Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence

Evidence from RfArb
A large quantity of evidence was submitted in the RfArb stage. Would you like it to be resubmitted? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to see that. The evidence page hopefully allows for a more streamlined and easier to parse overview of evidence than the request page which necessarily contains commentary and interactions. Regards So  Why  16:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

GRuban's evidence's title
Without commenting on the substance of your recent evidence submission, I don't think quoting our article's quoting of Ti-Grace Atkinson would be considered an "assertion" for this case. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 17:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought about what my assertion would be for this evidence block, and, to be honest, couldn't think of a more apt way to sum up than that famous phrase. I am not nearly done, by the way. If you wait for me to finish, I believe it will be obvious. I do not know of a rule defining exactly what an "assertion" should be, but if there is one that would prevent this one, then I may just have to ignore it. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * … hoping I am not to be painted with a Women in Red brush. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I admit, I would like nothing better than if everyone make up ... --GRuban (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ... well, I admit ... I read your evidence and have no idea what you are getting at. Maybe my mascara is getting in the way? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm (a) not nearly done yet, and (b) don't think I'll be referring to you at all? I mean, I guess I might, if I see your name somewhere in this trail of links as I'm writing, but from my memory I don't think you're part of this particular ... brilliant example of wisdom, peace, and love that we should all strive towards emulating. Cough. It'll take a while, unfortunately. This particular one is about K and GW, whom I'm both quite fond of, for some reason deciding to burn each other to the ground, and then salt that ground so nothing ever grows again. And, if it's not clear, I don't think that was a good decision. Are you part of it somewhere that I missed? --GRuban (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidence extension
I am drafting my evidence and though my initial pass at it is quite long, I'm hoping to get it down to 1,500 words. May I have an extension for that amount? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If we do, I'd be inclined to increase the limit for all submitters. I am inclined to say 'yes' to this (for you and everybody else) but will wait to see if there is a consensus from other arbs to do so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly how the rules are applied here, but, having seen members of the US House of Representatives "yield their time" to other members, I would be happy to yield whatever quota I have to GorillaWarfare, so that she may extend her comments. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will wait to hear back. I don't think I've ever seen that done at an ArbCom case, but I do appreciate the offer! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That might work with parliaments that have a limited number of members (and thus a limited amount of "total time") but Wikipedia has no such limits, so we need to limit the evidence itself. I'm okay with increasing the limit to 1,500 words for everyone though. Regards So  Why  15:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is more like a court case than a legislative deliberation, so perhaps the Federal Rules of Evidence are more relevant. From the standpoint of the "prosecution", it would be a shame if word limits on evidence prevented them from presenting their complete case, and led to an admonishment when a more complete presentation of evidence might have led to more severe sanctions. From the standpoint of the "defense", it would be a shame if word limits on evidence prevented them from defending themselves against all of the allegations presented by the prosecution. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also be grateful for flexibility limits-wise. Due to the nature of the case some of my evidence covers several separate events. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Committee instructions, I've updated the case evidence page to reflect the new limits of 1,500 words and 150 diffs for all users.  C Thomas3   (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Xxanthippe's evidence
Most arbs will probably remember this, but Kudpung's veiled (piped) characterization of Xxanthippe as misogynistic (which btw is this edit, not any of the diffs linked in Xxanthippe's evidence section) came after Xxanthippe's oppose !vote in 's RFA, which was struck four times by three different editors, and provoked such a row that we held an RFC about the level of inappropriateness in RFA comments we were willing to tolerate. This was after Xxanthippe posed an optional question to Megalibrarygirl which was generally regarded as inappropriate and at one point struck by a sitting arbitrator. Characterizing Xxanthippe's oppose !vote in that discussion as anything other than misogynistic is an extraordinarily charitable reading.

This is said without prejudice to any other evidence presented, as a formerly named editor with effectively zero interactions with any of the parties to this case. I'll identify privately to the committee if so requested.

courtesy ping. 97.115.213.81 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the RFC found that consensus to the question "Should votes which are not blatant vandalism or personal attacks be removed?" was no, and "Should questions which are not blatant vandalism or personal attacks be removed?" was also no. To the question "Should threaded responses to RfA votes be allowed?" the consensus seems to have been yes.
 * Given that implied that another editor was a "man hater" (see this comment) I think it shows a pattern. Also, I'm not sure that taking pot shots at other editors anonymously is very helpful. If you want to stay out of ArbCom matters publicly, then email the ArbCom, don't post here anonymously. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

