Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: CodeLyoko (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Joe Roe (Talk) & Casliber (Talk) & SoWhy (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 5 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 6
1–2 5
3–4 4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Administrator conduct

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to perform administrative tasks to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, repeated or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Leading by example

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. While such an ideal applies to interactions with all editors, it is particularly relevant to interactions with newer and inexperienced users, as in those cases, administrators provide a public face to both the broader administrative corps and to Wikipedia as a whole.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Administrator accountability

3) Administrators are expected to objectively consider criticism and questions relating to their decisions including those raised by anonymous editors. For an administrator to not promptly and appropriately deal with concerns, without good cause, may constitute misconduct.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:


Decorum

4) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As a universality, not a finding about Kudpung or other users. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Anyone can edit

5) Wikipedia was founded on the principle that "anyone can edit" and that by the collaboration of editors of all backgrounds, the best possible encyclopedia can be created. Hostility towards any editor is prohibited by Wikipedia's conduct policies and, if directed towards a particular group, can be especially damaging to the inclusivity of the project.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This isn't a principle ArbCom has articulated before, but I believe it reflects an important pillar of our community and conduct policies, and in this case is especially relevant to FoF #7. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Treatment of new editors

6) Wikipedia articles are improved through the hard work of both regular editors and newcomers; every new editor is a potential long-term contributor. All editors should therefore assume good faith when dealing with new editors and, if it is necessary to comment on problematic actions, do so in a clear and polite manner. Treating newcomers with hostility can alienate a potential contributor and is therefore detrimental to the project as a whole.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
I agree with the content of this Principle, but there is no related Finding. –xenotalk 01:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC) [Moved to abstain][reply]
  1. Factually correct, but there is no matching FoF. This principle is quite specific and it would stand to reason that a major purpose of it would be to support a FoF that Kudpung bites newcomers (a claim which we do not make). Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I understand that Kudpung is highly active in the new page patrol process and thus would have heightened opportunity for interaction with new editors and should AGF, be polite, refrain from BITE, etc., so I withdraw my opposition. However, I can't support including a principle that has no clear relation to a finding of fact or remedy contemplated. –xenotalk 04:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Proposed deletion

7) Proposed deletion (PROD) is a streamlined process for nominating an article for deletion. It should only be used for obvious and uncontroversial deletions where no opposition is expected. Proposed deletions are subject to the deletion policy, which requires that alternatives to deletion are considered before nomination. A prior search for more sources to establish notability is not required but considered good practice when the main concern is lack of notability or sources.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (With change) Changed is not explicitly required to simply is not required: AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 21:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mkdw talk 06:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 13:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Kudpung

1) Kudpung (talk · contribs) has been a user since 2006 and an administrator since 2011. He has made over 100,000 edits and performed more than 14,000 admin actions. He has been particularly active in coordinating and driving improvements to the new page patrol process over many years.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 02:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 20:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kudpung's conduct

2) Kudpung has occasionally made remarks towards other editors that could be interpreted as personal attacks.[1][2][3] In disputes with other editors, he has also made nonspecific threats of retaliating against or "investigating" the other party.[4][5][6][7][8]

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nonspecific threats used as a means of intimidation are not appropriate in a collaborative environment. Comments to good-faith editors about their conduct should be constructive and encouraging wherever possible. – bradv🍁 02:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some of this evidence goes back 4 years, but I can agree that it needs to be included. Recognising patterns in this sort of conduct can take time, and the conduct itself can be irregular. That requires us to look deeply and sometimes further back. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The PAs are debatable, but the evidence shows that Kudpung has had this habit of making vague threats when he falls out with someone for a long time. And coming from someone with not just the tools, but the level of social influence in the community Kudpung has, it's an extremely bad habit. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 20:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Few of Kudpung's individual comments would I think be considered severe personal attacks on their own, but their cumulative effect is a perceived pugnacious attitude that degrades discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. While the PAs are debatable, it is a pattern of overall intimidating and uncollegial behavior.Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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]

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP:ADMINACCT requires that administrators be open and ready to discuss their conduct when questioned. – bradv🍁 02:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Adding that in all the cases I looked at, it seemed very unlikely that the subjects of these accusations did have any vendetta against Kudpung or admins generally. Like the threats above, reacting in this way to disputes and criticism creates a chilling effect that is incompatible with the admin accountability policy. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 20:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunately, yes. As Iridescent aptly put it, it "comes across as a rather creepy idea that admins constitute some kind of Wikipedia aristocracy who should be treated with more respect than the peons" (to clarify: I don't believe that Kudpung actually thinks that admins are some kind of better editor, just that he was and is unintentionally using language that some might misinterpret as arrogance even when he is most likely just trying to point out actual problems). I'm with xeno in that I don't support the He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it as "trolling" or similar part of this finding. The diff does not prove that and even if it did, a single instance does not constitute "often". Regards SoWhy 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I agree that the third sentence could use some wordsmithing, but I get the gist and I can support. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Third sentence needs rewording. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Although he is removing a post with the edit summary "rm trolling" [16], the removed post was criticism directed at another editor, not Kudpung. –xenotalk 21:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC) (In other words, the claim of "often" is not supported by the evidence attached) 00:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm gathering the "often" is meant tie in to the latter part of the sentence. So the sentence could be reworded: Kudpung has removed material from his talk page, dismissing it as "trolling" or similar, and reacted to criticism by [[requesting... –xenotalk 01:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with this change, although we could equally do without the "trolling" diff altogether, as it may not say what we initially thought it did. "He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it or by requesting..." – bradv🍁 14:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at resolution

4) Multiple users have individually counseled Kudpung about his behavior in messages on his talk page or in the context of other discussions [17] (2018), [18](2018), [19] (2018), [20] (2020). However, there had been no community-wide dispute resolution attempts before the incident report on the administrator's noticeboard that led to this case.

