to go over the diffs again. –xenotalk00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: no, I meant finding of fact...uh...hmm...dag nabbit...
Boing! said Zebedee A thousand times, yes. That was the whole reason I got involved. I'm not saying that all such conduct by Kudpung is appropriate, but even a cursory glance shows the evidence doesn't support the conclusions (as you outlined). Well done! Buffs (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GW, I cannot believe you're really going with this logic: "he talked about me without mentioning my name...the same happened with others!...This is inherently uncivil!!!" (paraphrased). I've said things about experiences I've had with others and omitted names out of respect, not as an act of disrespect or an attempt to hide. There's nothing nefarious about that. Certainly nothing worthy of desysopping. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong, explain what I'm seeing, and that's "cruel"? You're literally using a different dictionary than the rest of us. Buffs (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re:"I have spent enough time having my motives and experiences questioned here; I don't expect you to stop, but I'm done engaging with it." GW, I think you mean well. You cannot simply present your perspective in ArbCom and expect it to not be questioned or have other perspectives presented. This comes across as "my feelings trump any facts. Now, you're a bad person, but I'm better because I'm disengaging". I truly would expect more from you. Buffs (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This whole mess appears to be coming to a close. I would like to thank all participants in this discussion (and the active ArbCom members deciding this case in particular) for considering all of the evidence/discussion. Buffs (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a long time since I've seen arbs try so hard to fall over themselves to ignore the evidence in front of them to find an escape hatch for a powerful administrator. Length of tenure? Endorsing Kudpung's refusal to take part in the case? Waving away Kudpung's obvious statements about GorillaWarfare and Missvain? You all have to be kidding me. Do your dam job and stop treating AGF like a suicide pact. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I filled this case, is that you are the only process on this website with teeth to address admin issues. Pro forma discussions about ADMINCONDUCT issues at AN(I) are a complete waste of everyone time. Sure, people could have engaged in discussions about these issues on Kudpung's talk page, but it is obvious that he has learned nothing from this case. Why would a discussion on his talk page have a different outcome? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two extra special "keep your nose clean for a year" remedies that weren't considered for BHG or RHaworth (and further haven't been on the table since I started clerking in 2012) is further proof that several arbs really want to protect Kudpung against any real sanctions in this case. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi06:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both cases had lesser remedies available, and I don’t believe my position in the present case is inconsistent with my positions in the prior cases. –xenotalk06:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I will give you a spot of leway for RHaworth, but the BHG admonishment is nothing like wheeling out pre-2010 remedies. Further, in neither of those cases did the principle party try to evade scrutiny by avoiding the case while simultaneously backchanneling with arbs about the case.
What I have learned from this case is that you can be incivil to other editors, but get off if you are a powerful enough admin who can get AN(I) threads closed quickly. When you are finally called to the carpet by ArbCom, you can just ignore the case because you don't want to make the situation worse. Then, the whole case can be cast as some sort of learning experience about how WP:CIVIL exists and a "final warning". In the end, you will be asked to do the bare minimum and keep your nose clean for a year. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi18:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the last proposed remedy or some variation of it is adopted, I suggest the heading "General reminder" as opposed to "Community reminded." It's a nuance, but the latter somehow comes off to my ear as slightly grating. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the change to the heading, though note here that the community is still being reminded in the paragraph underneath... –xenotalk20:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by George Ho
Is the "General reminder" remedy useful? The community currently doesn't have a proper process to vote desysopping an admin, does it? They can vote to forbid an admin from doing something that would have gotten him/her into an arbitration case, but I'm unsure whether a community saction against an active admin would benefit anyone or be effective, especially without trying to desysop an admin. If neither, and without a community-based desysop process, then that would leave ArbCom to decide whether to sysop or desysop. -- George Ho (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lourdes: concerning the addition of 'new' links in the proposed decision. If something's wrong, then it needs to be pointed out as wrong. Going you had to point out it was wrong before we're at the voting stage, it's too late for us to be convinced a FoF is wrong is silly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GorillaWarfare
@Lourdes: I am trying to understand your recent batch of edits to this page in the context of your previous statement that No, I would not wish to ask the Committee to review your actions. What is it you are trying to achieve here, if not that? GorillaWarfare(talk)01:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: I'm surprised you are buying into Kudpung's claims that because he has not mentioned a username, he is not discussing specific editors. It is painfully clear that he was referring to MissVain and to me in the two incidents of this presented in evidence. In MissVain's case, the timing and the specifics of the incident make it unarguable that he was referring to removing her admin right (and also perhaps others, but definitely hers specifically). With the ArbCom question, how many other queer women on Wikipedia has he called man-haters? Perhaps there are others, though that would arguably be a more concerning pattern than the clear pattern of obliquely attacking editors and then gaslighting them when they take issue with the renewed attack. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: It's not about "buying" anything. I myself have in the past used specific incidents in order to start discussions on what I perceived as general problems and when I did, I also left out the name of the editor because I wanted to avoid singling someone out. I cannot rule out that Kudpung wanted to do the same, especially since he avoided using her name and explicitly claimed that he did not want to discuss any specific editor. Regards SoWhy10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: If he truly did not wish to single out MissVain, why did he repeatedly do so in the ensuing conversation?
