Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop

5203:

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

7659:

Women In Red project solely in reaction to GW’s request, and furthermore directly blamed GW for causing him to take this action. He has also demonstrated on many, many occasions that if approached about his behaviour on his talk page that he will ban the person from communicating with him. Kudpung has never acknowledged that others found this strange and boorish behaviour, nor has he ever shown that he understands that this reaction was disproportionate to the request that was being made to him. Now I don’t think he should be prevented from preventing people from messaging him on his user page, but here’s the rub: If you show that you respond to criticism time and time again by banning those bringing their concerns to you directly, then it highlights the fact that you are unwilling to even listen to criticism. In short, you will be considered by many to be an unreasonable person, and as an admin you will seem to be unaccountable for your actions. Many ordinary editors, and quite a few admins, consider that unaccountability to be a disqualifying quality for an admin. Whilst I don’t believe Kudpung should be desysopped, it should be of no surprise that some are asking for his admin rights to be revoked.

3684:, but a description of those whom he feels are uniformly opposing actions based on a consistent set of ideals. This is no different than describing something as a "Democratic/Republican talking point" and explaining why he feels the idea has no merit. Rather than rehashing the same arguments over and over, it's a shortcut. There certainly is an opinion of "I'm anti-administrators" amongst our fellow Wikipedians. Some believe we have too many. Some believe that there are too many admins with extreme political views that taint Knowledge and administrative decisions. Some view that admins who don't hold the same political/personal views shouldn't be admins (and this includes some admins!). Some view that admins have too much power. For whatever reason, there is a common "A-AB" view amongst some Wikipedians. Grouping them together like this is convenient for descriptive purposes and to assess common traits/flaws. I do not see this as a blanket dismissal of opposing views, but a description of opposing views. I don't personally find it particularly compelling, but I also don't see it as nefarious as some have portrayed it. 6236:

merits of the case, if you do not participate you are seriously screwed, and the European culture, to which accidentally both Kudpung and I belong and where one thinks courts would filter junk out first - not necessarily to mean this case is junk, but just to emphasize the difference). However, if I have to name one factor which I often consider while to take or not to take a difficult admin decision - that I know that a lot of people will not like it, which is ok, but some of them would go to my talk page with their arguments, which I have already considered by taking the decision, and insist that I answer every single objection, and every single time they do not like my answer they would remind me about ADMINACT, and after my answers they will bring new objections, and this will take way more time and energy from me than if I would just decided to shut up and not to take the decision in the first place. Now, if this proposal gets accepted by ArbCom, the situations similar to what I have just described would become routine.--

4473:. There was no notification made to that user. And he shouldn’t be enacting an indefinite ban without asking other admins to first review his decision. Certainly it’s a threat. I can think of a dozen ways in which to express this in a less intimidating fashion. For instances, you could say “These comments could be seen as insulting or construed as a personal attack. Could Xxanthippe please stop making these comments? As they can be unhelpful for the project at large, further such comments might lead to sanctions.” That’s succinct, it asks the person to stop what you feel to be a problem (not saying it was, just showing the phrasing) it would have alerted the user, it gives them a chance to review the issue and respond and gives them clear guidance on the potential consequences of not changing their behaviour, as well as explaining it is disruptive to Knowledge. The way it was phrased was a command, it was unnecessarily aggressive and intimidatory and it was not said directly to the person being referred to. - 2277:) was completely unnecessary. Likewise, I find her explanation afterwards lacking. In response K's reply was also abrasive to a lesser extent. Later remarks by GW about a Signpost article being full of "misogyny" were also out of line again. I'm VERY surprised in GW resorting to such unnecessary and uncivil remarks and even reinstating them after they were removed/being warned resulting in her block (the fact that a former and future member of ArbCom was blocked is astounding). I found the article unhumorous, but within the realms of political commentary. That people disagreed with it is reasonable; that they resorted to such remarks/actions is not reasonable. In this entire interaction, GW and K were not without faults. Both did not uphold the best standards of behavior, but GW was far worse, IMHO. I ask that ArbCom consider this evidence carefully when rendering their decision. 7651:

because those reading the criticism may wonder if they are being unfairly targeted. What I think is clear is that there is a pattern to this behaviour. Kudpung obliquely referred to an unspecified admin misusing their tools. Kudpung stayed that he was trying to prevent fall out for two editors who he felt were potentially abusing Knowledge. Kudpung made vague statements that he was researching another editor (me). He has made other vague comments that could potentially be considered threatening to those who read them. He has made vague comments about potential consequences to other editors he has disagreed with. Overall it causes a chilling effect for many people, and as a pattern of behaviour it needs to stop. Unfortunately, it is very hard to make it clear to Kudpung because he is so incredibly defensive, and his self described “bark” is very often a verbal attack.

10600:

out of context. I think the evidence presented here and the analyses by the various participants speak for themselves; I therefore see no real need to contribute beyond what I've already said; my non-participation should not be taken as a refusal to take on board any objective criticisms or that I don't consider anyone else's opinions to have any validity. Those who have spoken in my defense - for which I am grateful and humbled - are not part of a 'Kudpung inner circle' (there isn't one), in fact I I've never even interacted with one of them whose words are in fact more of an appeal for an equitable review of the evidence by the Committee. I will take the feedback here, trust the Committee to make that thorough investigation, accept their decision and apply it accordingly. I will however offer the following corrections to some of the claims that have been made:

10161:" is casting unwarranted aspersions, as it is impossible to deduce intention from it (and this case can decide what people have said and done, but it can not decide people's intentions.) And, it is simply not possible for single statement to indicate anything systematic. GW is the only one in the list of people who publicizes their real name on their user page, and Kudpung was only trying to be friendly - had he been familiar with the real names of the others and had they used them themselves, I expect he would have used them too. There might be issues with the subsequent interactions, but there absolutely was no malice or bad intent in the original statement (which GW herself has said she assumed to be a innocent use of her real name), and you should not be using this phase to fabricate further accusations out of nothing. 2681:

message that my phrasing "among men" was ambiguous. The message I intended to convey was that when my name is included in a list of male administrators, and they're all referred to by their usernames but I am not, I would prefer to also be referred to by my username. That is, when listed among men, I would like to be described similarly. I did not intend to say that the gender of the person making the comment was relevant. I don't care at all if men (or women, or any other gender) refer to me as "Molly" or "GorillaWarfare" or "GW" or any other reasonable permutation, but it does make me uncomfortable when I'm the only person described informally when everyone else mentioned in the same context is referred to by their username. To be as clear as I possibly can be,

7760:

have reviewed Kudpung’s overall contribution to Knowledge and he has many good qualities. Whilst I believe he needs to be more careful in tagging articles, overall he makes correct judgements. Kudpung has made important contributions to admin policy and procedures. He tirelessly works on backlogs. He is very intelligent and I feel his life experience is invaluable to the project. He is clearly a committed Wikipedian who has made valuable contributions to Wikimania. I think whilst there are some very obvious issues that he needs to acknowledge and address, I personally think it would be quite within his ability to do so if he so desires and I think that we should take his contributions into account before we take any drastic actions like desysopping him.

9050:. Some editors have gone around nit-picking every section of this Arbitration Request in a way that seems obsessive. It should be pointed out that the stakes here are not high. There is no proposal to site-ban Kudpung and there is no proposal to ban him from being an administrator for eternity. The worst that can happen is that he looses his administrative authority for a time and then is able to reapply through another RfA. There seem to be plenty of editors ready to nominate him. This will give the whole of the English Knowledge community, which is the ultimate authority here, the opportunity to assess his fitness to be an administrator. 3926:, and that is what I think is unacceptable. In response to your edit about me being on the ArbCom, I don't see what is astounding here. The fact that admins must be accountable for their actions is firmly enshrined in policy. I would also add that "silence = guilt" is an unfair summary of this policy—if someone on Knowledge wishes to hold higher permissions, then they sometimes have to make more of an effort to be transparent and accountable. If they don't wish to do so, that is totally fine—they aren't going to be banned for not participating in an ArbCom case—but they also should not expect to retain these advanced permissions. 4755:

angles. There's no new evidence in this section that wasn't addressed in a previous section. It's like your mom telling you to clean your room because your dirty clothes are everywhere. "Your room is a pig sty! You need to pick up everything, take care of your shirts, put away your shoes, don't leave that stuff out..." (all the time simply saying the same thing over and over in different ways as if it's something else you needed to do...in fact, it's the same thing: "dirty clothes are out, put them up"). Given this repetition, this is beginning to feel like a

2883:

suspended for various, non-nefarious reasons (i.e. they are undergoing medical treatment, they are facing the loss of a loved one, etc) and they feel they should be restricted from some of their duties as they cannot give it 100% of their focus for a crucial role (In some functions, it's common to restrict/reinstate people 2-3 times a week due to simple medical treatments). With that background, someone restricting themselves is a good thing IMHO. Since many noticed, I hardly see it as "hiding" anything; Xxanthippe even noted it on his talk page.

3298:(personally) as a reason for K's opinion. I do not see his statement directed at her personally. Plenty of people in the LBGTQ+ movement indeed engage in the manner Kudpung is describing (it's a relatively common criticism among ALL political positions and especially extremes of those positions "All the dems..." "Trumpers will never support..." etc); I don't see any evidence of it being personally ascribed to GW nor do I see it as a disparaging remark, just a summary of multiple opinions and the commonality of the expressed viewpoints. 5038:

disappointed. Second, people disagree all the time and saying that someone is contentious is not necessarily a bad thing. In an RfA, there are going to be disagreements; that is the nature of the process. Participating in them virtually guarantees you'll be "contentious" to someone. This is not evidence of wrongdoing. I'm not seeing evidence here that beyond comments from 2 years ago, Kudpung "is a disruptive influence on Knowledge." While this information could be 100% accurate, I do not see the evidence here to back up these claims.

10419:

with her more. Kudpung I mainly know through his Signpost editorials asking for more people to become admins, which is why I asked for his advice and co-nomination. As may not have come through, I don't blame just one of them for this sad case, and I know they can each do better; they do usually each do better, and deserve our respect. And the RfA did get 101 supports to 62 opposes, so while it was unsuccessful, I can't see it being bad nominator judgment. I may not have earned the mop, but that's not at all my nominators' fault. --

3588:. You provided a link to a Google Scholar search of "misandry and lgbtq", which is hardly a source, and from what I can see none of the articles in those results support the claim. You also provided a blog post, which does not appear to even mention LGBTQ communities. And I'm not sure what "speaks volumes" about me mentioning the manosphere—I actively edit articles in that topic area and so I am familiar; I have also been on the receiving end of harassment from that part of the internet and so have seen the term in that context. 2014:

This does not mean that their actions had no consequence. I am quite satisfied with the apology given to me, but does that mean I should find it acceptable that someone made vaguely threatening comments to me? Should I find it acceptable that Kudpung told me he was “researching” me? The answer is, of course, no. Just because someone apologises does not mean that the other party can’t accept their apology and still, when necessary, speak about what happened to them. That would be silencing the victim.

7298:

discussions at the incidents noticeboard, but it's still hard to hear criticism. Third-part observers can give their viewpoints during the evidence and workshop phases, but they aren't able to provide insight into the subject's thoughts. For better or worse, the subject is the one best able to provide a greater understanding of the behaviour in question. Within the current format, if the subject isn't expected to provide greater context, who should be, particularly in a volunteer community?

10627:. I occasionally make warnings but no threats, and the few blocks I have made (considering I have been an admin for almost 9 years, I have never actually used the admin tools very often in my 100,000 edits) have been almost exclusively to vandals on a spree (I don't patrol the AIV page), and very clear cases of spam users. The use of justified warnings, whether templates or free-hand are something that every single editor is permitted to make, and I certainly do not bite or scare newbies. 3313:

descriptor. As for your claim that "plenty of people in the LBGTQ+ movement indeed engage in the manner Kudpung is describing", are you claiming that the LGBTQ+ community is particularly full of misandrists? If so, that is quite a claim, and ; if not, then how was it any more relevant for Kudpung to mention that I'm queer than it would be for him to mention that I'm part of any other subgroup of humanity, for example people with brown eyes, or people who prefer waffles to pancakes?

1985:

seen to be threatening to other editors. The fact that there are numerous examples where he has caused wide concern and made others feel like he was making a threat (and the evidence I gave shows this) shows that there is conduct that I feel he needs to address. What exactly is being asked of me, and why would ArbCom say I'm disingenous? Whilst the issue was resolved, the behaviour that led up to the resolution is still valid evidence of an issue that I feel should be addressed. -

8165:" but @Kudpung, your comments here about "admins who appear to have fallen foul of either simply doing their job", "those who have demonstrated for years a general antipathy towards the corps of adminship", "editors who have been cruelly desysoped" etc seem to be another variation on your "anti-admin brigade" theory laced with what comes across as a rather creepy idea that admins constitute some kind of Knowledge aristocracy who should be treated with more respect than the peons" 43: 8519: 6353:

greatest of respect to those who hold the opposing view. I just don't think it's appropriate to force someone to speak when they don't wish to. Whether it is wise or not is not for us to decide. I think that the Arbitrators can read through the evidence and opinions here and form their own opinions, I'm not even sure if it would be helpful for the defendant to be made to participate, especially if they are stressed, worried, or upset about the case being brought forward. -

4163:, but it isn't in there. To be blunt about it, my personal interaction with another user was the entire reason that sentence was added (goes back nearly a decade). At the time, we did not have such a stipulation. I pointed this out and we all agreed (eventually) that current policies and guidelines did not specifically state it and, if we wanted to enforce such standards of behavior, we needed to add it...so we did. I don't object to its addition. Likewise, if we want 176: 6711:

repeatedly did not do so, such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case, despite actively editing other areas of Knowledge. These factors strongly contribute to a lack of accountability regarding their responsibilities under WP:ADMINACCT as an administrator." It does not say "Arthur Rubin refused to participate in the case, therefore his actions fail ADMINACCT". These two are different statements, and IMO none applies to Kudpung.--

3134:

avoid it in the future. This was not "dictating the behavior of others", it was a polite request to be named differently going forward. All of your questions seem easily resolved by referring to people by their usernames. I also see nowhere where I've "taken great offense" at his use of my name—I politely asked he address me differently, and it was his subsequent reaction (calling me a "man hater", etc.) I took great offense with.

