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

"Disingenious or conflicting"
Can someone explain why in the workshop has suggested I am being "disingenious"? I find this... disturbing. I don't think it's very reasonable or fair to say that I am such a person. I have been very careful to state that I believe that Kudpung appears to have a problem with threatening language and behaviour, but that I don't think they know that they are doing this. There is nothing conflicting about me stating that the situation between myself and Kudpung was addressed, but that the behaviour leading up to this was something that ArbCom should look into this.

Could I clarify also the role of in this workshop?

Apologies if I don't understand something here! Despite my many years of experience with Wikipedia, I honestly have never actually involved myself to any degree with ArbCom matters. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I finally figured out how this works. Please ignore my questions :-) Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

For clerks attention
,, - 3 editors have expressed concern that the workshop page is becoming heated / personalised. As the stage is coming to a close soon, can you please keep an eye on it? Leaky caldron (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, Also, an editor has challenged lack of diffs in evidence. I have provided the diffs. Do they need to be added to the Evidence page also, please? Leaky caldron (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. All the best,  Mini  apolis  15:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. I'll ask the question another way. The absence of evidence was challenged by another editor. It was suggested by them that it could be added to the evidence page for all to see. Now that it has been identified in more detail, why should it not be? Leaky caldron (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry you didn't like my answer. Feel free to make a request on the evidence talk page.  Mini  apolis  15:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "I didn't like your answer". I am simply attempting to fill a request. Why would requesting same on the evidence page make any difference? Also, as a matter of good clerk practice, is it not customary to ping an editor when replying to them? Leaky caldron (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I find that Buffs is overwhelming the workshop with rather eclectic viewpoints and analysis concerning 'findings of facts', which can pretty much be summed up as "All the evidence is invalid, everyone accusing Kudpung of improper behaviour are the ones being improper". We're at 25 sections alone there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Headbomb, should we accept the view from the other side – "all evidence is valid, everyone accusing Kudpung of improver behaviour is right"? Honestly, it's me too who is agreeing with Buffs on various points. Lourdes 15:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't that people can't disagree with the specifics of individual points, or that all evidence is necessarily valid (or actionable/damning/whatever you want to call it). The issue is that there's a blanket rejection (or nearly-so) of everything, dismissal of everything, followed by a twisting the words of everyone that spoke against Kudpung, accusing them of being the real culprits, and a general propensity to comment/reply to everything. And this really isn't productive. 25+ proposed FoFs is excessive. That's the issue. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand Headbomb. I think the excessiveness (I don't think it is, but I buy your perspective) comes here because of the way Arbcom has acted against alleged incivility in the past. If you don't oppose strongly with the right points, Arbcom may just base their final decision on the evidence analysis by uninvolved parties. So I am with Buffs on this; yet, I do see and understand what you are stating. Warmly, Lourdes 15:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think we need to have some faith that ArbCom are intelligent and judicious enough to see through any heated commentary (which I apologise if I have contributed to!) when working through the material in the workshop. ArbCom were elected for their impartiality, good sense and level headedness. Whilst some or all of us may disagree with their decision in part (or whole!), I think we need to respect the fact that they will sift through the evidence and workshop contributions in good faith, and also remember that the workshop only really informs and assists them in their final decision making. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. While some commentary on the workshop page has gotten a bit more heated than I'd prefer, I do think on balance the discussion there has been productive, and I trust the Committee to weigh it fairly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with GW on this point. Dismissing any of my FOFs as "eclectic" is a bit extreme. Lots of evidence was brought forth. Some of it I found compelling. Some I did not. Lourdes is quite correct on my rationale. All too often, unchallenged = accepted as fact, which I felt would be a huge miscarriage of justice here. I proposed those FOFs based on the evidence provided. ArbCom is free to use or not use any portion of it as they see fit/compelled. Buffs (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the workshop stage is thankfully closed - 2 days late - I'll say what I think. The clerking has been non-existent throughout and this has allowed the repeated mis-characterising of good-faith contributions and use of WP:BLUDGEON in an attempt to sway the direction of the discussion. There is always a need to oppose with valid points, doing so in a manner that looks like browbeating is unfair. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone is free to say what they think before, during, and after the case. Also, good-faith contributions go both ways and reasonable people can disagree over matters of substance...YMMV. Your description of my contributions (and others?) as WP:Bludgeoning and browbeating is pretty substantial hyperbole. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Workshop phase closing
The workshop will close in about 24 hours.  Mini  apolis  14:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Pretty sure, yes. SQL Query me!  06:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Remarks moved from Proposed decision talk page
Several remarks were placed in the proposed decision talk page that most (if not all) parties agree should have been placed elsewhere. They have been moved here per the clerks/ArbCom by : cut and paste.