Support:
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Accurate and relevant. Fine with this and 4.1: AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think it's important to note that the 2020 ANI thread was the first to try to address a more general problem in a community-wide discussion and might even have pulled it off if it hadn't been closed in favor of the Case request. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with both parts; I don't think the diffs given below are really good examples of prior dispute resolution specifically around Kudpung, rather than being adjacent discussions. It's a difference of perspective. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The noticeboard discussions seemed to go nowhere fast and they did not result in any useful advice to Kudpung with reference to previous FoFs (accountability/uncollegial conduct). Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I agree with the first part of this finding, but not the second. There were many attempts to resolve these issues on public noticeboards (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). While several of those discussions may have been closed prematurely, it's not quite accurate to say that dispute resolution attempts were not made. – bradv🍁 03:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good points Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In favour of 4.1. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Third choice to 4.1 and 4.2. Mkdw talk 18:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There have been noticeboard threads. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Previous attempts at resolution (2)

4.1) Multiple users have individually counseled Kudpung about his behavior in messages on his talk page or in the context of other discussions [21] (2018), [22](2018), [23] (2018), [24] (2020). There were also several attempts to address his behaviour on public noticeboards, including 1, 2, 3, 4, in addition to the incident report on the administrator's noticeboard that led to this case.

Support:
  1. Proposing as an alternative to 4. – bradv🍁 03:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accurate and relevant. Equal choice with 4: AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Removing in favour of 4.2 because it enjoys broader support. AGK ■ 07:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think we saw these extra diffs in the evidence phase, but they are very relevant. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. I find these relevant to the point being raised about counselling, and less to do with how each incident was resolved. A no action necessary outcome does not change the fact that people had concerns and raised them with respect to Kudpung. In many cases, no action outcomes are often the result of progress made in the discussion and not a reflection on the initial validity of the filing. If others believe the outcomes demonstrate that Kudpung has resolved complaints in a productive way, or the initial filings were not valid, then that could be stated in its own FOF more clearly. Separately, ARC has always been taken under consideration during cases and historically seen as part of the arbitration process. Mkdw talk 18:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice per Mkdw. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I've reviewed the noticeboard links with fresh eyes and there are indeed users within those threads attempting to deliver feedback to modify behaviour. –xenotalk 19:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Third choice. –xenotalk 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I think those additional links are potentially misleading (per my comment when voting whether to accept this case). The first three discussions really were not attempts to address his behavior in general but rather single issue reports that ended with 'no consensus that Kudpung's actions represent a need for any sanctions via this board', 'a consensus that there's nothing to do here' and 'nothing here rises to a level that would lead the community in general to question an individual's "fitness as an editor [and] admin".'. Additional link #5 is the same as link #3 in the original FoF #4 (and was closed with 'Any further discussion regarding behavior or policy should be taken to the appropriate talk page or discussion board.' which did not happen) and link #4 contains no real discussion of Kudpung's conduct in general but rather his relationship with GorillaWarfare and comments mainly were about how those two editors should (both) rethink their approach with regard to each other. If anything, those links show the opposite of what they purport to show, i.e. that previous discussions never really attempted to resolve a potential general problem with Kudpung's approach and mostly ended in consensus that there is nothing to do. Regards SoWhy 21:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The description of the noticeboard links should be reworded (and "5" removed as already used in the preceding sentence). –xenotalk 01:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per comments above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The noticeboard discussions seemed to go nowhere fast and they did not result in any useful advice to Kudpung with reference to previous FoFs (accountability/uncollegial conduct). Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not wrong as such but less exact than 4.2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Previous attempts at resolution (3)

4.2) Multiple users have individually counseled Kudpung about his behavior in messages on his talk page or in the context of other discussions including in 2018 (1), 2018 (2), 2018 (3), 2020. Kudpung has also been the subject of incident reports on the administrators' noticeboard including in 2015, 2017, 2018, (which each resulted in consensus that no action was necessary), and the 2020 report that was closed after the reporting user indicated that the issue was resolved. At this time, this Case request had already been opened.