2763: 5391:

were not his is an inherently disingenuous and hostile assessment. Stating that such hostile language and other interactions could lead to a block isn't unreasonable. Even after realizing that Kudpung had nothing to do with the publishing of the article, Headbomb has not retracted his remarks and, instead, has cited Kudpung's pretty reasonable reaction as evidence of malfeasance. This is bizarre.

6424:

may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for the following actions: .... Failure to communicate – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to address concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)

3104:

because they didn't look at your user page, but they knew the other person IRL? etc. From what I see, you're taking great offense at an innocuous comment that sounded to me like he was trying to be kind and refer to you by your actual name as a sign of respect for you. The fact that you cannot seem to at least see the point here and instead want to dictate the behavior of others is concerning.

1720:, I'm not sure that we can really take potentially unsatisfactory responses of a request for adminship into account in an ArbCom decision. The most I can say is that perhaps ArbCom members might read this as background, but even there I'm not sure how much weight they can really give it. This is not to say that there are not other points that Rschen7754 made that should be looked at though. - 1142: 7867:

procedure. If Kudpung has to acknowledge the line mentioned above by you – "Has Kudpung acknowledged his behaviour is problematic?" – I would say his behaviour is "not" problematic, so there is nothing to acknowledge here. That you and specific other editors have had bad interactions with him, does not mean "his behaviour is problematic". That is what I'm trying to get too. Warmly,

3812:. I will not pretend to speak for him, but I believe his statements in the establishment of this case surmise his points enough and should be considered accordingly. Likewise, I didn't see one person ping him to ask a question (as they could have done). Sometimes knowing when NOT to say something is better than speaking up in your defense. Discretion is the better part of valor... 7771:

his issues and direct him to change his behaviour before they apply any sanctions? This would give a valuable contributor a chance to reform, and would show that we give people a chance to acknowledge and change their ways. Obviously if no change was to happen, or the behaviour stated to reoccur, then at this point sanctions should be put into place, but this may never occur. -

5776:. I think this is the best summation of what needs to happen. I don't believe he should be desysopped, but if the threatening behaviour and incivility continues, then this should be brought up again with ArbCom. We cannot allow admins to continue showing assumptions of bad faith and certainly not the threatening, intimidating and chilling behaviour we have observed so far. - 10748:: Kudpung deserves credit for acknowledging the existence of the complaints against him, but he reveals little inclination to change his behavior. The way for Kudpung to show that he still retains the confidence of the broader Knowledge community is for him to stand for another RfA after relinquishing his admin status, either voluntarily as he did before, or by a desysopp. 5252:

to see if the article is notable or not. That is, IMO, unacceptable. I would like to see some acknowledgment of this fact, and evidence when he PRODs articles that he has done some basic research before he says an article is not notable. Alternatively, I think he should be prevented from adding the PROD tag for notability until we can see that he knows better. -

3403:. I don't see noting its existence in those realms as a particularly extreme position nor do I see him particularly ascribing such viewpoints to you. Yes, I'm saying it exists in the LGBTQ community; I don't think it's any more prevalent there than most other groups of predominantly leftward-leaning points of view (in feminism, it is certainly WAY higher). 1861:

how his comments come across. Certainly he should not be so quick to tell someone whose opinion he disagreed with (or rather felt is a lie) they should be blocked. There are other avenues that he should be going through, and all that he achieved was escalation of anger. This is not the sort of conduct I would expect from an experienced Administrator. -

4422:

get rewarded with a straight site ban". That is not appropriate. Noone should be campaigning or sending messages that imply they actually will perform a "straight site ban" without discussing this firstly with the knowledge of the editor in question, and certainly it should not be an assertion that should be made on someone else’s talk page. I created

512:

for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of

5237:. It is also not that case that Missvain didn't put any care or attention into the articles. They were each sourced well, and it is quite clear that Kudpung did not even bother to look for the notability of the subjects - even via a cursory Google search! - before he tagged them due to notability concerns. In fact, at one point he comes back to the 2627:

caused her any discomfort, reassure her that I was not aware that it was a problem, and assure her that I take her views into consideration and agree to call her by her username in future! The response by Kudpung I read was very surprising to myself, evidently to GW herself, and it appears quite a few people were also confounded by it also. -

10610:

their insults and baiting elsewhere, but I do not believe that 6 makes me a serial multiple banner of people from my talk page. I did not coin the phrase 'anti admin brigade'. It was first used by another editor but I thought it apt and used it a few times. Among the 22 or so uses of the term throughout Knowledge, 3 are in a comment by

5480:. Please refrain from it in the future. Pointing out political disagreements/problematic logic in transsexual claims is not "transphobic", regardless of how you feel on the subject. Likewise, I don't think it was wise to publish such a piece nor do I support the stated language. But it doesn't mean it's not above discussion/criticism. 9165:" No, GW, that isn't what I said. I'm saying that stating "it isn't a big deal" isn't true. Likewise, I'm not advocating that ArbCom can't do so or shouldn't do so or should even be prohibited from doing so, merely that it shouldn't be done flippantly. They should have good cause to remove the bit, not punt it to the community. 5451:

not have seen it that way. Certainly, I feel that criticising someone for writing an article in the Signpost is par for the course. You may not like it, but when you publish something so opinionated then the author should not be so thin-skinned as to react badly to even very mild criticism (which is what I feel this was).

4963:, refers to honesty as one of three possible aspects of a statement or motive that might be "called into question". In other words, per the available sources, the term "impugn" seems to apply (in the sense of call into question the validity of a statement). Perhaps Buffs should slow down before making assumptions about 10208:

administrators who were named is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he would use my real name and not theirs. However, because I am familiar with the sexist practice of referring to women less formally, I decided to kindly ask Kudpung to avoid doing that going forward—simply because it rubbed me the wrong way,

5418:

the editor of the Signpost/criticising the Signpost is a personal attack". (To be clear, he never stated what he considered to be the personal attacks, but those "NPA" warnings and threats of blocks always followed me pointing out he was co-EiC of the Signpost, with supporting links to the Signpost about page).

8015:, etc. In future any editor should be able freely to challenge Kudpung regarding his comments without fear of a hyperbolic reaction. When Kudpung has unresolved issues with editors they should be encouraged to use existing dispute resolution methods before resorting to resolution-stifling Talk Page bans. 5733:

he falsely perceives a threat to the community, or possibly sometimes a slight to himself. The way he flew off the handle after GW's perfectly reasonable request seems particularly ridiculous. (Not that he was at fault for the informal mode of address before GW expressed a preference. There's considerable

7141:). Although no one is required to participate in an arbitration case, the decision by an administrator to not participate in a case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be accountable for their conduct. This is exacerbated when the Admin. is simultaneously engaged in critical discussion elsewhere. 8584:

Kudpung has been uncivil to some few. He has been "regularly" civil to others. So using the term "regularly cast aspersions" in one sweep seems like simply collating and picking the cherries of the evidence to match the finding – this is a fail, if the final objective is to purely get the man off his

7785:

I trust the ArbCom to make their best decision on the issues at hand; if they think the best course of action is to only ask Kudpung to change his behavior at the end of all this, then so be it. But I do not happen to agree that that is the best way forward. I won't pretend Kudpung's behavior towards

7722:

I cannot agree on this one. Desysopping Kudpung should only be done if he will not acknowledge that his behaviour is problematic. If he will not acknowledge this, I suggest that ArbCom make it clear that if the behaviour continues that the next time an ArbCom dispute is raised, if sufficient evidence

7610:

I'm asking to cite what you're referring to, not vaguely say "all of it". If you say "All of user X's behavior has been boorish and, therefore, he is blocked," all it take is one example of non-boorish behavior to be cited as an example of inappropriate behavior and suddenly what was intended was not

6423:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed... Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community,

6235:

Well, I would probably agree that not participating in the case filed against you might not be the best strategy. (Though I clearly see a difference between the US culture, where anybody can sue you any moment against anything, this is a part of everybody's life, and then whatever you think about the

5732:

The root of the problems seems to be K's overly "suspicious" mind, as he partly seems to see per his evidence. It's good for the encyclopaedia to have some people that don't take AGF to an extreme, and who police potential threats. But the various evidence submissions show K sometimes go too far when

5269:

specifies our procedures on the matter. As stated above, tagging the articles for improvement would have been more appropriate, IMHO, but I also can see that, at the time, you could have made an argument that the articles in question failed to meet notability requirements and, since the rule is based

5251:

Aside from the fact that he stated that he needed to "control" the work of Missvain, he shows that he never actually checked to find out if the article is notable or not. Kudpung still maintains to this day that when he tags articles he can do so on a whim, with no attempt to even do cursory searches

5055:

draws on the the evidence of other editors as well as myself to this Arbitration request. In the years that I have been editing Knowledge I have observed scores of administrators carrying out their duties silently and effectively. Occasionally there are hiccups, but soon business resumes as usual. In

4653:

This is probably the most egregious example of misleading statements by Xxanthippe. First, the claim of the use of "misogyny" is repeated. Second, there is no evidence presented that Kudpung used any administrative tools in any inappropriate manner. Third, there's no evidence of a motive for any such

4119:

Should we wish to change that policy, that's fine. Likewise, whether doing so is wise or helpful to a discussion is certainly a matter of debate. However, asking someone not to post on your talk page is something that Knowledge explicitly allows. He should not be denigrated for choosing to do so. For

2626:

I'm a bit confused where GW has ever stated that it is OK for a woman to call her by her name, and that a man cannot call her by her name? The request was quite polite. Personally speaking, if I had called her by her first name and she requested that I call her by her username, I would apologise if I

1345:

I do not agree with what GorillaWarfare has concluded in the evidence presented in this case, but here she's spot on. It makes sense to copy the relevant portions of policy, not reference portions that are inapplicable. Doing so conflates issues presented. An applicable analogy would be a a ruling by

1025:

Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, as unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may

10599:

In my first statements on the Arbcom case request page, I said all I thought would be necessary for my participation here - simply because any defence I offer or any rebuttals are characterised as 'doubling down', so it is difficult to know what to say without it it being misinterpreted and/or taken

10418:

Kudpung and GorillaWarfare to nominate me. GW didn't, writing that she was busy at work, but I did ask her if she thought I was not ready, and said that if she thought I wasn't, then I wouldn't run, and she did not object. I respect them both, but have known GorillaWarfare longer and have interacted

9446:

In general politeness, yes, I would concur that if someone is generally considered to be "barking", then, yes, they need to change their behavior to something more civil. However, this is also infinitely gameable and can quite literally be used to dictate behavior. If I can exert control to tell you

8686:

no, by definition, such required notices are explicitly allowed. Even if he did ban you from his talk page, you have many other venues to air any grievances. Preventing anyone from asking others not to post to their talk page is infinitely gameable by disruptive editors. I've personally been accused

7880:

Furthermore, Kudpung has not so far acknowledged that he has issues he needs to address, despite being told this by numerous people. Ironically, if you agree that he does have a problem, then his lack of insight into his behaviour absolutely confirms there is a problem. So with respect, I’m not sure

7866:

GW, unfortunately, an Arbcom case is frequented more by the slighted parties and not by parties who have had great interactions with the editor concerned. So obviously, the evidence phase will only showcase a significant amount of evidence from the parties that feel slighted. That's one flaw of this

7662:

The consequences for all of this is that you become seen as unaccountable, your inability to countenance that you may have erred or caused offence becomes apparent and people will start to question not only your judgement, but whether you are acting maliciously towards them. The sad fact is, showing

7658:

politely asked him to refrain from using her real name instead of her username when being referred to with a group of men who were referred to by their usernames. In response to this request, Kudpung implied GW was a “man-hater” and things escalated to the point where he withdrew all support for the

7650:

IMO, this is just further evidence that Kudpung is unaware of the general affect his comments have on the wider community. Complaining that an unspecified group of editors has it out for oneself is rarely helpful. Making oblique aspersions against editors you are unwilling to name is poor judgement,

7572:

This example is why I oppose including language like "making repeated, generalised, unsourced negative attacks aimed at unidentified editors". This interaction about PTSD is generalized and unattributed/unsourced. Adding it would basically make it where you couldn't seek assistance from anyone "Hey,

7388:

2) An ongoing pattern of behaviour that falls short of the conduct expected from administrators has been established, including spontaneous angry / adversarial responses. There has also been repeated rhetorical (without evidence) criticism of an unidentified group of editors broadly construed as the

6725:

Well said Ymblanter. I was just about to write exactly what you wrote. And this is exactly what I'm worried about. Policies, guidelines, arbcom principles/findings/remedies are being given novel interpretations to match one's own objectives. This is not against GW. In fact, I have to applaud her for

6679:

I think he was also very clear why he refuses to participate: He believes that whatever he says to defend himself will be considered as "doubling down" as it already happened in the past. I personally do not think this is a good strategy, but this is not the same as automatically default on the case

6649:

including the second sentence. It is not on the policy, and there is a good reason it is not on the policy - because it is not aligned with the spirit of the policy. Nobody can be forced to defend temselves against the accusations they believe to be completely unreasonable. Whoever wants it to be on

6352:

has participated, he responded on the initial case page, and if he wishes to keep silent then I think that this is quite reasonable. Regardless of my opinion of Kudpung's conduct, I can only imagine that this is potentially extremely stressful for him. What I'm saying is said, incidentally, with the

5869:

This not specific enough. An admonishment is definitely the least of which we can expect, but I think this needs more clarity on how we address this if things don't change. We need to specify the procedure to bring this to ArbCom if Kudpung's choice of words, inability to be collegial and incivility

4421:

I would like to again point out that what we see here is another example of an admin making threats to sanction someone inappropriately. It is not appropriate for an admin to say to someone else that "Xxanthippe needs to be very careful that his repeated and self-emphasised attitude to women doesn't

4185:

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

4055:

1. The linked evidence is in the Evidence. 2. It's not about being "nefarious" - wicked or criminal. Obviously. But it is absolutely not in keeping with the spirit and ethos of cooperation & building together when an administrator believes and repeatedly puts forward that such a group exists but

2828:

I find this charge to be one of the most concerning/perplexing. I also fail to see how such a resignation of adminship would reduce scrutiny any more than taking a break from Knowledge would do the same. I find this to be a move of maturity: taking a break when the stresses are too much. That people

2641:

The statement "I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men" stands on its own. So, it would be ok to call her "Molly" if we were only talking about women and not men? At a bare minimum, it was imprecise. I did not at all find it to be "polite", but a demand with an undertone of