I request that the clerks/ArbCom unhat the discussion as the hatting comments make no sense on this page as well as the fact that the remarks are germane to the discussion at hand. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish's section
I've been studiously avoiding ArbCom and other dramaboards for some time (or I would have presented a bunch of evidence in support of a recent desysop). In this case, I feel compelled to come back out of the woodwork. I haven't participated in the previous phases, and am not sure whether it's even permissible to add to the proposed decision page (I forget all the ArbCom bureaucracy as soon as I'm away from it for a while), so the talk page seems like a good bet.

It's my perception that this entire case is a "death of the thousand cuts" exercise, a selective cherry-picking of comments and incidents that aren't perfect, to paint a falsely demonizing picture. I'm not going to pore over every claim, but just look at two that stuck out while scanning through all this:

Kudpung is being a normal bias-alert Wikipedian, and by now has almost certainly learned a bit about when to silently look for clear bias and when to hypothesize openly. Even the person who was queried as to any connection between their group self-identification and their views on-site does not believe that the comment was misogynist. In short, it is not an anti-X sentiment to wonder whether someone identifying as X is bringing an anti-Y viewpoint that is demonstrably common among those identifying as X. Frankly,  at all those "my ethnicity/religion/country/whatever versus yours" disputes that are on WP:AC/DS lockdown. If, e.g., someone self-identifying as an Armenian starts editing a bunch of material about Turks and Kurds and Azerbaijanis and Greeks – or vice versa from any of these culture-conflict directions – we be alert (though perhaps quiet about our alertness). There's just presently a whole lot of hyper-sensitivity when it comes to gender-related being involved. I've been bitten in the ass by this myself, e.g. being attacked as "transphobic" for resisting attempts by TG/NB language-reform activists to force Wikipedia to use protologistic neo-pronouns like hirs, zie, etc, in Wikipedia's own voice (when singular-they will do just fine and actually has consensus support). Notably, anyone subject to such actual personal attacks (like being called "transphobic") will find no support whatsoever at ANI or any other venue, if false accusations seem to align emotionally with the average socio-political concerns of the WP community in the aggregate (no matter how off-base the accusation is). It's exactly like it being fine call someone a Nazi, without evidence, just because Nazis are bad and we don't like them. The current overly emotionalized issues are too fresh for some to see through the fallacy yet, and this has a corrosive and very lopsided effect on the community and its self-regulation. Thus Kudpung can again and again be mislabeled "misogynist" in these proceedings with impunity despite lack of anything like sufficient evidence for such accusations. If you flipped the gender role and brought a female admin to RFARB and started calling them "misandrist" you'd be dogpiled in a heartbeat if your evidence wasn't unbelievably good. And you'd probably be dogpiled anyway, just for daring to perturb the Zeitgeist/orthodoxy of the majority of editors, for too many of whom any criticism (including zero-evidence falsehoods) by someone claiming to be or represent a minority is permissible but any criticism of such an activist is apt be taken as one -ist attack or another and not justifiable for any reason, regardless of proof. False equivalence has turned auto-cannibalistic on this site, and is eating its own tail like Ouroboros. How one can behave on this site (within bounds of and with an eye to facilitating collegial collaboration and encyclopedia work) in a one-to-one relationship with off-site behavior in relation to sociological forces and experiences (e.g. women being nervous about male strangers in ways that men usually are not about women, or black Americans reasonably if a bit fallaciously making generalized criticisms of "all those white people" that would be comments of a very different and more actually racist nature going the other direction due to social power imbalances). But too many of our editors want to pretend otherwise.