Support:
  1. With my changes. Regards SoWhy 08:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Distant second choice for reasons stated above. I believe this somewhat dilutes the point being made about attempts rather than outcomes and blame. Mkdw talk 18:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would be fine dropping the bracketed remark if that enhances acceptability. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. –xenotalk 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Also reasonable. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Don't mind this or 4.1. – Joe (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. These are all fine to me. AGK ■ 10:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. more exact. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This wording completely disregards the complaints that led to these ANI threads being opened. Yes, they were technically closed without action, but that does not imply that the complaints were without merit, nor that they were not "attempts to address his behaviour." I know this vote doesn't help with the math at all, but I still support 4.1. – bradv🍁 19:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think this clearly outlines the point being made about the previous attempts being closed as no action needed. It implies to me that there was no fault by the party rather than implying it was worked out or that the threads were closed inappropriately, the community could not reach a consensus, and so forth as suggested by some comments. Mkdw talk 19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • This is a draft to address concerns raised in previous versions and talk. Feel free to tweak. Note there is an objection on talk to including links that were submitted at the case request, but not submitted into evidence. I dropped "4" because it's referenced below already. –xenotalk 20:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I changed "which were closed without action" to "which each resulted in consensus that no action was necessary" which imho better summarizes the closers' comments (see my comments on 4.1). I also reworded the last half-sentence because it sounded like it was closed as resolved in favor of this Case when in fact Rosguill assumed that the request would not be accepted and things would thus end there. Regards SoWhy 08:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at resolution (4)

4.3) Multiple editors have individually counseled Kudpung or complained about his behavior in messages on his talk page or in the context of other discussions including in 2018 (1), 2018 (2), 2018 (3), 2020 and in the reports on the administrators' noticeboards about his actions including in 2015, 2017, 2018, (which were closed with no action taken), and the 2020 report that was closed after the reporting user indicated that the issue was resolved (after this case had already been opened).

Support:
  1. This or 4.2. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With my tweak. –xenotalk 13:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    First choice. –xenotalk 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kudpung and Chris.sherlock

5) Kudpung made two comments to Chris.sherlock (talk · contribs) that Chris.sherlock interpreted as threats [25] [26]. This incident was discussed on the administrator's noticeboard and was considered to be resolved after Kudpung wrote privately to Chris.sherlock clarifying his intention.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chris.sherlock considered the matter resolved, but that doesn't mean the threats were okay. – bradv🍁 03:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This should be noted because it's the incident that precipitated this case, but it was resolved amicably so I don't think it reacts particularly badly on Kudpung (other than as a further example of the pattern of threat-making discussed above). – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 20:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I think it should also be noted that Chris.sherlock, despite this incident being the impetus of this request, has accepted that Kudpung meant him no harm and strongly opined that he thinks Kudpung is a good admin who should retain the tools. Regards SoWhy 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. –xenotalk 02:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kudpung and Missvain

6) Kudpung nominated four articles created by Missvain (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for deletion using the proposed deletion process [27][28][29][30]. Two of these nominations were made after he was made aware that Missvain would object [31][32] and therefore could not be considered "uncontroversial", as all proposed deletions are required to be. Kudpung also started a discussion of Missvain's autopatrolled right, although without mentioning her username or notifying her of the discussion.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I find the failure to notify Missvain of a discussion about her conduct and user rights unacceptable. – bradv🍁 03:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as a factual summary of part of the immediate background to the case, but as with FoF#5 I don't see much to fault Kudpung on here. The PRODs were not strictly within policy but PROD is designed as an "easily proposed, easily reverted" deletion process. If we were talking about a new editor's creations it might be different, but Missvain is a very well-established editor who can be expected to be familiar with the principle of BRD. As to the autopatrolled discussion, a courtesy notification wouldn't have gone amiss, but I can give Kudpung the benefit of the doubt that he was using (his interpretation of) her creations as a springboard for a general discussion on the problem of having autopatrolled bundled with other rights. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 20:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Factually mostly correct although I am assuming good faith that Kudpung did not in fact start a "discussion of Missvain's autopatrolled right" but instead merely used this incident to start a general discussion on the valid question whether we should assume all admins to be sufficiently skilled in article writing that their creations do not need patrolling. Even taking into account Missvain's prior episode of UPE that was mentioned in evidence and Kudpung's understandable aversion against UPE, I don't see any reason why Kudpung could have expected the PRODs to stick. Regards SoWhy 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Prod is weird. No opposition can be expected? An article writer will almost always oppose the deletion of their work. So you should never use prod, except when you don't expect the article writer to be around to oppose...?

    I'm willing to accept that Kudpung sincerely wanted to source opinions from a sympathetic venue as to whether removing autopatrolled from the administrative package might be indicated. However, the implicatory manner in which the post was written, immediately following the notability disagreement, made it clear that it concerned a specific user. Accordingly, a courtesy note to that user, at least, was indicated. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  9. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Kudpung and GorillaWarfare

7) In August 2018, GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) asked Kudpung to refer to her by her username "when discussed among men".[33] Kudpung reacted to negatively to this in comments referencing "men haters",[34][35][36] publicly withdraw his support from the Women in Red WikiProject,[37][38] and temporarily resigned as an administrator.[39] Later the same month, Kudpung wrote an article in the Signpost critical of WMF director Katherine Maher. GorillaWarfare commented on the piece, describing it as continued "misogyny" on Kudpung's part.[40] This comment led to an edit war and block of GorillaWarfare by uninvolved administrator Fram, which was subsequently overturned.[41][42][43] [44][45]