If the editor was not an admin I would have pulled the autpat. flag already. Unfortunately I have a feeling that there is more to this than meets the eye.
Nor that she needs reminding of the minimum criteria of quality for creating new articles? Being a prolific content creator and admin is not a passport to lower our standards. Missvain has built a reputation on giving advice to other users. One could expect an experienced editor to at least properly complete one article before creating the next. The problem here is that the articles I tagged - and I did not single 'Missvain' out - were out of character for someone of her experience and so much so that it even crossed my mind that her account may have been compromised and being used by an UPE.
There is no conjecture surrounding Missvain's edits, however, Alex. Facts are facts, and I think I'm being rather generous and Assuming a lot of Good Faith under the circumstances
I have attempted here to resolve one issue without opening one huge can of worms which those with proper memories here have been discrete enough not embarass anyone with.
Regarding Kudpung's ACE question reply: either he was referring to me, or he was not referring to me and there is some other editor that a) Kudpung got into conflict with, b) leading him to boycott WiR, who is a c) queer d) woman e) who Kudpung feels has accused him of misogyny, f) who he has described as a misandrist. And he decided to discuss this other editor, not me, in response to a question that directly wikilinked to a comment from Kudpung in which he was directly replying to me. You sincerely believe that those two scenarios are equally possible? That is absurd. GorillaWarfare(talk)17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see Leaky caldron has expressed concerns that Kudpung will continue his habit of clearly referring to other editors while claiming he is not, in odd locations, and that it won't be covered by the trigger conditions laid out in the desysop alternatives. I share this concern, especially if arbitrators will be so willing to extend AGF beyond all reason if such an issue is brought back to ARCA. GorillaWarfare(talk)18:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the first comment, which does not contain any information to identify Missvain, all the other comments were made after someone else singled her out and the conversation turned on her edits after her comment. Which is somewhat my point: If you want to start a conversation about a general problem, mentioning the editor whose edits prompted you to start the discussion will inevitably lead to people focusing on those edits in specific and not the general problem. Which has happened here. I think the last comment can easily be understood as Kudpung regretting that he was not able to keep Missvain's name out of it.As for the ACE2019 question, he answered your question by saying I did not refer to you. It was a generalisation. [...] I have supported LGBT and women's rights for 58 years and come across many different types, and sadly I have come across some gay women who are misandrists. I don't know whether that's true or not but there is no further evidence that the previous comment was specifically directed at you or anyone in specific. Kudpung does have a habit of inserting general commentary into specific questions. I concede, it might not be "equally" possible in the strictest sense but it's also not impossible that this has happened here. Regards SoWhy09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, it seems difficult to get behind you that Kudpung did not start that thread as part of a disagreement about Missvain, which was unhelpful as conduct. Perhaps Kudpung did have genuine questions about how to deal with NPP errors by admins. But how does that mean, as you assert, that the thread was not at the same time about Missvain? And whether it was deliberate or unthinking, why do you disagree that Kudpung could have handled matters better than by starting the thread? AGK ■10:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Specific incidents can be the reason to start a discussion about general problems.As I said, his interactions with Missvain were - admittedly - the reason he started this thread. But that does not mean that he wanted to discuss her actions in this thread. As the thread shows, before Missvain was singled out, most editors discussed the general problem of bundling "autopatrolled" with +sysop. Once she was mentioned and got involved, the thread became a discussion on her creations and no longer the question initially posed. I am assuming good faith that Kudpung saw this as a potential problem if he included Missvain's name when starting the discussion and thus deliberately left her name out of it, both in order to not single her creations out as problematic and to avoid the conversation focusing on those creations instead of the bigger picture. To use another example: WP:BLP was created "due to the Daniel Brandt situation" but that does not mean the discussion following the creation was about that situation but instead the need of having a policy like that in general and what it should look like. Regards SoWhy11:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: Making cruel remarks about proud women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that: misandry is unacceptable even if he did use my name. Doing so behind my back, and then gaslighting me by claiming that it's silly for me to think he was referring to me, is worse. Him doing the same thing (criticizing an editor without using her name or alerting her in any way) with MissVain makes me worry it's a pattern, and with her there was a serious conversation about potentially removing her tools that she was not notified of. It's not courteous to have that kind of conversation without alerting her, it goes against basic dispute resolution rules. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I have to explain why being accused of "manufacturing outrage" (rather than describing my honest experience with Kudpung) is extremely ABF. I have spent enough time having my motives and experiences questioned here; I don't expect you to stop, but I'm done engaging with it. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I'm confused about your addition of standard enforcement; that usually only applies to remedies like topic/interaction bans, which are usually enforced with blocks. Usually desysop remedies don't involve standard enforcement. Does this mean that if Kudpung breaches the terms in that remedy, he should be blocked for up to one month and brought to ARCA for potential desysopping? It seems like a lot to put all in one remedy. Not to mention it will potentially limit Kudpung from participating in the ARCA discussion. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The intent would be to allow enforcement by uninvolved administrators if there were perhaps minor breaches that was felt was not serious enough to put forward the request to enact the desysop (or in advance of doing so), addressing one of the concerns of bradv at Special:Diff/942618900. Does it read improperly/confusingly? –xenotalk21:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing. I'm not clear what kinds of behaviors would be blockworthy but shouldn't trigger the suspended remedy. Plus I would've expected that the conditions there were meant to be interpreted strictly (especially given the talk about it being "much more than just the removal of a toolset"); this seems to weaken the remedy by making the desysop discussion optional. GorillaWarfare(talk)21:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber:I can live with dustups with other people, and even saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment, but looking back, the number of veiled threats where Kudpung alludes to admin status or tools is actually too many for me to feel comfortable with. Why is admins saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment something that women on Wikipedia should have to live with? I do appreciate that you are saying this in the context of a support vote for the desysop remedy, but how is the odd misogynistic comment here or there (in the absence of veiled threats etc.) compatible with adminship? GorillaWarfare(talk)21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seemed to me that it was an isolated and extremely ill-considered comment that initiated a situation where he dug his heels in afterwards - hence the driver appeared (with my AGF hat on) to be extreme stubbornness on the issue rather than prejudice as such (also as no-one had reported other misogynistic comments other than in the relation to the dispute). People say (and type) plenty of ...rash...comments in the heat of the moment. I am not saying I condone what he said in any way shape or form, but that if it were restricted to this then I wouldn't see it as an immediate desysop. My interest has been more on power differential. On wikipedia, you're an arbitrator and on good terms with many people, making you a powerful person and someone not easily bullied. The deal-breaker for me was revisiting the many other comments made to non-admins (well, all sorts of people) with veiled threats, which are antithetical to the level playing field model of WP. I hope that doesn't sound dismissive and apologise if it does. It is horrible being stuck in prolonged disputes, and often other people don't 'get' how horrible it feels to be in one. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not advocate for Kudpung to be desysopped if the incident involving me was the only incident here, so we don't disagree on that. My concern is more with the comment "I can live with [admins] saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment" being preserved in an ArbCom decision (though obviously only as a comment on a remedy, not as a part of one). GorillaWarfare(talk)02:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I too don't feel that the parole method suggested here was properly suggested in BHG's - the two phrasings are very different, and might have led to a different result.
This doesn't mean that it has to be discounted here (otherwise one error would mean no-one else during this committee could ever use it), but I do think it's worth the arbs noting that a difference in consideration is occurring. I suspect, that with the 3rd desysop case coming through in quick succession, in non-slamdunk cases, additional thought into alternatives is now being put in.