 * Commenting that FAC would be a lot better if its current participants behaved more like one who fairly recently died is hardly any kind of besmirching of the deceased (rather, the opposite), nor a personal attack against those other editors. It's a common sort of sentiment about the departed and about the good ol' days of their presence. Perhaps more to the point, the behavioral criticism at the base of this is in fact spot-on. FAC has run off the rails (probably around 2016 if not earlier), and has become the worst sort of good-ol'-boy's-club, walled-garden clique that wikiprojects should never be allowed to become.  In late 2019 to early 2019, the FACTION in control of that venue hounded away the no. 2 most active FAC reviewer, simply because they didn't care for his personality and because he insisted on FA candidate articles being compliant with MoS (which is actually one of the FA requirements, and GA requirements before that).  Only about a year before that, FAC erupted in a shitstorm of drama over a similar attempt to get a candidate page to comply with a simple MoS line item; there was not a valid IAR/LOCALCONSENSUS reason to do something different, it was simply an OWN/VESTED matter of the principal page author's preferences, with FAC regulars leaping to defend their buddy's ILIKEIT pseudo-reason and to pretend that CONLEVEL policy doesn't exist (and wasn't written specifically to thwart this sort of nonsense). That festival of melodrama culminated in at least two FAC regulars proposing variants of an "anti-MoS" for FAC only.  People tire of style disputes and tend to sympathize with an "aw, fuck it" attitude, but imagine any other wikiproject on the system declaring an intent to draft their own counter-guideline or counter-policy, against  WP:P&G page. It's just unconscionable. Kudpung is entirely right to criticise the collective "culture" at FAC; it is getting increasinly un-wiki.  And do so was not an admin action, nor did it have implications for ADMINCOND more generally.
 * As the real world, dealing with "Trumpism" and related movements on the one hand, and downright aggressive socio-political reform agendas from special interests on the other, features a lot of heated debates, and some of them spill over onto Wikipedia, we can expect people here to have concerns about the neutrality of and ADVOCACY/BATTLEGROUND/TRUTH/GREATWRONGS/CIVILPOV motivations of particular editors involved in those disputes here. In an age where TERF is a thing and cis-women identifying with it say things like "a trans-woman who claims to be a lesbian is a sneaky rapist man", etc. (here's some real gems I hadn't seen before; the pool of them grows all the time: ), there is in fact some palpable misandry in the air. It may not have been very politic to wonder out loud whether an editor self-identifying publicly as a cis-lesbian is in agreement with general/average cis-lesbian socio-political advocacy viewpoints. There is clearly something of a doctrinaire mindset in that community, in the sense of it being organized as an activism force.  And that doctrine does sometimes lean misandrist (e.g. "every man is a potential rapist", and other such inflammatory statements).  But airing such a concern about what politics someone might be bringing – even if perhaps it would've been better kept to oneself – isn't a personal attack. It's natural human politics. And in this environment, such concerns are elevated because we know for a fact that organized groups of PoV pushers of every kind – religious, philosopho-economic, nationalist, commercial, governmental, and every other sort – are always trying to skew our coverage.

Anyway, I think Kudpung is being railroaded for a variety of PoV-laden reasons that mostly come down to ill-liberal "must be bad because doesn't think and talk like me" judgmentalism. In closing, I have to observe that Arbcom is not some Personality Examination and Normalization Bureau. We're all different, and Kudpung is not failing ADMINCOND just because some gaggle of individuals communicate differently from him and don't share his exact worldview.