Kudpung and GorillaWarfare did not interact again until the ArbCom elections in November 2019. In response to a question about his boycott of Women in Red, Kudpung made reference to proud women [who] accuse such men [as Kudpung] of being misogynists.[46] GorillaWarfare interpreted this as referring to her, and challenged Kudpung on why he emphasised that she is queer.[47] Kudpung denied that he was referring to GorillaWarfare or any particular editor.[48]

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would have hoped that after the August 2018 incident Kudpung would realize how deeply his comments regarding gender and sexuality have affected other people. Making similar comments over a year later, regardless of whether they were intended to target an individual or a group, shows a lack of self-awareness. – bradv🍁 03:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kudpung is not the first person to react badly to being "called out". While far from ideal, his conduct in the initial dispute is at least understandable as an emotional overreaction. But dredging it up over a year later (I can't believe that his ACE comments weren't directed at GW) reflects very poorly on his judgement and civility, and the "proud women" comment is well over the line. The only mitigating factor I can see was that this was a very insider, wiki-political dispute, mostly involving admins and functionaries, but we shouldn't tolerate this kind of conduct anywhere in our community. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Joe. Mkdw talk 20:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm of the opinion that GW's initial comment was ill-considered and unnecessarily confrontational, but Kudpung's reaction and dredging up the old dispute while feigning ignorance do not strike me as any model of considered behavior. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree with SoWhy in that it seems clear Kudpung was merely trying to add gravitas to the invoking of GW's name in a post where he grouped her "among our most experienced and respected admins". Let's be honest, some of our handles are a bit...jocose? I'm sure Kudpung would have realnamed Boing! said Zebedee if it was publicly disclosed. The use of the real name was thus unlikely to have diminutive intent. While GW would have probably done better to make the request privately, Kudpung's manner of public response was inappropriate, to say the least.

    I hope that it's clear we aren't endorsing the characterization of the Signpost piece as misogynistic, just describing the sequence of events. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  8. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Joe. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I think the initial comment was understandable, in that Kudpung merely used the real name for those admins where the real name was known (which just happened to be Joe and GWF). The following comments between them less so, although the related ANI highlighted that there is probably bad blood on both sides. For the same reasons I think it might be equally possible that Kudpung referred to GWF in his ACE2019 answers or that GWF interpreted an answer not related to her as an attack on her. As for the Signpost article, I read it for the first time for this Case and while it was critical of Maher's performance, I cannot find any language to suggest that this criticism was based (solely) on the fact that she is a woman, which means it's hard to understand why GWF assumed it to be based on "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". I don't agree with Kudpung's reaction to GWF's comments but they did not come "out of the blue". In the end, this FoF boils down to what the 2018 ANI already highlighted, i.e. that both editors should assume a little bit more good faith of the other. I don't think it really helps to establish any kind of behavioral pattern though but instead highlights a very specific conflict between two editors in which neither is really blameless. Regards SoWhy 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Kudpung's participation in this case

8) Kudpung has not submitted any evidence in this case. Kudpung made a statement during the workshop phase indicating he is willing to take on board objective criticism and generally try to learn from the feedback given, but he did not make any specific concessions to the criticism brought forth.

Support:
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Increased participation in the case would have been nice. What I would particularly love to see is some acknowledgement of the problems mentioned in the case and a commitment to do better. – bradv🍁 03:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I get that ArbCom cases are stressful, but given that the central issue here is a lack of openness and poor reaction to feedback on his conduct, Kudpung missed a golden opportunity to demonstrate that he can take criticism on board. – Joe (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 20:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 21:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Factual, but subject to my comment below in that I don't see what evidence, in particular, Kudpung was expected to submit. Kudpung did not attempt to rebut, concede, or add context, to any of the evidence submitted by others, to be sure. I do think they're willing to take constructive criticism from the committee on board. It shouldn't require this level of intervention for an administrator to self-moderate. –xenotalk 04:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Factual. The approach is understandable if one takes of a view of this process as a largely judicial; however, if one treats it more as a disciplinary case, then responding to evidence would be useful. Maxim(talk) 11:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Katietalk 01:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • While a factual comment, I'm not sure what evidence, in particular, Kudpung should have been expected to submit. I'm also sympathetic to the concern that had he mounted a vigorous defense (or even a mild defense), it could have lead to a finding similar to one in a prior case re: "conduct during arbitration". Users brought before arbitration generally have trouble identifying when they've crossed a line (hence, arbitration), and it's highly likely they may cross those same lines during arbitration. On the other hand: arbitration cases are the only formal disciplinary hearings for administrative conduct, so some participation by those under review is expected (and arguably required by WP:ADMINTACCT). What I'm reading from Kudpung's linked submission is that he wants the committee members to come to their own conclusions about his behaviour and provide adequate and appropriate direction to him. Accordingly, I don't know that the lack of specific concessions or additional participation in the evidence and workshop phases should be taken as an unwillingness to change or an unwillingness to consider adopting a moderated approach as dictated by the committee's ruling. That being said: to avoid participating further in the case than Kudpung did - to neglect to assist in appropriately contextualizing the evidence and long history, and then to later complain that committee members are deliberately biased, distorting the facts, impugning rights, or holding a kangaroo court, all strike me as somewhat unfair, given every opportunity was provided for Kudpung to participate more directly in the development of this proposed decision. –xenotalk 02:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