A question for the clerks about process. 1 edit spa IP 97.115.213.81 seems well practiced at Wikipedia skills like diffs and pings and describes themself as a formerly named editor. In other words a self-confessed sock puppet. Should opinion be accepted from a sock puppet? I think they should contribute under their user name or not at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I always thought there was a distinction between socking and editing logged out, but I suppose that's a distinction without a difference in this case. I remember the MLG episode pretty well because it was right around the time I stopped actively editing, so my brain didn't overwrite it with subsequent wikidrama, although I didn't actually lose access to my account till 2019.
 * Contextualizing evidence doesn't seem to me something that would break a wikireputation or require subterfuge, but it does come off as pretty cowardly. I've identified to the committee via email. Thanks for using neutral pronouns! 97.115.213.81 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

If I wasn't a party I would run a CU -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello clerks! Are we going to hear from you if it is appropriate for a sockpuppet to make personal attacks ("pretty cowardly") anonymously against a named editor? I experienced shabby treatment by clerks on an earlier occasion. In this successful RFA of 2017 there were three Oppose votes, of which mine was one. My vote was recorded on the talk page of the RfA as "Xxanthippe's Oppose". The other two were recorded as "Oppose #2" and "Oppose #3". This singling out by name led to me being the most prominent target for the type of obloquy issued by the sock here. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Do you not think that perhaps the nature of your oppose at that RfA had something to do with it, plus the fact that you're making accusations in this case and the other opposers at the RfA aren't? Do you think you should be free to make whatever accusations you like against Kudpung but be immune to examination and criticism of your own behaviour in the related events? Your RfA oppose was, in my view, despicable, and I think you need to gain some self awareness over that rather than trying to blame the clerks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am disturbed by your implication that the selected outing of my name by the clerks on the talk page of the 2017 RfA was deliberate. I had supposed that it was inadvertent, although nonetheless damaging for that. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I implied no such thing, you inferred - incorrectly. If I wish to convey an opinion, I say, I do not imply. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you do not want mistaken inferences to be drawn from your contributions to Wikipedia you should give more attention to the clarity of your writing. What seems clear to you may not be clear to others. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I think what I said is perfectly clear. Where in my words is there any, even remote, suggestion of anything being done deliberately? If you find anything I say sufficiently unclear that you need to wonder whether I'm implying anything unsaid, then you should assume good faith and ask, rather than assuming bad faith and going with your worst inference. That's how we're supposed to do things here at Wikipedia, remember? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The "pretty cowardly" was intended to characterize my own behaviour here. 97.115.213.81 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case I withdraw any imputation made. Your standing on this page will be less open to misinterpretation if you report what your previous user names were and if you currently have any other user names. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Other people's words (I don't know what you mean by "standing" - everyone has equal standing here, IPs included) will be less open to misinterpretation if *you* stop inferring the worst in them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, emotions are high here. Xxanthippe misunderstood what was being said, and has retracted their claim. Let’s not escalate this any further. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Blank evidence sections
- I just wanted to remind you that the evidence phase will be closing in the next couple days. SQL Query me! 02:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the heads up, SQL -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  21:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

GRuban's evidence
GRuban's evidence discusses me and my actions pretty extensively—should I be considering myself a party to the case? I'm asking this for word limit reasons, though I realize now that when everyone's word limits were extended to 1500 words the limit for parties was not discussed. Either way, I am hoping for 500 more words to respond to that evidence as well as a few additional hours—he's unfortunately posted his evidence during my work hours, and by the time I'm home and able to respond at length we will probably have reached the evidence deadline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If I didn't make it clear with lots of bold explicitly stating as much, I don't intend my evidence to say that GW should be sanctioned. She - and all of us - have suffered enough here. Recommend sentencing both parties to "time already served". I have no comment about the other issues involving Kudpung, because frankly I didn't look into them. Looking into this one was rough enough, and I am quite, quite glad that I'm not an arb that has to. --GRuban (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would still like the opportunity to respond. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, after rereading the evidence, it looks like GRuban has removed the bit I was intending to respond to. Assuming it does not substantially change in the next hour, I'm satisfied with not providing a response. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

GRuban has put in his evidence at the last moment, and in fact is still doing that, so I think that it is reasonable to give an extension to any editor extensively discussed by him to a significant extent. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC).
 * I'm not arguing for or against an extension; just noting that in the past, editors have been told that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence&diff=931908237&oldid=931907829&diffmode=visual submitted evidence can be refuted in the "Analysis of evidence" section of the workshop]. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this advice. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC).