I personally think that a light trigger parole, coupled with additional sanctions, would have worked for all three of these cases. It is, annoyingly, too late for ARBCOM to do that for BHG & RHaworth, which comes with significant losses to the Community, but could well be a reasonable option here. I do have some concerns that it will become the default option in unclear cases (i.e. involved admins will be placed under parole quite lightly), but that too doesn't rule out its usage. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold back on commenting further at the moment, but I do feel compelled to wonder out loud (a) why a "parole" option has suddenly been introduced for this case and not other recent ones where it would obviously have been relevant, and (b) that I find it grimly ironic that length of tenure of an administrator (around 9 years for Kudpung) vs "number of incidents" is being considered as a type of migitation - when the committee has just desysopped someone with 13+ years admin tenure over a single incident. I also strongly endorse this statement by Nick. Black Kite (talk)12:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface: remedies 1 and 5 contradict. The arbs who voted for both are saying that Kudpung should be desysopped (which only ArbCom can do) but then the community should have handled this whole matter (which they couldn't have if the remedy is to desysop). An argument could be made that the community should have admonished Kudpung before it got to a point where the only remedy was a desysop - but that's not how I read remedy 5. If that's so you need to be more specific.
Also - I am made really uncomfortable by the thread between Kudpung and Xeno at User talk:Xeno/Archive 33#Thanks. I think it would have been a lot better for Xeno to have refrained from initiating such a discussion during the case, or else recused entirely - and I think that he probably should now at this point considering the remedy he has now proposed. (For the record, I don't fault Kudpung at all in this discussion, as he even wondered if this was a good idea). --Rschen775406:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754: Could you clarify why you feel that my discussion of potential remedies with the named party during this case, and proposing a potential middle-ground remedy, warrants my recusal?
Arbitration, like all other pursuits on this project, is a collaborative endeavour. Seeking buy-in from the affected parties is part-and-parcel of the process (though it usually happens on case pages).
Is that what you were doing? Because in all seriousness, I thought that you were having an academic discussion about adminship and the previous arbitration cases and you didn't even mention Kudpung's own case (and I'm not even sure Kudpung made more than passing references to it either). What I don't like about this was that it was completely non-transparent (this wasn't even linked from the case pages) and did not give other community members the opportunity to participate unless they happened to see your talk page (as one of 15 arbitrators). --Rschen775406:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining. The conversation was really a continuation of my consideration of Martinp’s suggestion at the RH PD talk, but I don’t think there were any illusions as the potential applicability to the ongoing case. I’ve noted your concern in the comments of that remedy and will think on your suggestion for me to recuse. –xenotalk06:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal_of_arbitrators I am not even sure if recusal is possible at this point since voting has started - and I think that if the objective of the discussion had been made more clear (as it stands I'm not even sure Kudpung understood the conversation was about his own case) I would see no reason to recuse. But given some of the objections raised above by others the discussion as it stands doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the neutrality of the decision. I guess I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is now. --Rschen775407:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think an arbitrator themself is permitted to recuse whenever they see fit. And you can petition for recusal despite the late stage if you can demonstrate the circumstances are extraordinary.
Rschen7754, the "General reminder" remedy implies that the underlying matter might have been resolved by earlier and more persistent intervention by the community. It is not, as you assert, saying this matter has not risen to the level of arbitration at all. I am therefore not seeing an incongruence. AGK ■09:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a case where one of the concerns was a lack of accountability and transparency (as well as allegations of administrators enabling bad behavior from another administrator) - an arbitrator starting what appears to be a back-channel discussion that lacks accountability and transparency, and that results in a lesser sanction, certainly does not model good behavior to follow, and significantly colors the outcome of this case. I think recusal is moot at this point - the damage has been done already. This was bad practice. --Rschen775420:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to stay out of this, but seeing as I'm now being named directly in the PD…
@SoWhy, normally I wouldn't make a fuss about being quoted out of context but in this case you're attaching my name to it in the text of an arbcom case which means that if uncorrected it will go in Wikipedia's permanent record that I said pretty much the opposite of what I actually said. If one actually reads that diff in full rather than just one sentence it ought to be clear that I don't actually believe Kudpung was being arrogant, but that he was unintentionally using language which came across as arrogant; in the context of this case the semantic difference here is important since this is a "thoughtcrime" case about Kudpung's intent and motivations rather than Kudpung's actual actions.