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

Kudpung desysopped

1) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung's administrative user rights are removed. He may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support:
  1. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Users should listen carefully to others, respond thoughtfully, avoid speaking in anger as much as possible, and try to further the purpose of Wikipedia wherever possible. In this case, evidence was presented that shows Kudpung falling short of those standards across diverse situations, with a number of users, over a prolonged period of time. There has been no indication from Kudpung that these problems are going away or that it would be possible to address them. The community appoints administrators on the basis that they will continue complying with Wikipedia's standards of conduct. Administrators who cannot do so will usually have the permissions removed by ArbCom. I agree that in this case, removal of the permissions would be justified and I support the remedy on that basis. First choice. AGK ■ 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unfortunately, I see no realistic or reasonable alternative. For a long time, our community has given administrators, in general, a wide degree of discretion about responding to concerns and criticisms about their administrative actions. Civility has been an even greater enduring problem. ADMINCOND has been a growing source of concern by the community in recent years. I see this in the number of ArbCom cases being filed and even indirectly in the scrutiny admin candidates now undergo at RFA. Many have framed this case against other recent cases where a seeming pattern emerges. A long-time and prolific administrator has been given considerable leeway and allowed to carry on in a way not consistent with community expectations and norms. It then reaches a breaking a point. We do not expect administrators to be able to always self-identify when the line has been crossed, but we do expect them to take concerns about their actions seriously, especially when raised repeatedly, and in many of these cases by other trusted and experienced administrators. I understand Casliber's desire to acknowledge positive contributions and length of service, but at the same time we must cautious and recognize the long-term damage that has been caused by past committees by enacting WP:SUPERMARIO. Mkdw talk 18:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Little of Kudpung's conduct has directly related to his use of the tools. However that non-tool conduct does rise to a level of antagonism and disagreeableness that merits this remedy. More importantly, this hasn't been limited to a problematic interaction or single pain point—it's endemic to Kudpung's interactions and actions across the wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've been sitting on this for a few days as I was really hoping to see some evidence that Kudpung has taken the feedback in this case on board and made some sort of commitment to improve his behaviour. The evidence is clear that Kudpung has fallen short of the standards of WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, and his refusal to participate meaningfully in this case while criticizing it elsewhere is not exactly reassuring. In previous cases where the committee has agreed to a lesser sanction such as a probation or editing restriction, such as the GiantSnowman case, this was accompanied by evidence that the administrator was receptive to feedback and had made concrete steps to improve their behaviour. This is not the case here, which makes anything less than a desysop just kicking the can further down the road. – bradv🍁 13:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I too have sat on this for a few days while recovering from the flu, and I apologize for holding everything up. There is a distinctly unbecoming sense of entitlement to some of Kudpung's interactions. I'm unwilling to, as Bradv puts it, kick the can down the road for a future committee. Katietalk 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Actually on re-reading some exchanges, I can't support continued adminship. Isolated dustups with other people, and even saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment, I did not feel warranted a desysop, 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. We try to make wikipedia as level as playing field as possible and the pattern of comments Kudpung has made that are antithetical to that are problematic. I should add that I don't have an issue with a person not participating as such (other than not presenting their side) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments; remedy 3 is now passing which does address the undesired behaviour in broad strokes. –xenotalk 16:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
weakly, trying to process this all and balance against length of service. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As someone who was against Kudpung being granted the tools in the first place, I am the first to admit that seeing my name in this section is probably confusing. I thought about it for a long time but I cannot shake the feeling that over the years Kudpung might have gotten the wrong impression that his conduct was not really problematic and thus he never had any reason to address it.
    I'll try to explain what I mean: With the exception of extraordinary cases, I think every user should have received a clear "warning shot". Only if they ignored this warning shot, they should be sanctioned. With all due respect to my colleagues who maintain otherwise, the discussions mentioned in FoF proposals 4, 4.1 and 4.2 do not actually contain any such warning shots and most were closed by different admins with the conclusion that there is nothing to do. It's not hard to believe that Kudpung, upon seeing the comments and consensus in these discussions about his behavior (combined with the fact that he did pass an RFA in which his behavior was mentioned by several people in the discussion), came to the conclusion that the community is okay with his behavior.
    As such, it appears that this Case is the first actual warning shot Kudpung will be receiving based on a discussion with community-wide input. But since a warning shot is supposed to allow the user to improve based on the criticism received, it cannot also contain a sanction for not improving at the same time. As such, I believe that xeno's suspended remedy idea below is the better solution. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments on series of FoF 4, I'd rather go with a less drastic solution. Ideally our admins should be aware that we expect collegial behavior and accountability for their actions, but if a lot of these previous attempts to resolve go nowhere fast, it risks normalizing such behavior. To me, such a remedy moves the goalposts; they should be moved, not by making an example out of an individual, but rather by encouraging the community to not quickly dismiss such noticeboard threads. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Prefer 1.1. –xenotalk 05:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See comment; willing to support subject to the passing of an additional remedy to address the undesired behaviour that did not involve administrative actions. –xenotalk 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy 3 is now passing. –xenotalk 16:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Since I am in agreement that a desysop is warranted, but willing to suspend it, I also am compelled to support a desysop remedy if there lacks committee majority for the suspended route. That said, 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'd prefer to have the committee retain jurisdiction via the suspended remedy route. If that dog will not hunt, we should include a remedy that specifies in more general terms the undesired behaviour that is being addressed to ensure that it does not re-occur. –xenotalk 02:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy)

1.1) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung's administrative user rights are removed. He may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.