2480:

Then you have an interesting perspective, but not one that I think most people would consider valid. Merely asking someone to refer to you in a particular way is not offensive. There is literally nothing about the single request given by GW that would have made the average reasonable editor react in

2272:

It should be noted that I can see Xxanthippe's opinion about the RFA which opposes Kudpung's and GW's views. While I can't honestly say I agree, such a concern is reasonable (that someone will push a POV) and is a valid reason for opposition. I find it unnecessarily inflammatory to call such remarks

1860:

making statements that threatened or implied that someone should be sanctioned. His tone is definitely threatening and I'm not at all surprised that at least one person found it to be a deliberate attempt to intimidate someone. My opinion on this matter is that I don't think that Kudpung is aware of

10609:

With 2,696 different users having posted to my talk page over the years (total number of posts 19,355) I believe it is indeed 6 users who have been asked not to post there; in the course of my work there have been some heated comments and some by trolls, and I have politely asked some users to take

10362:

on 26 October 2019. The RfA was withdrawn by the candidate before the scheduled closure time after a number of oppose voters mentioned hounding of, in some cases, female editors. In the interests of transparency also, I mention that I was one of the oppose voters. The nomination raises questions of

10212:

because I thought he was using my name out of any malice or sexism. It wasn't until he responded so explosively that I began to think there was a problem with misogyny. I do not think it is accurate to say that Kudpung's original message was intentionally sexist. It's possible it was subconsciously

10207:

I have said this before (and in my evidence), but I give Kudpung the benefit of the doubt that he was using my real name for any of the multitude of non-sexist reasons one could do so. Boing!'s explanation that I'm the only one (aside from Joe Roe) who is public with their real name among the other

9431:

Thank you. I think that in that quote we see a problem. Kudpung should not be “barking” at editors. Again, I do t think he understands the issue that some of his statements have on people who are trying to edit Knowledge. Admins should not be adding to discord on the project! If one’s “bark” causes

9297:

We're not slaves to be asked to not ban people from harassing us on our talk pages; and this goes for Kudpung too. While you can ask Kudpung from not leaving messages on a third party's page, it seems odd to take away his freedom on his talk page. Of course, no user owns any talk page; yet, this is

9065:

Desysopping is a severe step, therefore the stakes ARE high. Your entire rationale is "desysop him and the community can !vote". The community HAS already !voted. You're asking ArbCom to change that. Likewise, claims that Kudpung is vaguely criticizing people is inappropriate when you are doing the

8097:"In future any editor should be able freely to challenge Kudpung regarding his comments without fear of a hyperbolic reaction. When Kudpung has unresolved issues with editors they should be encouraged to use existing dispute resolution methods before resorting to resolution-stifling Talk Page bans." 7876:

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

7770:

beside myself with anxiety when he told me he was “researching” me. I know that as a result of his behaviour you are rightly upset with him. I really have no right to ask this of you, but I will anyway: can you put aside the hurt and anger he caused you to feel to ask ArbCom that they advise him of

7646:

I’m fairly certain the PTSD comment was aimed at me. That is the problem with making wide sweeping statements about unspecified editors though. Every editor who Kudpung ever had a run in who has PTSD may consider this, rightly or wrongly, to be a comment aimed at themselves. The comment also passed

7444:

I'm not sure this is anything other than a very stressed and upset person sounding off in general. I think we should excuse them for this outburst, in my opinion they were having a general spray and I didn't see anyone pointed out personally. IMO, though I can see that it looks sort of bad, I think

6369:

I completely concur with Chris.sherlock's assessment. Just because he hasn't jumped into the fray doesn't mean he doesn't care. He has asked the Arbitrators to look at the situations in their entirety and has voiced no objections to the evidence brought forth and he is under no obligation to do so.

6009:

NYB reached out to Kudpung because I felt threatened by Kudpung. I did not bring this case to ArbCom. This case has been brought here because quite a few people have felt threatened, intimidated or victimised by Kudpung. I may have inadvertently triggered this by my post to AN/I but I would like to

5450:

should not have been issued. An administrator should not be blocking someone if they feel they are being attacked, it is a basic principle that it is a complete conflict to block someone you are having a dispute with. In this case, Kudpung may well have felt they were being attacked, but others may

5390:

Headbomb's description of this interaction is lacking. First of all, Headbomb called the choice to publish the article as a "fuckup", multiple times repeated "you fucked up", and stood by that choice of language. IMHO, that alone should have been grounds for a block. Attributing actions to him that

5170:

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

5075:

I'm not seeing any "surreptitious surrendering". Likewise, I don't see a complete "trail of drama and resentment in his wake". Nor do I see the "smooth functioning" of Knowledge being impaired. We just passed our 6 millionth article. Likewise, "smooth" is ill defined to the point that it could mean

4893:

I'm not impugning motives. I'm saying they are attempting to elicit an emotional response vs a factual one based on those choices of words. I never said I admitted I could be wrong, but I'd be a fool to say I wouldn't accept more information/clarification. In the absence of more info, I stand by my

4754:

anyone is a woman or a man is completely irrelevant. Tossing it in to elicit sympathy is completely unnecessary. Kudpung was asking you to stop. That is a reasonable request (one you're free to ignore) and At this point, you're effectively repeating the same discussion over and over from different

4344:

I agree with this. I believe that Kudpung is somewhat oblivious to the affect he often has to those around him. Certainly there is enough evidence to show that he has regularly been uncivil to other editors. It is the fact that he cannot see the damage he does when he gets fixated on an editor, and

1824:

first shows evidence of Kudpung expressing an opinion to Fish and karate, that he felt Fish and karate's remarks were a personal attack. Likewise, he also expressed the opinion that he disagreed with AAjraddatz's remarks and would seek advice elsewhere; he also expressed that he felt any opposition

1573:

Too weak. (And I say this as someone with great respect for Kudpung. For more than a decade he's strove to maintain a civil and collegial atmosphere across the project, wisely focusing on RfA, the porjects "ritual, beating heart". ) There's clearly enough evidence to unequivocally say his behaviour

1118:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community,

1085:

Oh, agreed, and the middle sentence here is relevant. However this proposed text has 3 sentences, two of which focus on admin tools. So most of it is not relevant here. Are we similarly going to include in the proposed decision any amount of text about other issues that Kudpung is not being accused

899:

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

511:

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision

10724:

FWIW, like Buffs, I feel that you should not have felt compelled to respond here though I appreciate you doing so. Can you understand that there are some issues that have been raised that you need to modify? I am completely opposed to you being desysopped and, whilst we have been in conflict and I

8803:

Please don't misinterpret what I have presented. I made it clear that these are some easily discovered examples using obvious searches. Since Kudpung is a linguist you can be sure that he uses the full breadth of the English language to dismiss editors from his talk page and they are impossible to

8068:

WAY too much is conflated here; each sentence could/should be assessed on its own. Imagine a school bond for $ 100M for badly needed elementary schools and a $ 50M private jet for the superintendent of schools. You could certainly oppose one and not the other. In an all-or-nothing bill, support or

7267:

Evidence presented has been very slanted/biased against Kudpung including some analysis/takeaways that can charitably be described as "spin". Until the workshop, there was little defense. I think the evidence and analysis is quite clear; I'm not certain what you'd expect Kudpung to contribute that

6483:

desysopped someone for that very reason, you (Buffs) are probably right that it's worth mentioning in the policy... but I'm certainly not going to make the edit myself, at least not while this case is ongoing, the optics of that would be pretty terrible. Either way it's hardly "reading WAY to much

6216:

I suppose it depends on whether being involved in an AC case as an Admin is regarded as different to other venues. I cannot recall a case which has gone the distance involving an Admin. where they have declined to participate in the evidence and workshop stages. Having said that (a) there is still

5417:

of an editor-in-chief. He was listed as EIC at the time of his comments, and then attack my work on Knowledge when I raised concerns about publishing the piece. If Kudpung wasn't EiC at the time, the only thing he had to say was "I resigned on X, the 'about us' page is outdated". Not "claiming I'm

4566:

That was in a thread on his talk page to which Xxanthippe responded. Warnings do not need to be templates. "Xxanthippe needs to be very careful... rewarded with a straight site ban" sounds like a warning to me, not a threat. Your opinion may vary. I don't see a point in continuing this discussion.

4402:

Xxanthippe's claim of "Kudpung accused me on his talk page of 'misogyny'" is accurate, but misses the context. To this layperson it appears to be an assessment of Xxanthippe's contributions. Regardless of that, Kudpung could have been clearer in his word choice and manner of presentation. However,

1617:

I understand, but the perception by more than a few people (myself included) has been that he has acted threateningly and in a way that caused people to feel intimidated. As I say, I suspect this is unintentional, but nevertheless there are many people, from a variety of different backgrounds, who

1295:

I don't know how Buffs thinks they know what most people are reading, nor do I know any way to make it more clear to Buffs than it already is. Whatever baggage Kudpung is carrying (I am led to understand it is some sort of "anti-admin brigage"), it is disrespectful to bring it to the discussion of

941:

Administrators are expected to observe a high standard of conduct and retain the trust of the community at all times. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Sustained or

8841:

An lol finding, if I should say. This is Knowledge. Any editor is free to criticise any other editor on any page. If an editor advises another critical editor to move away from his talk page, the other editor has multiple venues to post his criticism. This should be the least of ArbCom's worries.

8153:

4) Kudpung has now responded and I am grateful. On the specific matter of using disparaging phrases to describe a non-cohesive group of editors opposed, inter-alia, to Admins., I am not convinced that Kudpung gets it. Suggesting that there are only 22 occurrences is against all available evidence

7759:

I have seen no evidence of this. However, if ArbCom make a finding that his behaviour is unacceptable and incompatible with adminship, I feel that he should be given a chance to modify his behaviour before anyone desysops him. It is a genuine pity that things have had to escalate to this point. I

7663:

whether this is true or not it is within the purview of any admin (or editor!) to prevent this by being more polite, to be willing to accept criticism (never any easy thing, but something we expect admins will be capable of) and to not overreact like we have seen Kudpung do on multiple occasions.

6254:

accountable for their actions. It could probably use some further wordsmithing, but I think it conveys my point. I agree with you that administrators should not have to respond to every single query about their actions (for example, bad-faith/trolling or repetitive queries, etc.), but I think the

5740:

What might be ideal is if K commits to 1) Re-setting his AGF meter to the max. 2) stepping back from policing the community at 'field operative' level, and focusses more a well deserved 'elder statesman' role. As he's already partly done by stepping back from NPP, helping to guide the Signpost at

5518:

As for the rest, let me get this straight: you're telling me that a statement of fact + polite request is a "warning" (something you claim I shouldn't be doing here)? And, completely perplexing to me, your solution is that you choose to "warn" me about my behavior in the same venue? Your sense of

5225:

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

5202:

It seems to me that Missvain is taking umbrage that Kudpung (or possibly anyone) would challenge her at all, which is odd. In her assessment, she cites the standard template as evidence that "no attention or care was put into the PRODs". This is absolute rubbish...it's just the automated process.

3514:

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

2680:

I have clarified this on my talk page, but will copy it here as well: I've said this in a few places, including to Kudpung shortly after leaving my original "Minor point" comment, the Kudpung evidence, and the workshop pages, but happy to repeat: I realized shortly after leaving the "Minor point"

2656:

The word “prefer” made it a request. There was no demand, and he could have declined politely. It would then have been up to GW in knowing how to respond. Perhaps she would have decided to keep her distance from Kudpung. Perhaps it would have escalated. We’ll never know - instead the response was

2013:

An apology was provided to me. I accepted this. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t cause me a lot of anxiety and stress. Whilst I have accepted his apology, this does not mean I cannot give evidence of what he did to me. Someone can commit an offence or action against you, and you can forgive them.

1984:

I'm unsure what I'm meant to be clarifying, and what is disingenious or conflicting. I didn't bring this to ArbCom, and I merely stated that I found that him digging into my past was indeed intimidating at the time. What I stated was that, whether he intends to or not, his comments are frequently

9672:

Age / nationality / gender is no excuse for the type of behavior under consideration. And as someone from the UK and by no means "young", I take exception to the suggestion that there is an excuse to be made in being an elderly British male. While he has exercised silence throughout evidence and

9132:

I have to agree. I have the dubious distinction of having been desysopped three times. I was quite fine on Knowledge without any admin tools, and I remain an effective member of the project without them to this day. Admin tools are just that - extra tools to manage the site. They need to be used

9012:

My remark was in response to Xxanthippe's remarks "Desysopping is the only way that the matter will be resolved." I'm not saying that admins shouldn't be desysopped because of nefarious and inappropriate behavior. I'm saying that desysopping by ArbCom is an indication that the community has lost

8961:

per previous opposition to desysopping + (addressing "comments by others") there is little/no evidence of any administrative abuse, therefore, desysopping will not prevent the problems presented here. If you want to remove the bit because you feel that Kudpung has not upheld community standards,

8605:

I have also never seen an interpretation where, when an editor through many years has some bad interactions, he is labelled as having "regularly cast aspersions" on editors he disagrees with. It can't work just one way. Requesting Kudpung to tone down for some interactions, is far different from

6710:

The Arthur Rubin case decision says Arthur Rubin's general absence and inability to adequately explain their actions and conduct has shaken the community's confidence in them. Arthur Rubin has had multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute to support their claims and conduct. He

6664:

Not sure if it would be backdoor as such but maybe an RfC is preferable. But if they decline to participate here but comment critically elsewhere during the same time-frame as the case, at least one conclusion to be drawn is that they are thumbing their nose at an important part of the community

4137:

is a guideline, not a policy as such. It is the frequency of use that is of concern. The other point you make is valid to the extent that it is not possible to prove a negative. It is simply a fact that Kudpung does not take concerns he has to the available dispute resolution forums / boards. So

3548:

Thank you for striking that, because claiming that LGBTQ people are more likely to be misandrists (or leftists, or feminists, or whoever else) is both unsourced and, in my opinion, quite unfounded. Accusations of "misandry" are quite unusual to me—I'm used to only seeing them coming from various

3173:

I agree with GRuban. I do not concur with "It seems reasonable to me to ask to not be referred to in a way that has been recognized as contributing to gender inequality." Even the link she provides simply shows a difference, but even the researchers do not conclude any substantive differences in

3133:

It seems reasonable to me to ask to not be referred to in a way that has been recognized as contributing to gender inequality. I agree it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to know this from the getgo, as I don't claim it to be common knowledge—hence why I informed Kudpung and asked him to

3103:

Except we may not know their IRL names. In short, you are asking people to have special rules for you when also talking about men otherwise you'll be offended. What if we only know one man's name but not another? What if we use their IRL names and not yours? What if someone didn't know your name

2311:

This was a reference to the totality of your remarks in the referred RfA. I'm not going to provide links to every single one. The point of that is that I can see your point and, while I disagree, your points should be considered in that discussion and their relative influence in this discussion.