PS: Not directly related to any of this, I want to support the idea I saw on the workshop page of a finding of fact that a habit of "banning" people from one's talk page in response to criticism is not actually permissible. The fact that a not-quite-guideline supplement page says so is irrelevant; ArbCom can say so without citing it, as a WP:Common sense matter, as a behavioral not content matter, and because of the central principle of interpreting all the WP:P&G material in the spirit in which it was intended. The ability under the userpage guidelines to ask that someone stop posting on your user talk page (and the expectation that this should usually be honored) exists for the sole purpose of short-circuiting interpersonal disputes that are not constructive or going to improve any time soon, and which are disrupting the ENC work of the user whose user-talk page it is. The rule, if you can even call it one, is not a license to avoid scrutiny, skirt discussion, or thwart the ability of other editors to raise concerns. It's an exception not a default.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's section
@SmcCandlish: Regardless of the truth of what you write about the current environment at FAC, respectful and decent people (in real life) usually respect the dead and avoid dragging their name through discussions unrelated to them. Criticizing certain FAC participants, who display behaviors that had no relationship to the deceased editor's behavior, is and was disgusting, even if it didn't involve tools. It is a character issue, and apparently a continuation of previous problematic behaviors at The Signpost. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:37, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare's section
[citation needed] around misandry being a "demonstrably common" mindset among queer people, or a "general/average" viewpoint among cisgender lesbians. TERFs are certainly vocal, but their viewpoints are by no means the mainstream views among LGBTQ people. I will also note that I am not a lesbian (as you have claimed), and I am certainly not a TERF (which I don't believe you are claiming). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Although I have already replied to SmMcCandlish, I would echo Leaky caldron's call for clerk (or arb) attention on this page. I would argue the statement should be removed entirely rather than moved, or at least heavily redacted—it is completely unacceptable to claim that lesbians are commonly man-haters, and that trans hate is an average view among lesbians. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * While I'm technically out due to medical reasons I'll take a stab at asking for guidance from the committee on this. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cameron! I hope you get well soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That'd be me, Buffs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not "directed" anyone to do anything, Buffs. As an arbitrator I am quite aware of what is and is not proper for me to do in this case, and my exact message to the clerks list was: Asking without my arb hat on: any chance we could get some clerk (or arb) eyes over at the Kudpung PD talk page? There have been a few requests for clerking, and now a commenter there has started clerking it himself:. (Clerks or whoever feel free to verify this.) As stated in WP:AC/C, the clerks mailing list is meant for "requests from community members regarding things on arbitration pages." You yourself opened your section to state that there was an issue with where SMcCandlish's statement was placed—now you're annoyed that a clerk stepped in? As for your claim that the case clerks saw the requests for clerking here and chose not to act on them, please link me to where they have said as much. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You were implying that the clerks saw the requests and chose not to act on them, which is not accurate. It's ridiculous to claim that I am "taking umbrage at my authority being questioned" — my entire point is that I have no authority here. It appears that you are now just using this page to get your jabs in, so given that we have clearly passed the point at which my continuing to respond is useful, I won't. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The comparison between CEO/employee and arbitrator/clerk is apples to oranges. Furthermore, if you think a clerk (particularly one as experienced as Cameron11598) would be so trivially swayed, I would submit you don't know our clerk team very well. My email asked for a clerk (or an arbitrator, all of whom are subscribed to the clerks email list) to review the various requests for clerking at this page, and was completely appropriate—I'm also sure that if an arbitrator thought I was being underhanded or inappropriate by emailing the clerks list, they would make it clear on-list or on-wiki. People on this page were beginning to remove each others' statements, which was well beyond the point at which clerk intervention was needed. P.S. I agree with your suggestion of template, I will have to be sure to suggest it going forward... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * While we're here, I would recommend someone email the clerks to get eyes on Buffs' question about moving the statement. I'm starting to suspect the designated clerks on this case may be inactive. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure if I'm going to be accused of suggesting they do allow Buffs to post it, or don't, or what. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Buffs wants to add the comment to the workshop talk page, not the now-closed workshop page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer's section