@Joe Roe, in the context of the same FoF it seemed very unlikely that the subjects of these accusations did have any vendetta against […] admins generally isn't entirely fair. While I obviously believe that Kudpung has thrown the term "anti-admin brigade" around much too liberally, at least some of the people he's levelled the accusation at (Eric Corbett, for example) are people who genuinely are "anti-admin" in the sense that they disapprove of Wikipedia's hierarchical structure and would like to see it abolished. Since Kudpung was very active in the discussions a decade ago around revamping the editor/admin/crat/arb pyramid, it's reasonable to assume he's more aware than most that there are some people who object to the concept of "admin" as currently implemented on Wikipedia and would like us to go back to no-big-deal days when adminship was handed out to anyone who asked unless there was an objection. While it's a demonstrable fact that Kudpung over-uses "anti-admin", it's not at all clear that it's intended as an insult on all of these occasions. ‑ Iridescent10:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Iridescent: It was not my intention to quote you out of context. I actually agree with you that using such language gives the impression of arrogance ("comes across") even when it's most likely not intended as such. I thought my comment has conveyed this but I'm happy to clarify to avoid any misunderstandings. Regards SoWhy10:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs, you don't have to take this advice but I strongly advise knocking it off. You're not doing your cause any favours and your recent comments are veering very close to the line separating "steadfast" from "obsessive". ‑ Iridescent21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris.sherlock: In the Case request, you commented Perhaps on my end I could have elaborated more which I understood as an acknowledgment that a different approach might have avoided an escalation but I accept that by rewording your comments, I might have added something you did not mean. I will rephrase my comment accordingly and I apologize for any misunderstanding. Regards SoWhy12:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you :-) your rephrasing is more what I meant. FWIW, the arbs are doing a good job here, and I absolutely do think Kudpung is a good admin, despite the matters that are being addressed here. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Boing! said Zebedee
I'm not really active on Wikipedia these days. And as a disclaimer, Kudpung is a personal friend. So feel free to take anything I say in the light of that. I'd hoped to keep away from this, but I'm disturbed by a few things and feel I need to comment...
FoF 7, "Kudpung and GorillaWarfare". You have "temporarily resigned as an administrator" included there as if it's something to do with the disagreement between the two of them. It isn't, it's because he was seriously ill (which I know for a fact) and didn't want a fuss made over it. There's been a bad relationship developing between the two of them for some time - and bear in mind that only one of the two has been blocked as part of their fights, and it's not Kudpung. This is the crux of the case, and my overall take from it is sadness that two people I like and respect are in such a situation, but they're both partly responsible for it. Accusations of misogyny and misandry have been flying, but in my view neither is guilty of either.
FoF 6, "Kudpung and Missvain". I've seen no evidence that that's related to anything other than genuine concern for new articles she created. I don't want to cause any more discomfort for Missvain, but Kudpung had justified reason for concern. I don't see that addressed, and I really don't see any evidence of misbehaviour here.
FoF 4, "Previous attempts at resolution" is nonsense. If there's been a long-term problem with Kudpung's approach, none of those links have tried to address it. They're all individual issues, closed as resolved. I don't see anywhere where anyone has tried to speak to Kudpung about any alleged long-term poor behaviour. I see there's a majority opposing this FoF at the moment, but I'm shocked that there are any supporters - have you really properly read those links, or just superficially skimmed them without really thinking? I'm seeing no evidence that anyone had communciated with Kudpung to make any serious attempt at suggesting there's been a long-term problem with his approach and to try to work it out. This ArbCom case is the first, and I think he could be forgiven if he sees it as having come out of the blue. And as a first resort, you seem to be heading for desysop.
In short, ArbCom, I think you have taken far too much at face value in this case, have oversimplified and misrepresented important issues, and I fear you're on the verge of another hamfisted over-reaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be better to explicitly suggest the community consider (re)creating a venue for requesting comment on administrator conduct, rather than the current general reminder. As Brad and Katie note, and as I said in my preliminary statement on this case, the Arbitration Committee is one of the few productive venues for concerns about administrator conduct. While the "general reminder" is something that I like in spirit, it shies away from the discussions that occurred during this case about how and where to actually have those conversations. Breaking down the rouge wall of silence is hard when the only venue besides Arbitration is internal affairs. I think a more forceful remedy than "reminder" is warranted given the discussions, and I worry this remedy as it stands goes against our Arbitration procedures. — Wug·a·po·des02:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ajraddatz
On self-defence at ArbCom
A lot has been said here and on Lourdes' talk page that Kudpung couldn't participate in this case because any defence could be used against him. I'm not sure that's true. I think that if he made an extensive statement showing how the other side in all of these various conflicts was in the wrong, that may very well have backfired, because that's really not the point here. The point is whether he can take criticism onboard and act in a manner consistent with community expectations of an administrator, even in situations where the other side is at least partially in the wrong.