2153:

Even after an issue is resolved, future conduct can be examined in the context of the past incident. Earlier you stated that the edits of someone who previously engaged in undeclared paid editing "have earned at least a second glance when it comes to commercial establishments/publicity." No, the

984:

topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While there will always be borderline cases, whenever in doubt, an administrator should draw the situation to the attention of fellow sysops, such as by posting on an appropriate noticeboard, so that other sysops can provide help.

983:

With few exceptions, editors are expected to not act as administrators in cases where, to a neutral observer, they could reasonably appear involved. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on

9642:

I don't know enough about the demographic to draw a conclusion, but the comparison should be to other 70-year-old Brits who are active leaders as opposed to a retiree who was deferential during their career. Also, even if there is a similiarity, I'm not at a point to suggest whether a remedy is

7242:

It's almost like a poll of "how many of you people are critical of Kudpung; let's get together and discuss this with him." There's no surprise that he isn't participating. It's not culpability; it's frustration; and quite expected, given how the evidence has been taken with a single-sided view.

6525:

That user's lack of participation in the ArbCom case was ONE of things they cited, but it was not the only one. This situation is different. Kudpung HAS participated elsewhere and up to this point. There is a section in the Workshop for ArbCom members to pose questions of the parties. They have

6144:

My only concern would be that this should be split into two separate statements. Keeping them together implies they are part of the same principle and/or contingent on the other, but the fact is each sentence can stand alone. I think that should be emphasized, but I do not object to the general

5288:

after a good-faith search for them“ then it might be worthwhile merging or PRODing. He didn’t do either of these things. In fact, he literally said this on the talk page - one time he popped up to say that a Google search found notable sources, and on another article he even gave the sources! -

2722:

can be interpreted as a "demand". As for the "undertone of insinuating sexism", it is true that referring to women less formally than men can be a sexist behavior, and even when it is not it can lead to people interpreting the sentence as the women having less authority/etc. (see the link in my

2609:

At the end of the day does this not boil down to action and reaction? GW requested in polite, neutral terms to be referred to by username rather than being singled out. The immediate response (19 mins) was histrionic, including a talk page ban for another editor seeking only to calm matters. My

2437:

I agree that things have been rocky with GW and Kudpung ever since, I'm not sure it was wise of GW to call him a misogynist, but GW actually has said that she took into account the criticisms she got on the Signpost discussion into account. I definitely think we should assume good faith on this

1350:

on an issue regarding free speech and then quoting the entire Constitution (amendments and all) in their final ruling. How the Electoral College functions or the apportionment of Representatives to the states are not relevant to an individual's right to free speech in the US. Let's stick to the

7510:

If this is what he thinks is “paid editing” then he has some serious paranoia issues, and more evidence of him seeing nefarious plots where none exist. I have been extremely open about my relationship to Nanotanks Australia, and can assure you I’ve not been paid a cent for editing Knowledge. -

4878:

You impune their motives and admit you could be wrong. I don’t consider this an attempt to elicit sympathy but a genuine attempt to show what Xxanthippe believes to be uncivil behaviour. Given you are not a mind reader, it is impossible for you to know their motives, so saying what you said is

3498:

if you did. It's clear from your response that you did not mean that, in which case my last question applies: why would it be reasonable for Kudpung to point out that I am queer when, as you say, misandry is not more prevalent among LGBTQ+ folks than it is among left-leaning people in general?

2570:

I am highly concerned that GW has differing standards for men and women "I'd prefer be referred to by my username when discussed among men". Apparently, it's ok for a woman to call her "Molly", but if a man calls her that it's somehow inappropriate? Kudpung is within his rights to support, not

10636:

I don't understand where I have criticised the current Executive Director of the WMF for being a woman - it's just not something I would do. I make no secret of being critical of the Foundation and its management and job descriptions, but my opinion is the same whatever gender they are in the

9040:

as an overarching and forced solution to an issue that can be resolved by taking wide acceptances from Kudpung on areas where the Arbcom may wish him to improve. If the Arbcom goes ahead with this, there would clearly be a wide disconnect with relevant finding and the proposed remedy. This is

7841:

Reasonings given below in another similar remedy. Kudpung has many a time acknowledged his mistakes. If during the evidence phase you had asked for such evidence, the same would have been provided. Making a statement that Kudpung has never acknowledged his mistakes, and therefore "the logical

7502:

had PTSD! Well, I’m fairly open about my condition, so I’m not terribly worried about that. In regards to his shot about paid editing, I think he’s talking about the fact that I help a good friend with an acquarium shop, and I have been contributing to fish-related articles and have taken the

3297:

To be blunt, I think GW is reading into the statements made to her exactly as she wants to hear them in order to justify her opinion. Likewise, she cannot seriously consider herself to be outed when she openly admits she's gay and puts her name on her Knowledge page. I don't see her sexuality

3118:

With the greatest of respect, I think that you are reading into this. GW politely made a request to Kudpung. Your rephrasing was not any more or less polite, only I note your rephrasing was in the form of a demand and GW’s was a request. GW has explained several times her reasoning behind her

2978:

I disagree. The response by Kudpung to GW to her politely being asked to be called by her username was entirely out of proportion. It is greatly concerning that someone could state to another editor that "you were the one who led me to dissociate myself from my support of gender gap issues on

2882:

Just because it isn't as transparent as you would have liked, that doesn't mean the opposite of "completely transparent to my satisfaction" is "intentionally tried to hide it so no one would know". I've been in the military and know dozens of people who have self-requested their clearances be

2134:

I'm pretty sure I'm only "personalizing" responses to the person to whom the comment is stated. Likewise, I never threatened to block anyone as I lack the capability to do so and do not see anything remotely close to blockworthy here. Lastly, I disagree that people are here solely to "help in

1467:

Worth noting the contributions by Kudpung. IMHO, I think that should be a mandatory component of an ArbCom decision. No matter the decision, their contributions (and net benefit) to the Knowledge should be a factor in a decision. By the same token, their contributions alone cannot excuse poor

7297:

Receiving negative feedback is one of the hardest things for anyone to go through. (Providing negative feedback in a constructive manner is hard, too.) It's understandable to feel frustrated and defensive. The more structured nature of arbitration hopefully makes it feel more considered than

5232:

This was done shortly after PRODing five of Missvain's articles. This is, yet again, evidence of the careful alluding to another editor without speaking to them directly, but in such a way that they find out that they were speaking about them. It was absolutely clear that he was referring to

2897:

The comparison with RL is not appropriate. There are tried & tested ways in which notifications are made. Going off to a 'Crat by private email or to an obscure, rarely used associate site can only be read as trying to avoid community awareness. And no one has claimed that the reason was

5037:

It is not Kudpung's responsibility to inspire others. That one editor doesn't agree with another's choices and that demoralizes you is not indicative of misbehavior. Likewise, if you're looking to people on the internet as a source of such inspiration, I fear you're going to continue to be

3312:

I have not claimed that Kudpung has outed me—you are correct that it would be absurd to accuse someone of outing me when I am publicly out. It was him choosing to bring my sexuality into a completely unrelated, negative allegation about me that made me feel he was treating it as a negative

10693:(13 TP bans are linked from the simplest of searches and anti-Admin brigade - possibly hundreds). It is carefully worded, lacks an awareness of impact on some individuals and should have been provided sooner, suggesting it has been prompted by those he has been in private discussion with. 7506:

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

6585:

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

4501:

Sure, but just to make sure I know what I’m disagreeing about - are you saying Kudpung directly notified Xxanthippe in that message? You refer to a specific policy that says this should be done, but I can’t see where in that comment such an action took place. Could you please clarify? -

2594:

This is not accurate. I have clearly explained in my evidence that "I politely requested he refer to me in the same way as he did the male administrators he was listing me next to". I also was careful to clarify this to Kudpung after I realized after leaving the message that it could be

9528:

This is a last-minute addition of evidence to the case that has already been through the evidence phase and nearly all of the workshop. To introduce something "new" now is inappropriate. Even if it weren't, I think that Kudpung's attitude and mannerisms has ample evidence without this.

5494:

This is not the place for you to be issuing warnings about events that happened some time ago. You are not an arbitrator so you have no business directing the actions of anyone on this page. It would be best if you need to provide a warning that you do it in a more appropriate venue. -

3119:

request, and I note that she tried to explain her reasoning at the time as well. I would hope that her explanation would be accepted in good faith, but I respect you have not done so. I hope the Arbitrators will, however, accept her explanation as it seems perfectly reasonable to me. -

9013:

confidence in the individual. However, in this case, the behavior in question isn't related to his function as an admin and desysopping alone won't prevent anything. Such verbiage should be reserved for the abuse of admin tools. This format does not always lend itself to such clarity.

4451:. You can certainly argue otherwise, but You cannot simultaneously argue that policy should be upheld and at the same time it should be ignored. I see these as strong, personalized warnings (some are indeed inappropriate though). As long as we don't have a cohesive warning system and 1542:. (Evidence presented by Rschen7754, Chris.sherlock, et al) . Specifically, they feel Kudpung has been dismissive of the concerns of others, failed to address reasonable questions, and responded to such questions with snarky replies that are not conducive to a collegial environment. 2575:

where he's accused of sexism for mere disagreement or lack of support for a single wikiproject, I can understand his reaction a little more. While I feel his choices and response were an overreaction, given the context, I feel this was only mildly outside the bounds of what we call

10439:

I agree with GRuban. If someone was disruptively creating RfA noms it might be relevant to a case, but I don't think that Kudpung nominating GRuban and failing to remember/discover the incident or predict the way it might influence the RfA is a valid thing to hold against him.

2055:) because I had already "resolved" issues with Kudpung. I think you need to look up what that word means, and what you wrote. You also need to understand that I have experienced being targetted by Kudpung and I have every right to provide evidence, which is what I did. I think 6384:

If I don't wish to respond to reasonable concerns about my conduct as an administrator, you're correct in that it would be inappropriate (not to mention impossible) to force/compel me to. But it also would be unreasonable for me to expect to continue being an administrator.

9322:

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

5533:

If it has simply been a statement of fact, I would t have said anything. But you did write “Please refrain from it in the future.” That could be construed as witness intimidation, even if you didn’t mean to do so. Like I say, there are better forums to make this request. -

9447:

what words to use by saying "I'm uncomfortable; you need to change", I can dictate that may OR may not be warranted. Without stating that civil behavior is what is generally agreed upon behavior, anyone can claim "I'm offended" and dictate changes. It's a slippery slope.

2983:

editor can lead someone to stop supporting gender gap issues on Knowledge then I think that bringing this to ArbCom's attention is quite valid. What it shows is fixation on another editor, and potentially holding grudges. It is quite concerning, especially in an admin. -

10296:

evidence. There's half a dozen plausible scenarios where one could do that innocuously (e.g. you don't know the names of the other parties, but you know the name of someone else). The problem is the vitriolic explosion following a polite request/reminder to be mindful.

8162:

If there is a need for action against anti-this-that-or-the-other editors, competent measures / venues exist. Simply chuntering at TPs is not an appropriate response (might add here, especially for an Admin). To quote from a recent page with which he will be familiar,

6370:

Perhaps he feels that his point of view has been adequately explained in the acceptance of the case or by others. It is up to him to decide how much or how little to participate. It's completely inappropriate to force/compel someone to speak when they don't wish to.

3627: 2683:

When my name is included in a list of users, I prefer to be referred to in the same form as the other users, especially if the other users are and are being described more formally. I do not care about the gender of the person who is making the comment listing said

4234:, email, via another admin, etc. Likewise, no user is compelled to participate in a discussion he/she doesn't want to be involved in. Obviously, the quotes of the policy are accurate; I was not calling them into question. You stated "I see this as a requirement of 4006: 1588:

I also feel this is a bit weak. It's not a matter of him being dismissive, it is that he doesn't seem to have any awareness that some of his actions can often seen to be threatening or intimidating. That goes rather beyond snarkiness and dismissive comments. -

3972:

what's being advocated and GW has made that quite clear "if someone on Knowledge wishes to hold higher permissions...they aren't going to be banned for not participating in an ArbCom case—but they also should not expect to retain these advanced permissions."

10688:

As one of those most concerned about your behavior - you know that despite your Barnstar 2 years ago - I do welcome this, there is a tone of amelioration which is appreciated. But the numbers you have mentioned (6 talk page bans / 22 anti-Admin brigade) are

7478:

I’m not aware that anyone other than myself has PTSD. I was saying that ArbCom cases are stressful and can be unpleasant to deal with. Nobody mentioned to me they had PTSD, and nothing in my comment even suggested they had such a condition. As a person who

4040:

This is the second such claim. As stated above, I do not find these generic statement to be nefarious in nature. I believe that those that feel they are about themselves may be correct, but they are not particularly vilifying and are summarizing in nature.

2929: 8171:

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

2752:), which felt to me like an instance of the unfortunate habit society has of referring to women less formally than men, which has been identified as a potential contributor to gender inequality and undermining of women's authority (easily Googleable, but 1825:

to his Stewardship would be pointless. None of these can be objectively construed to be "threats" (vague or otherwise). Just as Fish and karate and AAjraddatz are entitled to their opinions, so is Kudpung; all are entitled to seek council as they desire.

3849:

Agreed that he is not obligated to participate in ArbCom proceedings—no one can force anyone to do anything on Knowledge. But since he has decided not to, that amounts to him not being accountable for his actions, and so he should not retain adminship.

4345:

it is very concerning that when he perceives a slight, or gets into an argument with an editor that his behaviour rapidly devolves to wild accusations or comments about the editor. This is not the sort of conduct I would expect to see from an admin. -

2963:

This entire section of evidence reflected much more on Fram and GorillaWarfare's behavior than Kudpung. While some felt K was out of line, many also saw it as valid criticism. I don't think the discussion was as clear on the subject as GW portrays it.