I'd like an answer to GW's comment as well; if your goal is to defend Kudpung, neither of you are done any favors by incorrectly generalizing for an entire group. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 12:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris.sherlock's section
I apologise for responding to as it wasn’t a discussion about a proposed decision (none was even given at the time!) and for not responding in my own section. I missed the top box. I have removed my comment entirely as it wasn’t productive and not related to any decision made by ArbCom. Once again, I apologise for not following process. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it reads up the top: “This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.”
 * is quite correct. The original comment was out of order, but then so were our responses. This should have been on the workshop page. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lourdes' section
, this is an absolutely spot-on analysis. With no disrespect to any editor here (alive or deceased; and I write this with all due regard), I would add that there has to a good-faith attempt by certain editors here to see the issue from a positive point of view, and not just to somehow reach their desired result. It seems tad unfair that some of the editors are circling repeatedly around one side of the issue. It's a belaboured exercise. I'll see how the proposed decisions pan up and then comment further. Lourdes 13:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Having re-read the comments, I agree with the hatting here. Lourdes 01:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we have a new date for the proposed decision posting? Thanks, Lourdes 09:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * the proposed decision should be posted in a few days time (see Joe Roe's comment). I am asking in the list if there is a new date. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * to follow up, the Arbitration Committee don't have anything else to add to the announcement by Joe Roe. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Lourdes 03:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Buffs's section
This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion. I'm not entirely certain what everyone is talking about here. There is no proposed decision at this time. IMHO, this discussion belongs on the Workshop talk page. Buffs (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For once Buffs I entirely agree with you. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed & why have they been arranged into Editor's Section sections? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * because the directions state "all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section." What perplexes me is why this rule has been followed, but not the first.
 * To be clear, I have no problem with people responding to remarks in my section if it makes the flow of information clearer. Clerks, please adjust as needed if you feel it's in error. Buffs (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * might I request that you take this to the Workshop talk page? That's a MUCH more appropriate venue, IMHO. This page is for the discussion of the proposed decision. As no one has yet edited the page, discussion here is quite moot. There is no proposed decision to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * @GW, I didn't read it that way. I submit that you seem to be spring-loaded to find offense at such criticism (I'm not saying such a statement applies to everyone in a such group either). I disagree with some of his conclusions and the extremes of his conclusions too, but it is an arguable position even if both you and I don't agree with it ("common" and "average" are both nebulous terms in this context). Redacting his entire statement because "I'm offended" makes little sense. I completely concur it doesn't belong on this page. I advocate moving it to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop; there is no closure date there. The Workshop and Evidence pages are closed and it should not be added there. I would also welcome corrections, clarifications, etc. We cannot expect talk pages to be 100% accurate on the first go 100% of the time. We need to allow people to clarify and make necessary corrections. Buffs (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You aren't a clerk on this case. Can you please explain why you hatted this? Did someone ask you to do so? Buffs (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Just for clarification I don't need to be assigned to a specific case to take a clerk action on that case. There was an email to the clerk's list that requested one of us handle the complaints that have been made on this page. I did so under the authority granted to clerks by precedent, clerk's procedures, and the Arbitration policy. I hope this clarifies. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kinda new to this general process. Thanks for the clarification. Who sent the email? Buffs (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First, I'm only continuing this here because I feel it's the most appropriate venue as it refers to something posted on this page. It seems to me that we/you should have asked SMcCandlish to move his content to the appropriate page. Simply hatting it is effectively deleting what some might find compelling analysis (I don't personally find it all that compelling, but it certainly could/should be considered on the appropriate page for what it is).