In consideration of Kudpung's commitment to take on board feedback made during this case, and accept the committee's decision and apply it accordingly, this remedy will be suspended upon the closure of this case.

Kudpung is advised to fully comply with the Wikipedia:Administrators policy, including the conduct and accountability expectations. Kudpung is advised to remain civil, consider criticism objectively, and assume good faith. Specifically, Kudpung is advised to 1) refrain from indicating on-wiki that they are conducting investigations, and the like, into other editors; 2) refrain from suggesting editors critical of his actions are making personal attacks or engaging in sanctionable behaviour; 3) refrain from unnecessarily suggesting wide and unspecific groups of users are participating in an anti-administrator bloc or disrupting community discussions, or the like; 4) refrain from personalizing disputes or making vague or critical references about unnamed editors; and 5) refrain from unnecessarily prohibiting other editors from posting to their talk page.

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.

Kudpung may apply to have this remedy vacated one year from the closure of this case.

Support:
  1. This is closer to how I envisioned Martinp's "suspended sentence" suggestion: actually handing down the remedy (so that the appropriate denunciatory effect is achieved) while suspending it in the same action.

    I'm cautiously optimistic that this will work. I would be rather disappointed if the previous undesired behaviours re-emerge following the closure of this case, and willing to swiftly enact (unsuspend) the remedy if it becomes clear it did not have the appropriate preventative effect. –xenotalk 05:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SoWhy (Maxim—Casliber) I have added a clause. Please review. –xenotalk 18:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m sorry for continuing to add clauses. I’ll stop if it becomes passing. SoWhy (Maxim—Casliber—David Fuchs). –xenotalk 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a broken ping to Casliber (re: added clause). –xenotalk 20:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments above. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reasonable solution, and a less drastic option than a straight desysop. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Support this as a more solid version of probation below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support weakly as alternative option if desysop does not pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The committee aims to act in a way that stems the effect had by a problem upon Wikipedia. We have concluded that Kudpung is a problem. If he is to cease being a problem, we know the things that Kudpung must stop doing. The set of things Kudpung must stop doing is fairly small and most of Kudpung's interactions are problem-free. The issues in Kudpung are ones of attitude and, it troubles me not to say, an inflated sense of his importance. I can see how this remedy might deal with those problems. It is not axiomatic that because a case has now been opened, we cannot defer judgement until a later time, as this remedy has us do. We should only rule now on the adminship question if reform is close enough to impossible. There are such prospects and I do not object to this remedy on that basis. However, I do think this remedy is a little unlikely to work: personalised and convoluted arrangements have a high social cost and are rarely worth the slim benefits they bring, when they manage even that much. Second choice: support only if remedy 1 fails. AGK ■ 10:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I cannot vote in favour of a motion that stipulates that Kudpung's behaviour warrants a desysop, yet allows him to keep the tools without any concrete evidence that he has taken steps to restore the trust of the community. I also have serious concerns about using a remedy that was designed in consultation with Kudpung, while he steadfastly refused to participate meaningfully in this case. – bradv🍁 13:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also point out that this remedy does not sufficiently address the conduct concerns in this case. In particular, it would have prevented Kudpung from notifying Missvain of his investigation into her edits, which is the opposite of what we want. FoFs 3, 6, and 7 are all not addressed by this remedy. – bradv🍁 14:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments above in PD#1. Mkdw talk 16:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If I ever vote for another civility parole, somebody beat me with a frying pan. If we feel like we have to desysop, let's pull up our big girl panties and do it. Katietalk 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. pointless. Just re-reading a few things Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Rschen7754 has pointed out (and I should probably have noted this somewhere more obvious) that I did invite and have a conversation about suspended remedies with Kudpung, among others, on my talk page (archived here).