5655:

That's rather immaterial to Kudpung's reactions and threats. As I said above, all Kudpung had to do was say something like "I resigned on X, the 'about us' page is outdated"." It also does not absolve him of his initial casting of aspersions either.

3570:

I provided sources. I didn't say that they "are more likely". I was talking about tendencies. Your comments about the manosphere speak volumes. I'm done with this thread now. Say whatever else you wish about me; I'm not going to address this further.

8994:

When we are trying to be specific, yes. Unless you're advocating for sloppiness. These findings are part of the basis of our policies. When they are affirmed, noted, etc, they are indeed precedent (as much as ArbCom says they aren't...they are...).

4620: 3872:. Discussion ad infinitum is not "accountability". ArbCom has never ruled that people are required to participate and they lack the authority to reach such a finding. That would be a policy that the community should enact via consensus as part of 6478:

has posted on my talk page to say that they think you mean to explicitly mention that an admin may be desysopped for refusing to participate in an arbitration case about their conduct. That was not clear to me from the comment here. Since ArbCom

2427:

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

2017:

I notice this is not the first time you have impugned the motives of another editor. Your options in trying to divine my motives were fallacious and wrong. It might be best for you to not make such assertions, it’s really not fair or helpful. -

2196:

And FWIW, I don't necessarily think that punishment is what is required here. I believe that it would be best for Kudpung to acknowledge that there are aspects to his behaviour that cause issues, and to request that he modify that behaviour. -

6171:). Although no one is required to participate in an arbitration case, the decision by an administrator to not participate in an accepted arbitration case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be reasonably accountable for their conduct. 5509:

I have just as much a right to assess someone's evidence here (as well as their continued profanity-tinged remarks...the ones made yesterday, not in the past) as anyone else. I am not "directing the actions of anyone on this page", I politely

2660:

As for the “among men” bit, Knowledge is predominantly edited by males. For whatever reason, GW feels that her name being referred to amongst men may be a subtle (possibly unconscious) form of downplaying her significance. I cannot say, only

9544: 4285: 3331:

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

6732:

I'm not really sure what's worrying; these are just the views of various parties and onlookers in the case. I've given mine. Perhaps the ArbCom will agree, perhaps they won't. I trust they will make the correct decision, whichever it is.

9679:"half-truths, and bullshit, by those having or showing a strong or lingering desire for revenge, pile-ons by those who are not even involved, and those who have demonstrated for years a general antipathy towards the corps of adminship." 6324:

Not only are admins expected to be accountable, but refusal to participate does not bode well that concerns will be taken on board, or that the behaviors will change, as evidenced by posts elsewhere made after the evidence phase closed.

3449:

I do not believe that the LBGTQ+ community is made up of misandrists, nor do I believe that members of this community have any overwhelming tendencies towards misandry (I reread what GW wrote and don’t believe she ever claimed this). -

8099:

Who is cooking up this stuff and these words like "hyperbolic", "resolution-stifling"? Are we saying here that Kudpung is ordered to smile, grin and welcome every critical editor when they land at his page and spew their stuff? Please.

3917:

case where Rubin was desysopped largely for this reason (though I should mention that past ArbCom cases are not meant to be treated as precedent). I don't see where I have claimed that admins should be required to discuss their actions

3042:

I am curious how you would have worded the request to be more polite, if you were me. My caveating the request with "very minor point" and using the wording "in the future I'd prefer" is about as soft as I can see making the request.

10114:

evidence of systematic, and intentional but subtle, denigration of women as a class. Unless it is plausibly explained and rebutted, it indicates that there is reason to doubt Kudpung's ability to treat female editors with respect.

10098: 9627:

I know plenty of people of this age from the U.K. who are not at all like this. It is a massive stretch to say that if one is not of North American descent and over 70 that intimidating behaviour should be overlook and tolerated. -

7740:

Has Kudpung acknowledged his behavior is problematic anywhere? I agree that if Kudpung doesn't acknowledge his behavior is problematic, he should be desysopped, and so it would seem the logical conclusion from this would be that he

7539:

It’s ok :-) I have been reasonably open about my mental health issues, in fact now think of it I believe I even mentioned PTSD at some point on ANI. You didn’t cause any issues, thank you for your concern though, it means a lot! -

7136:

2) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors

10273:

Without having interacted with him much and barring further evidence, I find it conceivable that he might not have been maliciously using GorillaWarfare's first name. However, his reaction to her request did seem overly defensive

5561:

Too many people here are WAY too springloaded into "I'm offended therefore you're oppressing people". There's no "intimidation" here and I'm not going to fragment this discussion into other pages unless it's absolutely necessary.

2794: 5270:

on "uncontroversial deletion candidates". Obviously, someone disagreed and a discussion should ensue to address the tagger's concerns. I see nothing inappropriate about that process; and it's how the process is designed to work.

10410:, so there was nowhere near room to mention all the interactions I've ever had with Kudpung or GorillaWarfare without cutting out the, you know, actual evidence. But if you think the RfA is crucial to the case, I would point to 7483:

have PTSD, I’m well aware that you can be stressed and upset without actually having PTSD. If I did accidentally cause offence, however, I apologise. I can definitely assure you that nobody ever mentioned they had PTSD to me. -

2097:

This is a remark pretty clearly designed to stifle dissent and to imply that my opinion should be discounted because I haven't read the entire case. I have read it and I can (reasonably) come to a different conclusion than you.

5514:

someone be more civil in their remarks. Headbomb can choose to comply with my request or not; it's up to him. Admins/Arbs can assess accordingly as they see fit. Unless it continues, I see no reason to continue to escalate the

2080:

I think you need to ease off here, Buffs. There is a level at which constant / frequent critical responses begins to look like badgering. Maybe if you read this page more closely you will see why it is a problem in this case.

7445:

it best we just take into consideration this is how Kudpung generally feels. I have certainly seen much worse comments, and this is one of the mildest comments, said to another user who Kudpung appears to be friendly with. -

8677:

If it's unknown how many people have been "banned", then there is not evidence to back up the claim. Only one such ban has been found. Assuming a worst-case scenario with no evidence to back it up is a bad conclusion. Also,

9116:

a severe step and I am surprised by all the passionate drama in this AR. A person is desysopped, takes some time to reflect why, and, if they feel confident, apply for another RfA to regain the confidence of the community.

4088:: "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request..." No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim that Kudpung "does not utilise appropriate dispute resolution processes." 3263: 2843:

The issue isn't that he resigned but he did it in a non-transparent way: first he tried doing it through private email, then he did it on en.wikiversity after a bureaucrat asked him to at least make it public somewhere.

1533: 4225:

to allow anyone and everyone to edit on your talk page. You can still communicate with an Admin through any number of means other than his talk page: pinging, your own talk page, a another talk page, another forum like

4407:). In this thread, multiple people advised Xxanthippe to dial it back and she chose not to. As an admin, such a warning was appropriate and not out of line. Even a warning from a non-admin would have been appropriate. 2032:

I'm concerned that you don't understand what "impugn" or "resolve" means. If it's been resolved to both parties' satisfaction, it means the matter is settled, not that future punishments should still occur. Likewise,

7595:

It is not evidence but it is fully attributed and linked to source. If the protagonist in a case discusses the case on en-WP but not on the case pages it is perfectly acceptable to cite it as part of the workshop.

9578:

The proposed FOF is a fact that he said it. It adds context, but is not a statement on how it should be interpreted e.g. is it a plausible explanation based on generational and cultural differences, or is it self

8647:

This is something that jumped out to me. It is unknown how many people Kudpung has banned from his talk page. Will I get the ban hammer if we have a dispute and I post on his talk page because I filed this case?

10328: 9095:

Buffs' argument that the community !voted 10 years ago therefore should not be asked again is irrational. There are many examples of a Admin being desysopped by AC who then go on to a fresh RFA, some successfully

7463:

is that this is another example of the complained about behaviour. And referring in this way, albeit anonymously, about someone who has presumably mentioned that they suffer from PTSD is ad hominem - and nasty.

10124: 7046:

Inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with civility on

6255:

fact that this has progressed to an accepted ArbCom case rules out the possibility that this is in bad faith or completely baseless. To answer your original question: the first sentence is copied directly from

7282:

Precisely the same remark applies to those on the other side of the debate Buffs, including some of your representations. It tends to be the way evidence is presented and evaluated. It's called discussion :)

2120:, your block threat earlier). We don't have to all agree on this page—after all, ArbCom will be making the final decision, not drawing it from consensus on this page—but we can at least be kind to each other. 2665:

can really tell us why this is. If course, Kudpung will never know, because he didn’t ask. You, however, could find out by asking her but you also haven’t. Perhaps you should before jumping to conclusions? -

1821: 9080:

Following that logic, the ArbCom could never desysop anyone. (Which perhaps you're in favor of, I know some folks would like desysopping to be a community option, but as it stands now that is not the case.)

7786:

me hasn't bothered me, it has. But my opinions in this case are not coming from a place of anger; they are coming from my beliefs on the standards we as a community should be holding our administrators to.

3354:

I think it's pretty clear he was referring to GW. This is not the first time he has obliquely referred to another editor, in such a way that the editor knew they were being talked about. He did the same to

1781:

That was completely unacceptable, and not the conduct I would have expected from an administrator. At the very least I would like to see an acknowledgement of how out of line the comment was, an apology. -

10779:

close.) I think it's also telling that Kudpung has been told he's "doubling down" (though where and by whom, I don't know)—perhaps that goes to show his attitude towards the complaints against him so far.

9521:

that it was not presented on the evidence page nor was it generally construed (and this is only providing a link now). As such, I do not think it should be considered without re-opening the evidence page.

3763: 4713: 9563:

Seems odd to include a finding that an editor is "not as mean as they come across". If I was objectively uncivil to another editor, and then I said "I'm not as rude as I seem", surely I was still rude?

1026:

be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the arbitration committee. Administrators should be reasonably aware of community standards and expectations when using administrative tools.

942:

serious disruption of Knowledge is incompatible with the expectations and responsibilities of administrators, and consistent or egregious poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator tools.

10665:

I have already admitted to occasionally not standing on ceremony and having 'a bark that is worse than my bite', but that is an idiomatic expression whose true meaning may not be evident to everyone.

4434:'s experience should absolutely know this, and it is very concerning that he does not seem to realise that this was way out of line and could be perceived (let alone actually!) as an abuse of power! - 1665: 2343:

No, I said GRuban did. Sorry if that was unclear. Moreover, I was saying I see your point in the RfA and was defending your right to have that opinion regardless of whether anyone else agreed or not.

9235:

People have the right to manage their talk page how they see fit. However, Kudpung has shown that he likes to ban people people from his talk page. It seems appropriate to give the community input --

2405:

I'm not sure that I can agree with "That GW blew up about someone using her real name" is an accurate assessment of what happened here. Perhaps I'm missing something, but from what I can see in fact

1884: 1365:

I think it is really important to avoid comparison with judicial bodies in any particular jurisdiction, even for the purpose of attempted clarification. These notions are not universally understood.

8965:

Lastly, as a general rule, I also object to any statement that claims "XYZ is the only way..." or "The only thing you can conclude from XYZ is..." There are, in fact, an infinite number of options.

6461:

I'm not sure I'm following you—to explicitly mention what? The green text is directly copied/pasted from the existing wording of ADMINACCT, it does not need to be added because it is already there.

4081: 2528: 10159:

using a less formal name for a female administrator than for male administrators, ... is very strong prima facie evidence of systematic, and intentional but subtle, denigration of women as a class.

5729:

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

5284:

So reading that process, it says that “If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself”. It then says “If appropriate sources

6696:

It is interpretation of the existing policy, not a change to policy. Interpretation is exactly what the ArbCom does, and as I have noted elsewhere they have interpreted policy in this way before.

1583: 1071:

ADMINACCT and ADMINCOND are still requirements that administrators must adhere to. The Arbitration Committee has established that misuse of tools is not the only issue that may lead to a desysop.

10372: 5820:

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

5060:

debacle which led to the surreptitious surrendering of his administrative authority is an example of this). This is just too disruptive to be acceptable for the smooth functioning of Knowledge.

1432:) has been a Knowledge editor since the beginning of 2006, becoming an administrator in 2011, and has performed over 100,000 edits, 10,000 deletions, 1,000 blocks, and 1,000 page protections. ( 8810:"FYI, {redacted} I did not block that account. I'm not interested in your snide innuendos - WP:PA is also a blockable offense with a low threshold of tolerance. Please do not post here again." 7331:

1) The collective weight of evidence across a range of conduct-related issues is compelling and well supported by diffs. This includes Kudpung over-reacting to what might best be described as

6544:

reason he was desysopped; it was, however, a contributing factor. Similarly, I do not think Kudpung should be desysopped only because he has not participated in this case; it is one factor.

5076:

anything. We will always have disagreements. Someone's feelings will always be hurt. Someone else won't get their way. In that sense, it will never be "smooth". 19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

3431:

Oh lordy. This format makes for some awkward threads. 1) you agreed with GW 2) GW did state that...which is whom I was trying to reply, but there is no easy way to do that with indentation.

7574:. How should I handle it?" Such a person could ask for counsel and, in turn, be blocked for trying to better their behavior. If it's vague, just assume it isn't directed at you rather than 6046:

1) Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators who exhibit a pattern of failing to meet the

5743:

PS – sorry if this is too much analyses to put in someone elses section. I wanted to say something helpful, but don't feel I know enough about this case to warrant creating my own section.

2059:

need to understand that I found resolution through an apology, but as the case is directly relevant to my experience with Kudpung my evidence is particularly pertinent. So your presented a

1743: 9397:

As others have remarked and I freely admit, being British and 70, the North American culture of routine and often effusive politeness largely escapes me, but my bark is worse than my bite.

3940:"As an admin, you aren't required to participate, but if you don't we'll remove your admin permissions." Please tell me I'm not the only one who finds this more than a little duplicitous. 2495:

Well, I can say the request is inappropriate without saying that Kudpung's response was/was not appropriate. Both could be wrong (and I feel they are). The two are not mutually exclusive.

1888: 10107: 7195:

Extreme disagreement that any amount of participation should be mandated. If we want to change policy, we should do so. Nothing we have currently compels participation in any discussion.