 * I'm also concerned that there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest when a recused member of ArbCom directs or even asks a clerk to do something that could materially affect the case she recused herself from. If a member of the US Supreme Court was involved in a case prior to its arrival at the Supreme Court, obviously they would recuse themselves. But to then direct/ask a group of clerks to suppress a statement when the existing clerks chose not to suppress it (for whatever reason)... Like I said, seems off... Your thoughts would be appreciated. Buffs (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * would you object to me moving SMcCandlish's remarks to the the Workshop talk page? Buffs (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The workshop stage is closed. If I was declined to add actual evidence (suggested by Buffs, in fact) during the WS stage, I see there being no good reason to add this particular TL;DR to the WS which will invoke all the more responses on the very day when a proposed decision is actually due. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , respectfully, I didn't ask your opinion. If I'd wanted it, I would have pinged you. Likewise, I wasn't suggesting moving it to the Workshop page (which is very clearly marked as closed), but the workshop TALK page (which features no such notice). ArbCom can read and do with it as they please. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I have no problem with people responding to remarks in my section if it makes the flow of information clearer. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Cameron11598 would you object to me moving SMcCandlish's remarks..." I didn't see your name anywhere in there. I specifically asked someone for their opinion, not yours. Buffs (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @GW
 * You seem to be taking extreme umbrage at your authority being questioned. You asked for the clerks to do something in an email (a private means of communication) that none of use were privy to. You didn't disclose that here until I asked Stating that you "know what is proper" doesn't add up with what I'm seeing here (and at least one other person agrees). I'm not suggesting you said something improper, but the manner in which you've done this seems awkwardly non-transparent and doesn't really fit with "recusal", IMHO. This all could have been clarified by telling everyone you were going to ask for another clerk to hop in since the others are absent. Why you didn't do so is perplexing.
 * I never said I was annoyed that a clerk stepped in. I was wondering where he came from as he wasn't one of the listed clerks.
 * Re:"As for your claim that the case clerks saw the requests for clerking here and chose not to act on them, please link me to where they have said as much." - I stated "the existing clerks chose not to suppress it (for whatever reason)". They could have said something and didn't. They could have thought it was appropriate. They could be absent. I don't know, hence the "whatever reason" remark. The point remains that they didn't do anything with it and have not explained it in any manner. I don't know why.
 * I stand by my original statement that you are reading into messages what you want. This just adds to it. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A response like "It appears that you are now just using this page to get your jabs in..." sort of illustrates my point... Buffs (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Leaky's section
& . In the previous phase you declined my request to add some further links as evidence (although suggested by another participant). Here, we have an editor wishing to introduce evidence and comment as if the workshop were still open, resulting in a partial re-litigating of the case. As pointed out by others, this page is for discussion on the proposed decision, due tomorrow. Fresh content is also being added to Workshop, despite the phase being closed days ago. Can you please clerk as appropriate? Leaky caldron (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done some clerking on this page and hope it helps. I've also reverted the posts to the workshop page. Unfortunately I've been inactive due to health issues and may continue to be so for a short while. Feel free to reach out on my talk page with any concerns as I'm still receiving e-mail from talk page messages. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cameron has today clerked the Workshop to remove content added post-closure. That seems to set the precedent to decline the latest request.  Leaky caldron (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My Bad. Better there than here I suppose, better nowhere than anywhere. :) Leaky caldron (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Levivich's section
I've been beating the "procedural fairness" drum lately, so...