Rschen7754 has also suggested I recuse from this case as a result of this conversation which Rschen7754 feels lacked transparency. I am considering their suggestion. –xenotalk 06:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bradv Could you advise how remedy 1 addresses FoF 3,6,7, other than changing the buttons Kudpung sees when he logs in? None of those findings related to the use of administrative user rights per se, the removal of which is the only remedy provided by 1. –xenotalk 17:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, you and I both know that adminship is about more than changing the buttons someone sees when they log in. See principles 1, 2, and 3. – bradv🍁 19:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
bradv: 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. –xenotalk 19:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is the threat of removing the toolset "more than just the removal of a toolset"? If this were an actual restriction that would be enforced by blocks, sure, but that's not what you have proposed. – bradv🍁 19:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv: how would I add the standard enforcement provisions? –xenotalk 20:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does that do it? Bradv (SoWhy—Casliber—Maxim—David Fuchs). –xenotalk 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I undid that, per concern on talk. Thoughts? –xenotalk 21:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung placed on probation

2) For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Kudpung is placed on administrative probation for a period of twelve months. During this probation period, Kudpung is required to refrain from any further incidents of incivility, failure to remain accountable in his use of the administrator tools, or other breaches of the administrator conduct policy. If Kudpung does not meet this requirement at any time, any editor may file an arbitration amendment request for the committee to review his administrator status.

Support:
  1. We were trying to come up with something a bit more concrete than 'admonishment'. See my comment in previous section. Second choice after #1.1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice (ie if remedy 1 passes, I oppose this proposal). Kudpung has had a number of months or years to address the problems in evidence, so I am not sure that I see how placing him on probation would be likely to achieve very much. AGK ■ 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice after #1.1. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As per my comments in PD#1, I do not see this has being an acceptable outcome. The GiantSnowman case has been cited as an example of effective administrative probation. However, the probationary restrictions implemented were materially based upon specific administrative actions only. Civility, accountability, and hostility were noted but were not the central concerns raised as outlined in FOF#5. GiantSnowman also participated in the full case in meaningful ways. In Kudpung's case, much more substantial concerns were raised than simply the over-use of the rollback tool. Kudpung did not participate in the evidence and workshop phase with the purpose of working towards a suitable solution, a fundamental requirement when considering whether probation will be effectively adopted. Mkdw talk 19:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can appreciate trying this as I don't think the admin tools are the fulcrum on which the ill behavior turns. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 1.1. –xenotalk 05:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 1.1 as more straightforward. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comments on other remedies. – bradv🍁 13:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per my comments above. Katietalk 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Kudpung admonished

3) Kudpung is admonished for failing to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator. In future, he is urged to ensure that he remains civil in his interactions with both new and regular editors, and responds to feedback on his conduct objectively and with an assumption of good faith.

Support:
  1. (unless a stronger sanction passes) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This does need saying: AGK ■ 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regardless of other remedies, this is important. – bradv🍁 22:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If PD 1 and 2 do not pass. Otherwise, I would say this is inappropriately too light when placed with FOFs 1 to 8. Mkdw talk 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regardless of passing the other remedies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Regardless of passing the other remedies as if remedy 1.1 is one day vacated this should remain for the record. –xenotalk 05:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Accomplished by 1.1 as it is more of an admonishment with a path to enforcement should problems persist. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

One-way interaction ban

4) Kudpung (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Missvain (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This ban can be appealed after six months have elapsed.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. Given the history, this is put forward for consideration. I don't think it is necessary as it appears to have been a one-off encounter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Everything with Missvain seems to have happened in the same few days, so I do not see what is to be gained from imposing this sanction. AGK ■ 18:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that this was a one-off conflict. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The incident with Missvain was one of several unacceptable interactions which we hope to address with this case, and not tied to Missvain in particular. – bradv🍁 22:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 18:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think it's unecessary given the lack of pattern here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seemed to be a bit of a one-off. –xenotalk 05:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SoWhy 11:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't think this is necessary. Katietalk 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

General reminder

5) Arbitration is supposed to be the final step in the dispute resolution process. The community is reminded that attempting to have a community-wide discussion of problematic behavior early on can prevent unnecessary escalations.