Why is this not being clerked?
This is a straightforward user-conduct case and the evidence should be absolutely straightforward: "Here is what Kudpung is alleged to have done and the diffs to prove it, here are the extenuating circumstances if any and the diffs to prove it". Parts of the alleged "evidence" on this case don't even pretend to relate to Kudpung's conduct (the only topic at hand), and at least one editor's entire section reads like the transcript of someone having a full psychotic episode. Why is there not even a pretence of clerking this case taking place? &#8209; Iridescent 17:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I've been fighting a viral infection for the last 2 weeks and I am currently finishing up my third round of medication to address the issue. I'll take a look through the case tonight and attempt to address any issues I see. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure it is helpful to call someone’s evidence a “psychotic episode”. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They did not. ——  SN  54129  05:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * also relevant to you. ——  SN  54129  07:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misquoted. However, saying something is "like a psychotic episode" is not helpful either. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That was funny! Now I know that some might think it a bad idea to make a drive-by comment implying someone could have a mental illness. Especially an administrator. Especially on an arbitration case about an administrator accused of making personal attacks. They might find it hurtful. They might find it worthy of reproach. But I know you have only the best intentions and mean it as lighthearted constructive criticism, and will take it in the spirit in which it was intended. --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t mean to be pedantic, but you can apparently have a psychotic episode without having a mental illness. The article on anomalous experiences covers the most common ones in the literature. As serendipity would have it, I was working on an issue related to that topic when I saw your comment. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I just hate the black/white binary nature of "does this person have a mental illness or not" in general....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

How is Boing! said Zebedee's evidence, evidence?
Hi there. Just curious how 's statement about me (I am not on "trial" here FWIW) is evidence related to Kudpung's actions. I do passingly mention my situation (I am often targeted due to my high profile as an editor for better or worse), but for reasons many people can probably understand I rarely do talk about what happened and the one mistake I made (all just to pay my electricity bill, sadly enough). It's anxiety inducing (my heart is racing as I type this), ruined my life (I was unemployed for one year and I had to end up working for my stepmom – where I still work - because I'm un-hireable given that my name is smeared all over the internet because of the firing), and something that I think should not be "evidence" to rationalize a fellow editor and administrator being rude, patronizing, or prone to retaliation. Thanks. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, context can also = evidence. ——  SN  54129  16:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Simple enough, thank you! Missvain (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I felt I had to make those points, because I do recall how painful that episode seemed to be for you. The problem is, there seems to be a pervasive approach of painting this all as rampant sexism an undercurrent among some of seeing the case issues as examples of sexism (not by you, but you can surely see it's there). So, I saw a friend with allegations like that being stacked up against him, and I had to point out that there was a context that I think is far more likely to lie behind his interactions with you, and of which commentators in this case and Arbcom members needed to be aware. I'm sorry if it caused you discomfort. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly is NOT all rampant sexism. That's a disgraceful claim which you should withdraw or clarify. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I erred in my words above, and I apologise for that - I did not intend to suggest all commentators were making such suggestions. I have adjusted my comments. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BSZ, I'm seeing that undercurrent too. Buffs (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Reading through all of the evidence...
I'm not a party to this matter, but after reading through all of the evidence, all I can see are leaps to conclusions and assumptions of sexism and retaliation. I'm seeing instances of Kudpung being brash, but I'm also not seeing clear evidence of matters that are desysopworthy. I'm also a little concerned that someone who has recused herself is so heavily involved in the process. Usually recusal means you're removing yourself from the proceedings, not "just avoiding a being the Arbitrator"...but that may just be a little more of the legal world than how WP operates. Buffs (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators are allowed to participate in (even bring) cases if they recuse. If that was not the case, there would be nowhere for arbitrators to raise concerns about issues that would otherwise be arbitration-worthy with which they are directly involved, nor would people be able to raise similar concerns about arbitrators (as has happened in the past). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Buffs, both arbitrators and clerks can recuse and present statements or evidence in an arbitration case. As GW states, this is not out of order and happens with some regularity, if not frequently. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's just odd from this layperson's perspective, not improper. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

May I make a minor clarifying edit?
(or whoever has authority over these things): I just noticed that I left the words "in Episode 1" in my evidence, though that's no longer a section title. Permission to change that to "in the above section"? --GRuban (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regards So  Why  14:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Tournesol.png|33px|link=]] Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Per request on PD talk page
In view of the 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) 08:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)