If he made a statement in the case request stage saying "Huh, I didn't realize that I had been acting this way repeatedly. I'm honestly still not sure that I was totally in the wrong in these cases, but I recognize that my actions could use improvement, and I commit to improving in the future. Sorry for any offence that I may have caused", would we even be here? That's the crux of the issue. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On workshopping sanctions with the case parties
Working with case parties to mediate a solution as part of the proposed decision process is not in itself a bad thing. It reminds me of alternative dispute resolution, which could be very beneficial in cases like this. I think the issue here is that it is happening in the most Wikipedia-cronyism way possible: on the talk page of another admin, and where the subject is a well-established admin. I doubt that this option would be available to someone with less wikifriends. I think that Xeno went into this with the best intentions, but the optics are not great, and if this route is going to be pursued in the future it should be done through a formal policy or process rather than on an ad-hoc basis when the subject happens to be an "insider". -- Ajraddatz (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Xeno
(This reply is meant to respond to various questions and concerns posted above.)
My position in this case has been consistent with my positions in the previous two cases that involved administrative user rights.
In all three case, I have attempted to ensure that the committee's decision is fair and accurate, provides appropriate guidance to the parties, participants, and wider community as to appropriate standards of conduct, prevents disruption from recurring, and attempts, where possible, to heal the divide that has presented itself within the community. And in all of these cases, I didn't feel that simply pulling the user right would strike the right balance among these concerns.
See my comment under remedy 1: I feel merely removing administrative user rights and referring only to administrator conduct standards sends the wrong message. If this is the only remedy passed, we are implying Kudpung's behaviour would have been okay if it had come from a non-administrator. This is not so. Should the undesired behaviours not ameliorate on their own, it is highly likely the community will still have trouble addressing the situation beyond the conclusion of this case.
I'm not interested in simply handing out punishment, without at least trying to explore other options. Administrator arbitration cases are not meant to be a binary decision. It is clear to me that the community expects the committee to consider carefully when deciding whether or not to remove administrative user rights, if there is another way to remedy the situation while retaining the positive elements of that administrator's contributions to the project.
The thread on my talk page was started by another user and was in response to my exploratory remarks about suspended remedies. I raised it in the case I helped draft, but the committee was unable to come to an agreement as to how to appropriately curtail the behaviours that were identified in that case.
I understand that Kudpung has not yet engaged with the case pages beyond the request and a general comment on the workshop. I am also aware that this year's committee passed a finding censuring a named party for their submissions to an arbitration case. My reading of that case was that the party had trouble identifying when they were crossing the line. So it was natural for them to cross the line in arbitration. In this context, I was rather uncomfortable seeing them criticized for their participation, and I worried that it would create a chilling effect.
My position is that parties should be afforded some latitute if they exhibit the same behaviours during arbitration that prompted the case in the first place. It is not unexpected, as the undesired behaviours are ofted deep-seated (otherwise they could have been resolved in prior dispute resolution attempts). And I do not agree that a party exhibiting undesired behaviour during the case is proof that alternate remedies contemplated are doomed to failure, or that they will not have the desired preventative effect. Evidence of undesired behaviour prior to the enactment of formal remedies is not prima facie evidence that those remedies will be unsuccessful.
I ran on a platform of fairness and due process. To be sitting on a case where the principal party (actutally, the only party, apart from the filer) was feeling alienated, and hesitant to engage with the process on the formal case pages was to me, an untenable position. I will not sit in judgment of another editor without at least making a good faith attempt to understand their point of view. Robust remediation can only occur in the context of a true collaborative effort between the committee and the parties, and a breakdown in that collaborative framework signals a basic failure of due process.
Accordingly, I do not accept that inviting Kudpung to engage with questions that I was grappling with (in all three cases); that had clear and obvious applications to his case, in a venue where the volume was lower, and he was able to speak more freely and openly - was "bad practice". I agree it would have been a good idea to place a pointer to the talk page discussion somewhere obvious for the benefit of other stakeholders, and I will be be sure to do so should these circumstances present in the future.
On the other hand I don't think it's quite fair to call it "back-channelling" because 1) there are not multiple parties in this case; 2) the conversation occurred onwiki, publicly, on a fairly well-watched talk page; 3) the conversation was noted to my colleagues and 4) the community has not been prevented from commenting and providing feedback on the proposed remedy that was developed in consultation with multiple members of this community (not just Kudpung) in many places other than the referenced thread on my talk page.