@GW: If your CEO comes to your office and says, "Without my CEO hat on, any chance you could put eyes on such-and-such...", do you answer (a) "Sure", or (b) "Well, since you don't have your CEO hat on, sorry, I'm too busy, please close the door on your way out." A CEO can't ask a subordinate to do something "without their CEO hat on" any more than an arbitrator can ask a clerk to clerk "without their arb hat on". Even though everyone acts in good faith, the outcome looks like this: a statement supportive of one of the parties has been hatted at the request of a recused arbitrator who is one of the chief witnesses against that party. That doesn't look like clerks are clerking neutrally, and it makes the whole process seem less neutral, and therefore less fair, than it may actually be. In the future, it would be better if recused arbs had no communication at all with clerks about clerking the case in which they are recused, regardless of headwear.

Also, I think the template at the top of the page would be more noticeable if it were replaced with : – Levivich 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * @GW: Don't kid yourself in thinking that CEO/employee is not like arb/clerk. I'm not even on the mailing list but I know the answer to this question: how many times has an arb requested clerking, and the clerks did not clerk in response to that request? Over any period of time? You're kidding yourself if you think that your request might not have been acted upon; of course a clerk was going to clerk in response to you asking for clerking. As an arb, you have the power to ask clerks to clerk, and it's not something you can say, "Well, I'm making this request, but not in the capacity of an arbitrator." You can't take the arb hat off, anymore than a CEO can take the CEO hat off, and because you're recused, it's better if you were to stay completely uninvolved in any aspect of the administration of the case. Otherwise, it looks like you're using your position as an arb to "silence" an opposing point of view; even if we all know that wasn't your intent, it's still the effect. BTW this is "Recusal 101" – you don't even talk to "the staff" about the case, at all, when you recuse from anything, in any position of power (judge, board member, whatever). Compare, for recent example, recusal of the WMF chair in framgate... would it have been OK for the WMF chair to email trust and safety and say, "Without my WMF chair hat on, can I ask you to put eyes on..."? Would that have been received well by "the public"? Rhetorical questions you needn't answer of course, but I think you see what I'm saying. The best policy for recusal is no contact with staff about the recused case. Levivich 18:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Atsme's section
Damn straight, Levivich. Atsme Talk 📧 00:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Moving these comments
Would anyone object if we moved all these comments to the ../Workshop talk page? That page is not subject to sectioned discussion rules, which works better for general conversation. Moving this conversation to the Workshop talk page would also help keep this page clear for structured discussion when the PD is posted. (Feel free to respond inline here.) – bradv  🍁  20:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No objection from me, though I do personally think SMcCandlish's comments should remain hatted for the reasons I outline (in my also-hatted section) above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's what I advocated...has my blessing. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, everything? Meh, I guess I'm fine with that as long as all people are informed of the move. Buffs (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah I think everything needs to be moved. Before the PD is posted the only comments that are really relevant here relate to a temporary injunction (not used in this case), or the conventional "When is the PD getting posted?" thread. – bradv  🍁  21:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, will the PD be posted by the end of the day? Lepricavark (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The target PD date will be missed by some days. –xenotalk 01:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the entire content is hatted with a close note. It is well after the clerk closed the Workshop project page (and with it as far as I am concerned, the associated talk page). It's all part of the Workshop stage. It does not advance the case for or against Arbcom action one way or the other and has descended to the level of who shouts the loudest as well as rehashing the almost unfathomable and disrupted workshop discussion. Further debate is unnecessary at this stage with the decision imminent. Leaky caldron (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This talkpage is for the Proposed decision page of this case. Nothing has been proposed yet, so why the comments? Indeed, they should be moved. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, these should be moved. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, but also think they should stay hatted, as they were made well after deadlines (and I regret letting myself be dragged in and having responded :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have very little experience with arbcom but I do find it very weird that a page for "statements regarding the proposed decision" has a bunch of statements and comments, when no public proposed decision even exists yet. So yeah I'd support moving it all somewhere more appropriate. I'd also support simply hatting it all as offtopic. I can understand stuff like 'it's already past 11 February so where is the proposed decision' and similar, but not such extensive commentary on other stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: the discussion has been moved from WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision. For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas3   (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I placed a note at the TOP of this section to make this clear and indented the headers so they are better "corralled". Feel free to undo if you feel this is in error. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Cameron11598's Replies to various parties
Sorry for not replying as my User Page states and I mentioned elsewhere I'm experiencing some moderately serious health issues at the moment. It looks like everything has been resolved at this point. Is there anything outstanding that still needs to be addressed? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only point I have is to unhat the comments you hatted (others can factor their own comments as they deem appropriate...this was done by a clerk). As it stands, the reason for hatting no longer exists and, in fact, doesn't make much sense in the context of this page. Likewise, I didn't expect you to personally reply until your health issues are resolved. You're in my prayers for a speedy recovery/rapid mitigation of whatever you face. Buffs (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Late comment by Pelagic - "Damned if you do..."
I know the workshop is already closed, but I feel compelled to speak up, and this talk page is still active. If these comments belong somewhere else, then please relocate them.