5693: 10196: 7042:"editors are expected to behave reasonably & calmly in their interactions, to maintain a collegial atmosphere and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. 8321:

I agree that the lines are blurry, but there is a difference between banning one person a year (which isn't anything to write home about) and using it as regularly as TLC does below. --

5973:

Normally, yes. But AC agreed to accept this case in the circumstances. Also, FWIW an arb., NYB, reached out to Kudpung in an effort to informally resolve this during the request stage.

2571:

support, or withdraw support from causes at his leisure. The fact that GW took such umbrage (or even notice of it) is concerning. I do not see that such choices are inherently uncivil.

5003: 2234: 3716:

he doesn't need to explain further if he's explained his position. Mandating that admins continue discussions ad infinitum is infintitely gameable by disruptive/tendentious editors.

103: 10170: 5753: 1213: 10222: 4138:

shutting down access to their talk page prevents the clarification of misunderstanding and harmonious solutions (as provided in evidence package #4). I see this as a requirement of

3188:

So it's okay for me to ask to be called GorillaWarfare, unless I am doing so because I feel the way I was referred to contributes to gender inequality, in which case it's not okay?

8270: 8036: 4371:. Despite Xxanthippe's objections, being asked to refrain from commenting on Kudpung's talk page and to refrain from refactoring the meaning of others' comments was approrpriate. 4214:

was king and effectively states that you don't even own your own talk page. My interaction with another user was the impetus to change our policies/guidelines. Now, it is part of

3387:

Likewise, I never said that "the LGBTQ+ community is particularly full of misandrists" and I take offense that you would say so. It IS a view held at the extremes of leftism and,

5245:

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

7083:

I agree with GorillaWarfare that some people incorrectly consider that only tool misuse can result in a desysop decision. This might be a useful general principle to clarify in

5356: 9573: 8397: 7980: 7795: 7780: 7754: 7520: 6493: 6133: 5114:

Obviously, I haven't singled out any one person's assessment. I've looked at ALL of the evidence and pointed out what I found to be compelling and what I didn't and why. YMMV.

3368: 2732: 2461: 1523: 10734: 10320: 9707: 9156: 8135:, you know that I get along with you well, like your contributions a lot and don't wish you to get this otherwise. With no qualifiers, my apologies for the statement. Warmly, 7994: 7766:, I know this is hard on you. His reaction to you was absolutely unacceptable and if I was on the receiving end of such a reaction I would be beside myself. In actual fact, I 7567: 7549: 7534: 7493: 7473: 7109: 6019: 5982: 2619: 2129: 1746:: noting that a user's name has at least a passing resemblance to another language's vulgar term for one's backside isn't a personal attack, but they were unnecessary, mildly 1645: 10772: 10283: 8518:

as well as Headbomb's evidence and GorillaWarfare's evidence) and has regularly cast aspersions on other editors he disagrees with by labeling them the "anti-admin brigade" (

7909:

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

7454: 6362: 5785: 3730:

There is a balance between requiring admins to respond to concerns about their conduct beyond just saying "you just hate admins", and requiring admins to respond to concerns

1598: 1310: 9441: 7848:

If Kudpung has acknowledged any mistakes relating to behaviors described in evidence, I haven't seen it. As for asking for evidence, that's what the whole evidence phase is

521: 98: 10789: 10236: 9142: 8358: 7832: 6167:

2) Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed (

6113: 5619: 4516:"Xxanthippe needs to be very careful that his repeated and self-emphasised attitude to women doesn't get rewarded with a straight site ban..." sounds like a warning to me. 1729: 10757: 10460:

I see nothing to hold against Kudpung on this matter. I completely disagree with the absurd idea that someone's failed/withdrawn RfA should be held against a third party.

9693: 9126: 6720: 6705: 6309: 6291: 6268: 2877: 2686:

I realize that this was easily misunderstood to mean that I prefer men not call me by my real name, which is not the case, and which I have tried to clarify several times.

397: 6689: 6674: 6245: 6230: 4144:

the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct.

1413: 9652: 9637: 9604: 9588: 9538: 8600: 8414: 7890: 7861: 7262: 6742: 6343: 2118: 2115: 1668:

is not indicative of any wrongdoing. Kudpung was asked questions and he provided answers. That they were not to Rschen7754's satisfaction isn't evidence of misbehavior.

10491: 10449: 10108:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence&type=revision&diff=936325036&oldid=936242548&diffmode=source

9278:

I agree with Buffs. It’s remarkable how people would game this. Kudpung does deal with many unreasonable editors and I think it unreasonable to impose this upon him. -

9189: 9059: 8952: 8333: 8127: 7215:

Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed.

5088: 3168: 2206: 1999:

If you feel it was resolved to your satisfaction, why is it now evidence of an issue that needs to be addressed? Either it was resolved or it wasn't; it can't be both.

1158: 1134: 1111: 1080: 10505: 9456: 9390: 9377: 9287: 9090: 8383: 8349:

I think we need to be careful. There are some editors who will take advantage of this. If I had thought to do this with Kudpung, it might have saved me some hassle. -

7966: 7815: 7590: 7277: 7225: 6553: 6535: 6470: 6456: 6434: 6412: 6394: 6154: 5968: 5893: 5879: 5803: 5599: 5585: 5571: 5543: 5528: 5504: 5489: 5467: 5326: 5312: 5298: 5279: 5261: 5151: 5137: 5123: 5109: 4939: 4917: 4903: 4888: 4873: 4859: 4804: 4782: 4590: 4546: 4525: 4511: 4496: 4482: 4464: 4443: 4263: 4247: 4198: 3949: 3935: 3885: 3859: 3838: 3743: 3725: 3707: 3597: 3580: 3565: 3543: 3524: 3508: 3459: 3440: 3426: 3412: 3382: 3322: 3225: 3211: 3197: 3143: 3128: 3113: 3098: 3066: 3052: 3035: 3021: 3007: 2993: 2675: 2651: 2636: 2604: 2504: 2490: 2475: 2447: 2144: 2075: 2046: 2027: 2008: 1994: 1805: 1627: 1612: 1501: 1379:

Hard to explain why something is "unfair" if you cannot cite examples to explain why. Likewise, the entire US constitution vs one clause is hardly an unclear concept.

1290: 1272: 1258: 434: 266: 10716: 10474:

Regarding this, what sunk GRuban's RfA (which I initially supported but later retracted) was his exposure of the contents of an e-mail, something that (as even SoWhy

9620: 9174: 9107: 8821: 8798: 8782: 8724: 8710: 7620: 7605: 7292: 7123: 6659: 6004: 4180: 4154: 4065: 3982: 3963: 2907: 2892: 2107: 2090: 1388: 1374: 1189: 10347: 10266: 9666: 7949: 7503:

opportunity to upload some Creative Commons pictures of fish to commons, having noted it is at my friend’s store that I took the photos, with a link for attribution.

7204: 7190: 6638: 5767: 4991: 1244: 1230: 1207: 92: 81: 52: 10428: 9916:

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.

8660: 8438:

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.

6848:

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.

5413:

editors' feet to the flame when they make mistakes isn't grounds for a block. Being responsible for what gets published and taking blame when things go sideways is

4354: 1477: 10725:

believe you have some issues that must be addressed, I hope you understand that overall I respect and thank you for your substantial contributions to Knowledge. -

9273: 9075: 9022: 9004: 8988: 8974: 8696: 8576: 8088: 7498:

Oh! I reread the comment and I see what you mean! I missed that PTSD bit. It never occurred to me that he was talking about me, I thought you meant I was implying

6211: 5954: 5905: 5069: 4695: 4680: 4576: 4560: 3083: 2856: 2388: 2369: 2337: 2321: 2305: 1973: 1958: 1699:

The purpose is to show that Kudpung sees no problem with his past behavior. That is why this case was started - we have no commitment from Kudpung to do better. --

6379: 3638:

Kudpung, more evidence is needed to demonstrate it. Comments made by Kudpung about the "anti-admin brigade" appear to be intended as descriptive, not pejorative.

3057:

IMHO, that's simple: "In the future please refer to me by my username". If we're to be respectful of all genders, we should have the same standards for everyone.

533:

You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being

6615:

requires that admins address concerns of the community. Failing to participate is failing to address those concerns, and is certainly grounds for de-adminship.

5679: 5624: 5441: 4811:

First the fact that you're a woman or a man is completely irrelevant. Tossing it in to elicit sympathy is completely unnecessary. Kudpung was asking you to stop.

1870: 1791: 199: 51:

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go

10529: 9556: 9487: 9473: 9363: 6601: 3890:

Just realized who I was talking to. I genuinely cannot believe that a member of ArbCom truly holds a "silence = guilt" point of view. That is truly astounding!

10469: 10344: 10337: 7307: 7095: 4976: 4836: 4822: 3183: 2778: 2191: 2177: 2168:

I'm more than a little confused by your statement. Could you clarify "No, the community would not punish the editor again..."? I don't recall advocating that.

2163: 1360: 10254: 9501: 3899: 3797: 3693: 2352: 7732: 7375: 1711: 1066: 428: 9612:: FOF in this context is an acronym for "Finding(s) of fact", which are components of arbitration cases along with Principles, Remedies, Enforcement, etc. – 6726:

pointing out mistakes in the arguments of some other editors opposing Kudpung. But take a read through this workshop, and you'll see what I'm referring to.

6082: 5650: 5636: 3821: 3647: 3307: 2973: 2838: 2589: 10261:

I agree that users should be referred to consistently, independent of gender. It's known behavior in the real world that can be used to undercut non-males.

10245:

instance is unwarranted, hostile, and indicative of some of the responses of Kudpung has been dealing with. Such uncivil remarks should not go unanswered.

8374:. Likewise, ArbCom doesn't have the authority to regulate the community like this. They can rule on Kudpung's behavior in this case, not create new rules. 6031: 4813:. If you didn't intend "you" in the first sentence to refer to the same person as in the third sentence, it would be helpful to reword the first sentence. 4129: 4050: 2154:

community would not punish the editor again for undeclared paid editing, but it may choose to take it into account when evaluating the editor's behaviour.

1195: 513: 76: 10702: 8051: 3757: 3621: 3257: 2923: 2788: 2522: 1856:

Kudpung wrote " don't mind people writing their voter guides, but telling downright lies is blockworthy PA anywhere else." - again, this is an example of

8914:

I have voted to desysop people before who never abused the tools. Conduct unbecoming desysops arose 9 years ago and have been standard ever since then --

8553: 7326: 7321: 7022: 5741:

high level, etc. Then K could continue his very valuable contributions without the downside. (No harm with him continuing to block obvious vandals etc.)

2861:

There is no claim in the evidence (that I can see) that the temporary resignation, and the subterfuge involved in requesting it, had anything to do with

1942: 10406:"there is one matter that might have been mentioned in it"; no, not really. See, there's a word limit, and I'm afraid I might be a bit past it already. 8753: 8619: 7672: 5047: 4768: 4663: 4416: 4279: 4075: 4000: 3400: 3153: 9247: 8926: 6484:

into ADMINACCT" when ArbCom has desysopped based on a finding that specifically cited the admin's lack of participation in the ArbCom case about them.

6162: 5864: 5734: 2749: 7554:

P.S. in case anyone wants to know, I disclosed my potential COI some time ago, it is prominently linked on my user page. The declaration can be found

7439: 2114:

I am also a bit concerned that you seem to be beginning to personalize things with various people on this page who are just trying to help workshop: (

10510:

And I obviously take offence that no one here has questioned my judgement for being the co-nominator in GR's RfA, and that of the many supporters...

10179:", can you please show me the consensus by which the English Knowledge community adopted a "Guilty until proven innocent" stance, and swapped around 7131: 4964: 3159:

b) That said, though, isn't this section supposed to be about the Signpost article? Shouldn't the argument about what to call her be up a section? --

2932:

did not provide substantial evidence of any wrongdoing on Kudpung's part. It did provide feedback by several people as to how Kudpung could improve.

1603:

I respectfully disagree that it's been threatening or intimidating. It certainly could have been phrased better though. I'm open to other proposals.

392: 10674: 8309: 1878: 8254: 6284: 6281:

I cannot recall a case which has gone the distance involving an Admin. where they have declined to participate in the evidence and workshop stages.

5400: 5212: 3913: 3336:

What I think is a shame however, especially where on Knowledge we are all supposed to be nice to each other (which in reality we are not), is when

2376: 2063:

when you stated that in therms of my evidence "the same issues are now being raised here as "a very serious issue" is conflicting or disingenuous."

884: 424: 220: 212: 70: 4997: 4707: 4614: 4362: 1815: 1737: 1659: 10767:

commenting here, though wish it had come sooner than at the very end of the last community-based phase of the case (after the workshop phase was

2286: 10177:

Unless it is plausibly explained and rebutted, it indicates that there is reason to doubt Kudpung's ability to treat female editors with respect

8591:

I'm not sure I've ever seen an interpretation of the civility policy to mean that one must only be more frequently civil than they are uncivil.

7114:

I disagree with the last statement being added. Doing so would add a chilling effect to those seeking assistance or mentorship. Otherwise, yes.

3631: 1891:. That the same issues are now being raised here as "a very serious issue" is conflicting or disingenuous. Clarification would be appreciated. 7904: 1020: 9657:

Comparison should be made to the standard of conduct of the average Knowledge editor. Age, culture or medical condition should be irrelevant.

9385: 8962:

fine, but the conclusion here isn't a lack of trust in desysopping, but that it's the only thing that will satisfy those who have a grievance.

6036: 5910:

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

4908:

Sure you are. That’s the very definition of impugning their motive. The motive you have given is that they are trying to “elicit sympathy”. -

3808:

compels Kudpung to participate. IMHO, the burden of proof is on those bringing the grievance to effectively demonstrate their points of view;

3388: 8069:

opposition could be conflated to supporting an unnecessary extreme luxury or opposing something that no one in their right mind would oppose.

7299: 7030: 6475: 5266: 4814: 4654:

actions taken. Accordingly, this entire section of "evidence" should be ignored in its entirety as it does not demonstrate what it purports.

3698:

It is an attempt to dismiss concerns by writing them off as coming from a place of general anti-admin sentiment, and not responding further.

2183: 2155: 1408: 366: 7236:"the decision by an administrator to not participate in a case about their conduct amounts to a failure to be accountable for their conduct" 6104:

cases as well. Some people seem to be under the impression that tool misuse is the only behavior that can lead to someone being desysopped.

3089:

Except I don't care if Kudpung or anyone else uses my real name, so long as, if they are mentioning men as well, they do the same for them.