Support:
  1. reiterating standard conduct. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A bit wishy-washy, but all correct. AGK ■ 18:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. the points raised by SoWhy and Bradv, that arbitration procedure could do with an update because it seems to reflect how arbitration was being used nine years ago. Some are wondering if the community were to have made concerted efforts at taking Kudpung to task, would he have needed to come to arbitration at all? Kudpung did seem to act, in part, with impunity for a period of years. I agree that the Wikipedia community often seems to lack the ability of tackling that sort of behaviour. But in this case or any other, I think we would have ended up here even if more users had protested the admin's behaviour – or protested it more formally in an RFCU. To a large degree, users (or admins) will change their ways only if they want to. I am also reluctant to impose additional burdens on the community. Sometimes an admin grows into a problem in the years following their RFA. I think that when such a problem emerges in any case, the community should know an arbitration request would deal with it. AGK ■ 14:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Going together with FoF #4. Something not being strictly necessary does not mean that it wouldn't be beneficial and cutting discussions short by filing for Arbitration while people are actually trying to talk about things is not a good precedent. I don't know why the Committee members of 2011 adopted the Procedures bradv mentions but reading the sentence in question in context suggests that "allegations of administrator misconduct" was meant to refer to serious misconduct that requires immediate attention of the Committee, not allegations of constant "low-level" misconduct going back a decade. That the Committee accepted this case does not rule out the possibility that there might not have been a reason to accept the case if the ANI thread had been allowed to run its course. Regards SoWhy 11:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ideally, concerns about an administrator's conduct should be raised directly with them first so that every administrator has a fair opportunity to adequately explain their actions. Sometimes this is not always possible and the Arbitration Committee may accept a case where this has not been possible, but it should be attempted whenever reasonably possible. Mkdw talk 20:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. To the extent that there is a blue wall of silence, I think we need to dispel it. –xenotalk 05:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per comments on the desysop. Maxim(talk) 11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Arbitration procedures explicitly say that previous attempts at dispute resolution are not required for cases involving allegations of administrator misconduct, and I have seen no evidence to suggest that a community-wide discussion would have resulted in a satisfactory resolution. On the contrary, the many threads about Kudpung at community noticeboards demonstrate the community's inability to address issues such as what we've seen here outside of the structure of an arbitration case. Some discussion could be had on whether there should be a structure for community review of long-standing conduct issues (such as the old RFC/U), but that is outside the jurisdiction of this committee and well outside of the scope of this case. – bradv🍁 22:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I appreciate the sentiment. I do. But this case is about admin misconduct. How many dozens of times have we seen AN or ANI threads about administrators closed preemptively with 'we can't do anything about this here, take it to Arbcom'? If we're going to change ARBPOL to require preliminary discussions first, we should do that. Until then, the committee is the destination. Katietalk 01:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
SoWhy: It was part of an omnibus update to committee policy and procedure, largely spearheaded by Roger Davies iirc. I’m not seeing much in the ways of discussion on that particular paragraph, so I can’t really speak confidently as to the intention of the framers with respect to how serious the alleged misconduct need be to waive the prior resolution attempt requirement. –xenotalk 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC) by Jonesey95.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Administrator conduct 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Leading by example 10 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Administrator accountability 10 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Decorum 10 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Anyone can edit 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Treatment of new editors 8 1 1 PASSING ·
7 Proposed deletion 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Kudpung 10 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Kudpung's conduct 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Kudpung's accountability as an administrator 9 1 0 PASSING ·
4 Previous attempts at resolution 4 6 0 NOT PASSING ·
4.1 Previous attempts at resolution (2) 5 3 1 NOT PASSING · One vote designated as "third choice"
4.2 Previous attempts at resolution (3) 8 2 0 PASSING · Two votes are designated as "second choice" to 4.1
4.3 Previous attempts at resolution (4) 1 0 0 NOT PASSING ·
5 Kudpung and Chris.sherlock 10 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Kudpung and Missvain 10 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Kudpung and GorillaWarfare 9 0 1 PASSING ·
8 Kudpung's participation in this case 10 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Kudpung desysopped 7 2 0 PASSING · One vote is "second choice" if 1.1 does not pass which currently does not pass
1.1 Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy) 5 4 0 NOT PASSING · Two votes are "second choice" if 1 does not pass which currently passes
2 Kudpung placed on probation 3 6 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
3 Kudpung admonished 8 1 0 PASSING ·
4 One-way interaction ban 0 10 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5 General reminder 7 2 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Okay, I'm done here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mkdw talk 05:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. –xenotalk 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Now that all competing proposals have been resolved. Regards SoWhy 17:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Katietalk 11:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. AGK ■ 13:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – bradv🍁 13:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Per the table, currently 4.1 and 4.2 would pass. That still needs sorting out. Regards SoWhy 15:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Under the rules, 4.1 is passing and 4.2 is not. I've updated the table, but if arbitrators prefer a different outcome they should so vote. Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 18:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
L236, David Fuchs' vote on 4.2 is actually a second choice to 4, not 4.1. – bradv🍁 18:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. Then both FoFs are currently passing. Again, if this is not the desired outcome, arbitrators should resolve the vote before passing a motion to close. Best, Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 18:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4.2 has currently three votes designated as "second choice". If we were to count them as "oppose if 4.1 passes", we would arrive at 5 to 4, so still passing. Maybe those who indicated no preference (pinging Joe Roe, xeno) could specify which they would prefer? I noted AGK has struck his equal preference vote on 4.1 in favor of 4.2 but at 6-3 with no second choice indicators, it would still pass. Regards SoWhy 08:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my understanding that if PD 1 passes then PD 1.1 would not pass. Is that correct? Mkdw talk 20:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: As I see it, both can't logically co-exist but if there were another support or abstain on 1.1, both would theoretically pass. Then those in favor of either would have to indicate which one they prefer in order to resolve the conflict before we can close. As it stands now, one vote in favor of 1 (Xeno) and two votes in favor of 1.1 (AGK and David Fuchs) are designated as second choice, so they would count as opposes when it comes to decide whether to pass 1 or 1.1 (meaning 1 stands at 6-3 considering second choices and 1.1 stands at 3-6). Regards SoWhy 08:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve indicated preferences, does that resolve the ambiguity? –xenotalk 11:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With your indication on 4.1, this puts it at 4-4-1, so 4.1 would currently fail because 4.3 (your first choice) fails and 4.2 (your second choice) passes. I updated the table accordingly. Can a clerk check my math please (pinging those I saw active here and assigned to case, L235, SQL, CodeLyoko, Miniapolis)? Regards SoWhy 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, That is currently how I see it as well. CThomas3 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed_decision&oldid=1164483495"