Wading through the material in this case, there is one aspect that jumped out at me early on. One of the behaviours that Kudpung has been accused of is "doubling down" and aggressively defending his position when challenged. But then he was repeatedly criticised for not showing up here to defend himself. To me, it's a clear case if "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

If K goes defensive, it will be taken as a sign that he is continuing the behaviour and is unwilling to change. When he stayed quiet, it's taken as a sign that he … what? Disrespects the seriousness of the situation and is therefore unwilling to change? (Presupposing that he should change, before a finding to that effect has been made.) Disrespects the seriousness of the situation and is therefore unable to play nice with others? It seems that what people want (here and elsewhere generally, it seems to be common on en-wp) is for the accused to show up cap-in-hand, grovelling, and promising not to be a naughty boy any more. It's like in real life when the authorities haul you in, then compel you to make a confession and issue a public apology as the only way to avoid a heavier penalty.† Is that the kind of environment we want in this community?

I have great respect for GorillaWarfare, but I would be very troubled if “the decision by an administrator to not participate in an accepted arbitration case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be reasonably accountable for their conduct” finds its way into the final decision. Was the any question put directly to Kudpung that he refused to answer? Will admins now and in future be expected to show up and shoot themselves in the foot by weighing in even when not requested?

Ymblanter did say that K had mentioned the doubling-down aspect. But my intention here is to go further and indicate that people to engage, when doing so is likely to lead to more conflict, is not just hurtful to those involved, but to the community as a whole.

Expecting admins to double-down, because they are admins? Isn't that something we're trying to avoid? Requiring the accused to show contrition, findings of wrongdoing? Perhaps there should be a phase between FoFs and imposing Remedies, where the person is given an opportunity to respond, rather than demanding they become vigorously involved in earlier phases, to their own detriment.

† Before anybody accuses me of societal bias, I'm thinking not just of situations in authoritarian societies, like what happened to the doctor who mentioned patients were being quarantined at the start of the nCov19 outbreak, but also the kind of situation depicted in US law dramas where the defendant's lawyer advises them to plead guilty to avoid the risk of a harsher sentence.

Pelagic (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't expect nor do I want anyone to grovel. Kudpung hasn't even apologized, so I don't think we're in danger of it anyway. But my concern is that Kudpung has made no indication that he understands that his behavior has been inappropriate in any way, and no assurances it won't be repeated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I side with Pelagic on this matter and I'm glad to see others voicing this concern as well. Kudpung's comment in the initial request "That's all I have to say and if the committee votes to take the case, so be it and it can take its course." Seems like he's asked them to read through everything and is willing to accept what ArbCom rules. I don't see a NEED for him to express remorse without yet a finding of wrongdoing. While I don't think his behavior was 100% appropriate, it's equally worth noting that apologizing or acknowledging that he's done wrong is antithetical to due process; you're demanding an apology and a change of ways before ArbCom has ruled that anything was wrong; you're putting the cart before the horse. In the US courts, you'd effectively be demanding someone incriminate themselves or, in lieu of that, a lack of apology for wrongdoing justifies a harsher sentence when a FoF justifying it hasn't yet been produced. Pelagic has nailed this assessment. Buffs (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'doubling down' aspect is not "See, he's explained himself, he's doubling down!". The doubling down is insisting he was right all along, and using this 'rightness' to refuse to even explain himself, and use that as more proof that people criticizing him are part of the anti-admin brigade. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)