2865:. But if an Admin. resignation request is only apparent when it is unearthed, requiring the identification of an obscure non-en WP resource 2610:

reading is that this evidence is highlighting a failure to perform in line with required conduct requirements, not so much gender politics.

5815: 5056:

the case of Kudpung's activity as an administrator, he travels through Knowledge leaving a trail of drama and resentment in his wake. (The

4787:

No, Xxanthippe explicitly mentioned gender: "In a discussion on another editor's talk page of Kudpung's rude and dismissive treatment of a

4120:

the record, I've had people ask me not to do so. I do not believe the same and welcome all users in good standing to post to my talk page.

3359:

and I believe he was doing the same to me at one point. Whilst I acknowledge he apologised to me, I haven't seen an apology to Missvain. -

8259: 5959:

I don't think this is appropriate. Kudpung is an admin and there are no other avenues to request a review of the behaviour of an admin. -

5447: 216: 9682: 7677: 5995:. I agree AC agreed to hearing this, but I think different venues might have been more applicable for any remedy other than desysopping. 4448: 3494:

if that's what you meant, and included two follow-up responses depending on how you answered. That is not implying you meant that, it is

2273:

that of a "troll" or "crap" and "mean spirited". That GW blew up about someone using her real name (one she openly uses on her user page:

1403: 1296:

someone's death. Almost as disrespectful as saying that he isn't even reading this discussion of the behaviors that led to this arbcase.

386: 231: 209: 65: 29: 9545:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Evidence#Kudpung_behaves_&_responds_impulsively,_quickly_accelerating_issues_to_conflict

5344: 5165: 557:

Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.

9317: 8114:

The case has been accepted. I get that you don't much care for it or for the suggested remedies. This however is pointy and unhelpful.

7035: 6041: 3864:

Are we really going down the road where silence = guilt? ArbCom will decide and that IS accountability; so would have been a result in

3680:

GW's assessment here is only partially accurate, IMHO. Comments made by Kudpung about the "anti-admin brigade" do not seem to be about

467: 419: 357: 276: 204: 8943:. Kudpung has given no indication that he is prepared to mend his ways. Desysopping is the only way that the matter will be resolved. 8861:

1) For numerous violations of basic policies and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in

8851: 8625: 8567:

Scratch the "by labeling them the 'anti-admin brigade'" and you have agreement from me. A mere label by itself though is not uncivil.

8514: 2572: 889: 6439:

I think you're reading WAY to much into ADMINACCT. Again, if we want to modify it to explicitly mention this, fine. Let's change it (

5218: 2241:

remarks by both. Despite further escalations by GorillaWarfare that led to a block, Kudpung effectively disengaged and de-escalated.

382: 10520:

I'll question your judgment for the sake of equality ;-) . But considering your were a co-nominator, I'll only question it halfway.

2228: 10763:

Well, some of the complaints... Mine (and Missvain's, and others) seem to have been skipped over entirely. I do appreciate Kudpung

10090: 9307: 8463: 493: 362: 9312: 8516: 8431: 5884:

ArbCom is welcome to be more specific as they deem fit in their final decision. Alternatively, I welcome another version of this.

2419:

The person who escalated things was not GW, but Kudpung. Kudpung even went so far as to withdraw from the Women In Red initiative

10407: 10355: 8002: 6754: 1249:

I believe the concern is that Kudpung used that as an opportunity to take a jab at other FA writers for not being "gentlemanly".

372: 352: 235: 9464:: This is proposed FOF. It's neither a remedy nor enforcement (though can be the basis for them), so there is nothing to game.— 7842:

conclusion" is that he should be desysopped, is again imagining up an absolutely false scenario to match your remedy. Not done.

2051:

Impugn means to call into question the validity and honesty of a person. You told me I might be being disingenious (which means

10577: 10363:

Kudpung's judgement and the depth of his investigation of the people he nominates (although this is hardly a hanging offense).

7682: 4452: 4403:

the second link indicates that Kudpung advised her NOT to refactor the comments of others to change the meaning and cited (see

2744: 377: 290: 271: 8715:

Pop in as many diffs as you feel necessary on the page. If extreme, I would consider re-opening the evidence to include them.

4930:

over facts, a logical fallacy where you are in error. I'm not calling into question your honesty or integrity, just accuracy.

340: 10478:) could not have been foreseen by Kudpung or the other co-nom Lourdes. As such, I fail to see its relevance for this case. – 8741: 8506: 7383: 2328:

Which RfA? Can you give a link? Are you suggesting that I used the words "troll" or "crap" and "mean spirited"? I never did.

1198:

that leads me to believe that this user has not respected the memory of the dead and seems spurious. Am I missing something?

411: 302: 9822: 10623:

A personal attack is something that is personal. It has to target "somebody" specific, and it has to target their identity.

10487: 9684:. Most regretably it has not been given as formal evidence or workshop material here, but it is the best write up by far. 9203: 8856: 8701:

From a simple search in his talk page archives I can see 6. How many would you consider as sufficient proof of a tendency?

5053: 4850:

I think you need to be careful when it comes to characterizing someone's evidence as "Tossing it in to elicit sympathy". -

335: 3373:

Perhaps "outing" wasn't the correct choice of words; "singling out" would have been better, which was my original intent.

2723:

evidence). I would think anyone would want to avoid the outcome, especially when the intention to be sexist is not there.

2135:

workshop"; I believe they are expressing their opinions on the matter (as they should), not solely to help others though.

554:

Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.

520:

all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the

8866: 8076:. If there is more evidence that isn't being considered that we should, we need to petition to re-open the evidence page. 7971:

I'm not sure it makes sense to recommend this—I know a fair number of Wikipedians prefer to avoid private communication.

261: 190: 25: 9727: 7525:

The quote I gave did not name anyone. I apologise if, in revealing this link and quote, it has caused you any distress.

6217:

time and (b) Kudpung has today commented elsewhere regarding his non-participation here and about those involved in it.

5409:, as evidenced by the resulting hurt and drama. So yes, I stand by that assessment. Calling a spade a spade and holding 8264: 5576:

I could say likewise with you then, given you found GW’s request to Kudpung to be offensive. I stand by my comments. -

2657:

highly aggressive and the start of an ongoing grudge against GE. Not something I expect to see in an experienced admin.

8249: 7581:

I see no need to re-open the evidence gathering stage. and this is doing so. The entire statement is too wordy/vague.

4982:"oppose or attack as false or lacking integrity" - I'm reading "oppose as false"/"lacking integrity" as "dishonesty". 2595:

misinterpreted to mean that I did not wish for men to use my real name; it did not change his inappropriate reaction.

10625: 7647:

doubt that the party that he was referring to either has PTSD, or was using their PTSD as an excuse to attack them.

7422: 7173: 6326: 6218: 2580:. As an admin, he should have recognized that and backed away...it appears to me that he did just that...eventually. 524:

page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

10262: 8884: 6935: 4167:

to require admins to allow anyone to comment on their talk page, we should explicitly state as such. As we do not,

2852: 2753: 1707: 544:

Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

10268:

FWIW, I ran across a couple diffs where Kudpung refers to males by their real first names and not their usernames.

10003: 8862: 5454:

Perhaps I'm wrong about Headbomb's criticism. But that was not for Kudpung to decide, he should have sent this to

3074:'s request was expressed in a completely reasonable form as I stated elsewhere, and did not need any improvement. 5458:

and asked for input. What this shows is yet another example of him making threats to editors in appropriately. -

5349:

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

879: 327: 167: 10264: 9732: 9096: 7852:—for editors to present and refute evidence on the subject. It's not accurate to say no one asked for evidence. 7424: 7175: 6328: 6296:

A case in which, I will note, the admin was desysopped by unanimous vote, in a remedy that explicitly mentioned

6220: 5554:"?!?! Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you're saying that this could be construed as criminal activity? 2748:

I asked not to be the only one referred to by that name alongside a list of men referred to by their usernames (

978: 567: 10307: 8160:. Describing an amorphous group as a "brigade" is a non-sequitur, a brigade, typically, being well organised. 6625: 5666: 5428: 313: 256: 21: 7172:

It is neither wise nor respectful to thumb one's nose at the judge and jury after evidence submission closes.

6070:

I thought that this was a well established fact pattern. Since people seem to be confused, this makes sense --

1488:

Kudpung has done a lot of very good work. I'm confused why only he is being acknowledged though. I think that

10641:

which appears to have been interpreted as a deliberate misogynistic attack, actually speaks of Ms Maher as '

10271: 10269: 10192: 10166: 9399: 9208:

2) Kudpung is prohibited from banning editors from his talk page without first gaining consensus to do so on

8880: 8459: 6841: 6287:

where the admin involved did not participate beyond the case request stage, despite being active elsewhere. –

5621: 4959:

Interestingly, the cited source (Mirriam-Webster) does not refer to honesty in the prinary definition given.

3554: 1429: 248: 9909: 8512: 7957:

A statement where anyone "might" do anything is not a remedy that ArbCom could possibly effectively impose.

4368: 6650:

the policy, must open an RfC at the talk page of the policy, and not try to use the ArbCom as a backdoor.--

4288:, et al demonstrate that Kudpung has made statements that were ill advised and were below the standards of 3805: 486: 298: 196: 7240:

is evidence of their extreme frustration at the one-sided view about their contributions and interactions.

6526:

chosen not to pose any questions directly. If they had, I would have expected participation from Kudpung.

4581:

No need, but I think you have confirmed that you acknowledge Kudpung did not directly alert Xxanthippe. -

1538:

2) Kudpung has interacted with other users in a manner that multiple users have found to be inappropriate

9133:

wisely, but then again we expect editors to also act wisely when they click the edit link on articles. -

7985:

Just noting that this approach has been subsequently suggested to Kudpung in their off-case discussions.

7873:

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

6010:

emphasise that I was not the initiating party to the ArbCom case. It is unlikely I would have done so. -

4337: 2998:"politely being asked to be called by her username" I didn't see that as anything close to being polite. 2066:

I also note that I asked you a direct question in that I don't know what I was meant to be clarifying. -

308: 226: 10106:

The record of Kudpung using a less formal name for a female administrator than for male administrators,

6250:

I have edited a bit to clarify that I'm referring to accepted cases, and that admins are expected to be

5100:

I don't think that singling out anyone's assessment in the ArbCom findings is appropriate or helpful. -

936: 9517:

In general, I don't disagree with this statement being introduced as evidence nor used in a conclusion

2898:"nefarious", i.e. wicked or criminal. It was simply preventing community awareness - no more, no less. 1964:

Struck accordingly...this was a typo: a placeholder for remarks that, apparently, I forgot to include!

347: 894: 698: 10120: 8624:

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

7738:

Desysopping Kudpung should only be done if he will not acknowledge that his behaviour is problematic.

6050:

described in policy may have their administrator tools removed even if tool misuse has not occurred.

2413:

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

9041:

absolutely not the remedy to advise someone to be more caring in their responses to "some" editors.

8804:

find. I would also encourage a reading of some of the antagonistic language used. It isn't a simple

2452:

Indeed. If my "minor point" comment is "blowing up", I'd hate to think what Kudpung's reaction was.

10785: 10730: 10614:

concurring with the description of the phenomenon so I fail to see how it is a personal attack.

10483: 10445: 10218: 10188: 10162: 9703: 9633: 9569: 9437: 9432:

other people discomfort then it is not they who need to change, but the one doing the “barking”. -

9359: 9283: 9138: 9086: 8747: 8596: 8393: 8354: 7976: 7945: 7886: 7877:

now understands that he has a problem that he needs to rectify, not that he doesn’t have a problem.

7857: 7791: 7776: 7750: 7728: 7668: 7563: 7545: 7516: 7489: 7450: 7258: 7221: 7105: 6738: 6701: 6611:

this seems pretty obvious. If you don't want to participate in ARBCOM proceedings that's fine, but

6549: 6489: 6466: 6430: 6390: 6358: 6305: 6264: 6129: 6109: 6015: 5964: 5875: 5781: 5581: 5539: 5500: 5463: 5322: 5294: 5257: 5133: 5105: 4913: 4884: 4864:

I see no reason to include it unless it was there to elicit sympathy. I'm welcome to alternatives.

4855: 4778: 4586: 4542: 4507: 4478: 4439: 4350: 4194: 3931: 3855: 3834: 3809: 3739: 3703: 3593: 3561: 3504: 3455: 3422: 3364: 3318: 3221: 3193: 3139: 3124: 3094: 3048: 3017: 2989: 2728: 2671: 2632: 2600: 2486: 2457: 2443: 2202: 2125: 2071: 2052: 2023: 1990: 1866: 1787: 1725: 1623: 1594: 1519: 1497: 1286: 1254: 1130: 1076: 8148: 2409:

actually asked him very politely to refer to herself by her username. In fact, what she said was:

1933:

This was a placeholder for my remarks that, apparently, were never completed. Mistake on my part.

654: 613: 10698: 10501: 9689: 9152: 9103: 8817: 8778: 8706: 8123: 7990: 7940:

FWIW, Kudpung already did reach out to me in private. I think he should be commended for this. -

7601: 7555: 7530: 7469: 7288: 7091: 6670: 6226: 5978: 5558:? Wow. Just wow. I only POLITELY asked someone to be civil when, in my estimation, they were not. 4150: 4061: 3959: 2903: 2873: 2615: 2086: 1641: 1370: 1216:

Kudpung brings some unidentified unrelated baggage to the discussion of the death of an editor.

479: 56: 10654: 10615: 9492:

I just now saw this is closed; please revert if necessary. I will refrain from further posting.

2379:. Also, "heaven" is not "profanity" by any definition, but I do appreciate the civil discourse! 10475: 8738: 7435: 7186: 6612: 6339: 5749: 5217:

That is not a correct characterization of what happened here. I was watching the discussion on

4972: 3954:

That clearly is not what is being advanced. To claim that it is amounts to gross exaggeration.

1579: 1306: 1226: 1185: 563:

Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

8765: 8422:

Pile-on. Please don't push interpretation of our policies and guidelines to match principles.

7253:? And by whom? There are plenty of comments on this page and in evidence that defend Kudpung. 5357:

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

572: 8756: 5758:

Not at all! Love the assessment here. Completely has my blessing. That's what it's here for.

5618:

The decision to publish "Pesky pronouns" was mine alone. I took public responsibility for it

5519:

what constitutes a "warning" and and where a "warning" is appropriate is quite hypocritical.