I'm also not sure how it can be said that my proposing (or other arbitrators' support for) an alternative remedy represents some form of collusion. In fact, if you read carefully, Kudpung does not even agree with the proposed middle ground solution as appropriate, anyway: "each arbcom case against an admin has to handled as unique, with the only possible solutions being either admonishment or removal of the tools". I disagree on this, as there are examples where the middle ground was successful in retaining an administrator and providing long-lasting actual restorative solutions to the problems that were presented the committee.
If it becomes clear that arbitration cases involving single administrators are a binary choice: desysop or not, then it is highly likely we will see less engagement from parties, and more summary resignations at the time of case outset. I'm duty-bound to vote for the remedies I feel will have the greatest chance of providing a lasting solution to the underlying concern, and in this instance I truly believe a suspended remedy has a better chance of achieving that goal. Reasonable minds can differ.
Xeno, I really appreciate all the thought and effort you have put into this decision. It's not a comfortable feeling desysopping the third person in 2 months, and you are not alone in trying to think about and look for alternatives.
At the end of the day, I agree with you that desysopping does not address all the problems. However, most of the behavioural issues we have identified in this case were particularly egregious because Kudpung is an admin. Being held to a high standard cuts both ways: it means that bad behaviour looks that much worse on the project, but it also means that bad behaviour is more easily overlooked and harder to deal with. That's not unique to Wikipedia; it's true of any volunteer organization.
You are right in saying that Kudpung's behaviour would not be okay even if he were not an administrator. There are diffs in evidence that would have resulted in a block for someone less well-connected, and there are diffs in evidence that probably should have resulted in a block despite his position. And there's nothing to suggest that if he is no longer an administrator he can't make comments like this, or that such comments would result in an appropriate remedy. But the threats and intimidating messages, which to me are the worst offences, wouldn't be received the same way if they didn't come from an administrator, and therefore would not have the same effect on other good faith editors or on the project.
Against a wide range of other options that have been tried from time to time (and some that haven't), I consider desysopping a sufficient and appropriate solution in this case, for the following reasons:
it accurately reflects that Kudpung has not modeled "appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors"
it reduces the impact of any further instances of discourteous behaviour
it allows any further behavioural problems to be handled entirely by administrators
it avoids the need for civility restrictions, which tend to be vague, easily wikilawyered, and difficult to enforce
it allows Kudpung to continue to contribute to the project, without any further restrictions on what he may or may not do
it does not limit the community's ability to resysop him or grant other advanced permissions at an appropriate time
I'm fully aware of the Super Mario effect essay, and that this case will likely be used as a textbook example of it. But I also feel that the Super Mario effect is based to a certain extent on a misunderstanding of what adminship is. It is not a prize, a reward, or even something that is necessarily earned. It is a reflection of the trust the community places in an editor's judgment and their ability to perform certain functions. Therefore, taking away the administrator tools is also not a punishment – it is merely a recognition that the community's level of trust in this person has changed.
I also agree with you that administrator misconduct cases shouldn't come down to a binary solution. But at the same time, the remedies passed need to sufficiently address the problem without adding needless complexity. In this case in particular I feel that this solution does have, in your words, the greatest chance of providing a lasting solution to the underlying concern. We obviously do not need to agree, but I hope that you will find my explanation for why I'm voting for this course of action helpful and reasonable. – bradv🍁17:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by MONGO
As a former administrator that was desysopped for fault by the committee long ago, believe that clemency should be extended here via the remedy of 1.1 Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy). I am stating this having had none or very few if any exchanges with Kudpung, yet am aware of his work at Rfa and elsewhere and believe that if offered the chance to address the stated concerns, Kudpung will do so.--MONGO (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Various mumblings by Reyk
@Xeno:---If this is the only remedy passed, we are implying Kudpung's behaviour would have been okay if it had come from a non-administrator. I don't quite see it that way. To me, a misuse of the admin tools should be the most important factor in deciding whether to desysop or not. In the previous trials, BHG did not misuse the admin toolset and RHaworth repeatedly did which is primarily why I thought the former desysop was unnecessary and cruel but don't disagree with the latter. The Kudpung situation is a bit more nuanced. Aside from nuking that IP editor who put maintenance tags on the Baked Beans article, there wasn't much direct admin status abuse. But if I had been the target of one of Kudpung's cryptic threats or "investigation"s I'd be more concerned than if some random non-admin had made similar comments. Neither would be acceptable in my opinion, but threats are always more worrying when made by someone with the power to act on them. ReykYO!14:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Martinp
I'm commenting here since Xeno has referenced my suggestions on the RHaworth case in proposing the "suspended desysop" remedy.
I have not been following this case in detail, so I don't have a firm opinion if such a remedy is appropriate in this case. I do think there have been and will be cases where sysops have developed unfortunate behaviour patterns, have proven unable to take on community feedback in conventional processes through battle fatigue, but do get their head screwed on straight through the very different (many would say painful) RFAR process. Since sanctions should be preventative not punitive, a "suspended desysop" (however implemented) in such a situation seems worth trying. I'm delighted to see the Committee is considering this.
I do think what differentiates such situations from ineffective "civility paroles" (referencing Katie's pithy oppose) is that there is a credible, voluntary, and reasonable commitment from the admin in question, showing insight and promising specific changes in their behaviour, which the committee agrees are likely to be successful. So -- again without having looked into specifics -- I'd put the odds of success greater if Kudpung has committed, or will commit, to something specific, such as "I will avoid situations like ... / I will consult with ... when I feel ... / I will not comment on ...", rather than if it's remedy imposed top-down saying "Kudpung is advised to fully comply with [stuff every admin should be doing]". Basically, it should be the admin proposing, and the committee willing to try, an alternative to a (full) desysop; rather than something that would feel like a (pinball) extra ball awarded.
I see there is a bit of concern on this page about the idea of a remedy crafted in collaboration with the prisoner in the dock. I am not concerned about this at all. We want arbcom to solve intractable cases, and that requires custom and adapted remedies, and the chance of success is much higher if the party in question is on board. I do expect a remedy of this sort would be presented to the community, whether in the workshop or as a proposed discussion, and credible concerns that the conditions proposed are insufficient would be entertained. But I think the chance of success is much higher if co-developed with the admin in question than when imposed from above.
(I have not pinged Xeno and Katie above, since I expect arbs don't appreciate being pinged every time someone takes their name in vain on the proposed decision talk page. If it would be a good idea, could someone do it for me, since I am getting on a 14 hour flight.) Martinp (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Britishfinance
Was busy and missed this. I commend the draft the remedy of 1.1 (suspended deysop), but sad it did not get passed. We have a bifurcation of views in ArbCom around deysop for ADMINACCT, but because the !vote is a simple majority, the edge of deysop for ADMINACCT has held the floor in the last three cases (BHG and KP were pure ADMINACCT, RH was half ADMINACCT and half tool misuse). Perhaps, we should allow deysops at ArbCom to pass an RfA at the same 50.1% majority (same as ArbCom for a deysop), given that it seems rare for an ArbCom deysop to ever become a resyop again?
The small group of highly productive long-term admins in Wikipedia (of which BHG, KP and RH were part of), are subject to unique stresses. Fighting UPEs, Socks, etc. on a daily basis for a decade is going to affect you (RH's talk page was like sock-central, with many bitter/tricky characters looking for restorations of their PAID work). We need more members of ArbCom to open their minds to this fact (I think some have). and show compassion and respect for a decade of a person's life devoted to daily admin activity in Wikipedia, and what can happen to their mental state (one day, it could be you).
I don't know where ADMINACCT came from, but in war, we don't expect the soldiers who have spent 10-years on the front line, to be more polite than the new recruits? As long as we have no concerns that they know how to operate their weapons safely (i.e. no tool misuse), when they do start to lose it, we put them on "involuntary leave" for a period to help them recover. We don't fire them and ask them to reapply (knowing the stain on their record, coupled with the person's own sense of hurt or being so publically rejected by the focus of their efforts, will make this very unlikely)?
We are not replacing the older high-productivity admins on Wikipedia – I think we know this and are all kind of quietly concerned about it. I see messages on the Talk Pages of these three cases from other deysoped admins saying that life was better without the tools? If that is the case, then we really are in trouble, and perhaps that is why are losing more admins than we create.
ArbCom needs to get into a huddle and find tools/sanctions they would be happy with (or at least for a majority), for ADMINACCT violations, that do not involve deysop (which we now know, for various reasons, is usually a permanent state). I can think of more very valuable such admins in Wikipedia, whose ArbCom cases could trawl up the same type of evidence as say per Kudpung – E.g. periods of ADMINACCT violations in a long carer. If we don't find a better solution to this, we are all going to suffer. Britishfinance (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