3396: 1091: 826: 785: 744: 703: 186: 17: 9868: 9827: 8744: 2360:

RfA (for the third time). For heaven's sake! (I hope you don't regard this as a profanity).

10753: 10611: 10411: 10368: 10116: 9662: 9242: 9122: 9055: 8984: 8948: 8921: 8768: 8762: 8655: 8548: 8467: 8328: 8304: 8156:

Saying that it is not a personal attack is a statement of the obvious and no excuse. It is

8046: 7828: 6077: 5698:

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

5550: 5084: 5065: 4676: 4556: 4325: 4206:

Once upon a time, asking others to stay off your talk page was NOT explicitly mentioned in

3712:

He is entitled to dismiss "concerns" as he sees fit (as does any other editor). Even under

3079: 2849: 2365: 2333: 2301: 1954: 1704: 1514:

Presumably because I am not, at least as of now, listed as an involved party in this case.

1433: 8388:

I would worry about enforcement of this, given how open to interpretation "regularly" is.

8037:

Knowledge:Tendentious editing#"Banning" otherwise constructive editors from your talk page

6800: 6759: 6096:

I think this might be a useful principle just in general, as it has come up in the recent

1119:

may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee.

867: 8: 10781: 10726: 10479: 10441: 10214: 10100: 9699: 9629: 9609: 9597: 9565: 9433: 9355: 9279: 9134: 9082: 8592: 8389: 8350: 8316: 8012: 8008: 7972: 7941: 7882: 7853: 7787: 7772: 7763: 7746: 7724: 7664: 7655: 7611:

as defined. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying it needs to be clearly cited.

7559: 7541: 7512: 7485: 7460: 7446: 7254: 7217: 7210: 7138: 7101: 7084: 6734: 6716: 6697: 6685: 6655: 6545: 6485: 6462: 6426: 6400: 6386: 6354: 6301: 6297: 6260: 6256: 6241: 6207: 6168: 6125: 6105: 6047: 6011: 5960: 5871: 5791: 5777: 5577: 5535: 5496: 5459: 5318: 5290: 5253: 5129: 5101: 4909: 4880: 4851: 4774: 4756: 4582: 4538: 4503: 4474: 4435: 4346: 4235: 4222: 4190: 4164: 4160: 4139: 3927: 3873: 3851: 3830: 3801: 3735: 3713: 3699: 3635: 3589: 3557: 3500: 3451: 3418: 3360: 3328: 3314: 3217: 3189: 3135: 3120: 3090: 3071: 3044: 3013: 2985: 2724: 2667: 2662: 2628: 2596: 2482: 2453: 2439: 2406: 2274: 2198: 2121: 2067: 2019: 1986: 1923:

It should be noted that I can see Xxanthippe's point in the RFA which opposes Kudpung's.

1862: 1783: 1721: 1619: 1590: 1539: 1515: 1493: 1492:

and many people who also gave evidence have done considerable work for Knowledge also. -

1489: 1282: 1250: 1164: 1126: 1122: 1087: 1072: 560:

Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.

120: 8737:. Do not doubt that many others exist using forms of request that cannot be identified: 8273:

that you disagree with, especially to suppress criticism of one's edits, is prohibited.

8072:

I see no evidence presented of widespread banning. Likewise, it is also permitted under

7051:"making repeated, generalised, unsourced negative attacks aimed at unidentified editors" 10694: 10497: 10303: 10049: 10008: 9685: 9148: 9099: 8813: 8774: 8702: 8132: 8119: 7986: 7597: 7526: 7465: 7284: 7087: 6666: 6621: 6275: 6222: 5987:

Kudpung may be an admin, but that doesn't mean he cannot be blocked for incivility via

5974: 5662: 5424: 4146: 4057: 3955: 3906: 3149: 2899: 2869: 2611: 2082: 1637: 1366: 516:, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please 145: 9778: 9737: 10670: 10539: 10279: 9648: 9584: 9552: 9469: 8883:) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful 8874: 8759: 8462:) has been a Knowledge editor since the beginning of 2006, becoming an administrator 8453: 8410: 7426: 7177: 6981: 6940: 6330: 5773: 5745: 4968: 4927: 4795:

mine). I never stated it was/wasn't Xxanthippe's gender, only that it was mentioned.

4333: 1747: 1575: 1423: 1297: 1278: 1217: 1176: 1099: 534: 134: 9962: 9921: 8789:

Interacting with as many users as he has, 13 over 10 years isn't too extreme, IMHO.

8208: 4923: 4773:

I think you have misread their evidence; Xxanthippe has not mentioned their gender.

2034: 10424: 10315: 8750: 7303: 6633: 6440: 5674: 5436: 4818: 4716:

does not demonstrate that Kudpung engaged in behavior that could be categorized as

3164: 2774: 2187: 2159: 1347: 1154: 1107: 1062: 9395:

1) In October 2019, Kudpung stated that he's not as mean as he might come across:

7823:

Desysopp. Kudpung has given no indication that he is prepared to change his ways.

7238:

The decision by an administrator to not participate in a case about their conduct

6894: 6853: 4189:

Also, you state that the quote given is not at ADMINCOND, but it definitely is. -

10749: 10712: 10525: 10465: 10364: 10250: 10232: 9658: 9534: 9497: 9483: 9452: 9373: 9269: 9236: 9170: 9118: 9071: 9051: 9018: 9009: 9000: 8980: 8970: 8944: 8915: 8794: 8720: 8692: 8681: 8649: 8572: 8542: 8379: 8322: 8298: 8084: 8040: 7962: 7824: 7811: 7616: 7586: 7371: 7273: 7200: 7119: 6597: 6531: 6452: 6408: 6375: 6150: 6071: 6000: 5950: 5889: 5860: 5799: 5763: 5646: 5595: 5567: 5524: 5485: 5477: 5396: 5308: 5275: 5208: 5147: 5119: 5080: 5061: 5043: 4987: 4935: 4899: 4869: 4832: 4800: 4764: 4691: 4672: 4659: 4572: 4552: 4521: 4492: 4470: 4460: 4412: 4289: 4259: 4243: 4176: 4134: 4125: 4085: 4046: 3978: 3945: 3895: 3881: 3817: 3721: 3689: 3643: 3576: 3539: 3520: 3436: 3408: 3378: 3303: 3207: 3179: 3109: 3075: 3062: 3031: 3003: 2969: 2888: 2846: 2834: 2647: 2585: 2577: 2532: 2500: 2471: 2384: 2361: 2348: 2329: 2317: 2297: 2282: 2238: 2173: 2140: 2103: 2042: 2004: 1969: 1950: 1938: 1928: 1801: 1717: 1701: 1608: 1473: 1384: 1356: 1268: 1240: 1203: 1095: 156: 8771: 4827:

Isaacl, I meant the general "you", not "you specifically". Point taken, edited.

4449:

A warning of a sanction for misbehavior is not only warranted, but a requirement

2868:, surely that is the antipathy of transparent? Therefore it did avoid scrutiny. 10646: 10618: 10350:

amendments). However there is one matter that might have been mentioned in it.

10311: 9618: 8371: 8073: 7687:

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

6712: 6681: 6651: 6629: 6288: 6237: 6203: 5670: 5455: 5432: 5079:

The surreptitious surrendering was dealt with in GorillaWarfare's evidence p2.

4621:

carried out actions and made threats in order to suppress and conceal criticism

4533:

I understand, but that that was not what I asked. Where in that message did he

4215: 4207: 4168: 3681: 3342:

women accuse such men of being misogynists. I believe there's a word for that:

1796:

Well, what you want as recompense is not the same as a statement of the facts.

517: 115: 9478:"Bark is worse than my bite" is an idiom. It shouldn't be taken so literally. 5171:

article nominations are reprisal, but provides no evidence other than timing.

2743:

GorillaWarfare's intention with her request is probably best explained by her

451: 10299: 10184: 10180: 9213: 8269:

4) User talk pages are an important way of communicating with other editors.

7688: 6617: 6444: 6124:

Seems quite reasonable to me, I doubt anyone could seriously dispute this. -

5992: 5942: 5852: 5658: 5632: 5555: 5473: 5420: 5405:

The decision to publish a garbage transphobic piece was clearly a fuck up by

5238: 5234: 4717: 4404: 4227: 4211: 3869: 3417:

I never said you said that the LGBTQ+ community is made up of misandrists. -

3356: 2711:

I also agree with Chris.sherlock that there is no reasonable way the comment

2060: 538: 140: 5794:. Incivility of LOTS of editors and admins needs to be addressed site-wide. 4619:

3.6.2) There is no evidence to substantiate Xxanthippe's claim that Kudpung

4551:

There was no notification to Xxanthippe that the "warning" had been issued.

2866: 1175:

As in, respect the memory of the dead, and respect the mourning of others.

455: 10721: 10666: 10517: 10511: 10359: 10275: 9673:

workshop, Kudpung has continued to offer his views on the state of Arbcom

9644: 9593: 9580: 9548: 9465: 9299: 9209: 9186: 9042: 8870: 8843: 8607: 8586: 8449: 8423: 8406: 8402: 8367: 8294: 8136: 8111: 8105: 7868: 7843: 7244: 6727: 6587: 6349: 5988: 4960: 4431: 4423: 4231: 3865: 2793:

3.4.2) No clear evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim that "

1857: 1419: 129: 8443: 8405:

is not a policy or guideline, which are more suitable for case principles—

7573:

so I'm having an issue with another user where <describe situation: -->

7335:

matters of little consequence in the general scheme of normal discussion.

5941:

I think this is the least we can expect. Let's tone down the rhetoric and

5851:

I think this is the least we can expect. Let's tone down the rhetoric and

42: 10420: 10351: 10340: 10330: 10213:

so, but it also may not have been, and so I disagree with this analysis.

10111: 7578:. Let them make their point and move on (just like Chris did above here). 3922:—Kudpung hasn't responded to concerns raised in evidence/workshop phases 3160: 2770: 1150: 1103: 1058: 10707:

I too appreciate your inclusion here, but I hardly feel it's mandatory.

4750:

At this point, this is getting pedantic/ridiculous. First the fact that

3216:

This is how your comment reads to me, and I am asking if it is correct.

2182:

I agreed with you that the community would not punish the editor again.

10708: 10521: 10461: 10246: 10228: 9530: 9493: 9479: 9448: 9369: 9265: 9166: 9067: 9014: 8996: 8966: 8909: 8790: 8716: 8688: 8606:

claiming that he is totally uncivil and therefore should be penalised.

8568: 8375: 8080: 7958: 7807: 7612: 7582: 7367: 7269: 7196: 7115: 6593: 6527: 6448: 6404: 6371: 6146: 5996: 5946: 5885: 5856: 5795: 5759: 5642: 5591: 5563: 5520: 5481: 5392: 5304: 5271: 5204: 5143: 5115: 5039: 4983: 4931: 4895: 4865: 4847: 4828: 4796: 4760: 4687: 4655: 4568: 4530: 4517: 4488: 4456: 4408: 4329: 4255: 4239: 4172: 4121: 4042: 3974: 3941: 3891: 3877: 3813: 3717: 3685: 3639: 3572: 3550: 3535: 3516: 3432: 3404: 3374: 3299: 3203: 3175: 3105: 3058: 3027: 2999: 2965: 2884: 2830: 2643: 2581: 2496: 2467: 2380: 2344: 2313: 2278: 2169: 2136: 2099: 2038: 2000: 1965: 1934: 1924: 1797: 1604: 1469: 1380: 1352: 1264: 1236: 1199: 151: 9066:

same via "Some editors have gone around nit-picking every section..."

5737:

among generations even on much more sensitive gender related actions.)

5267:

Knowledge:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines

4367:

3.6.1) Xxanthippe's claim of being accused of "misogyny" is backed by

3829:

OK, clearly it is not so self-evident. I agree with this statement. -

1090:? I hereby include by reference the sections about password strength, 9613: 9524:

We shouldn't be backdooring evidence on the last day of the Workshop.

6399:

If that is a requirement to be an Admin, it should be spelled out in

5590:

I'm not claiming censorship or intimidation, you (perplexingly) are.

5317:

So my point stands, Kudpung is not tagging articles appropriately. -

3338: 175: 5128:

no, what I’m saying is that this shouldn’t be a specific finding. -

1235:

I don't see any "baggage". I see a compliment to a deceased editor.

10649:

makes some poignant and accurate comments as to how that executive

7723:

can be shown that he has not changed then he will be desysopped. -

7421:

And the pattern continued shortly after the evidence phase closed.

7044:

Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard.

5628: 4426:

for such things - for maximum transparency and to prevent even the

3344: 453: 9264:

per previous remarks on the subject. This is infinitely gameable.

8079:

I believe an admonishment of some kind is in order, but not this.

8039:

the wide use of talk page bans is a sign of problematic editing --

4218:. My intent was to say that I'm acutely aware of this requirement. 1169:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a

9147:

Indeed, Kudpung confirms that he uses the admin. tools scarcely.

8007:

3) Kudpung is admonished, reminded of his responsibilities under

10095:

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

6680:

and accept that what everybody is saying is literally correct.--

3798:

Kudpung made statements in the establishment of this ArbCom case

1949:

I am not sure what you are referring to. Could you give a diff?

1121:

This proposed principle may have once been directly copied from

7575: 1634:"Kudpung's behavior has been assessed as inappropriate by some" 1263:

I'm not reading it that way and I don't think most are either.

900:

good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

456: 6540:

I did not mean to imply Rubin's lack of participation was the

5627:. There should be no blowback on Kudpung for that incident. ☆ 2829:

would use such actions as evidence of incompetence is absurd.

1057:

I think administrator tool use is not an issue of the RFAR. --

457: 1534:

Kudpung's behavior has been assessed as inappropriate by some

874:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

4759:. While it could exist, I'm not seeing evidence of it here. 3553:—and it's odd to see the idea treated as a true phenomenon. 1125:, but it is slightly different from current policy wording. 10227:

I see nothing in the evidence to substantiate this charge.

9681:. There is also some highly salient advice offered to him. 9163:

Following that logic, the ArbCom could never desysop anyone

5476:, continued use of profanity is grounds for blocking under 4005:

3.5.1) No evidence presented has substantiated claims that

3586:

it's more prevalent among LGBTQ than the general population

6508:

multiple opportunities at varying intervals of the dispute

1116:

Perhaps it would be better to quote directly from policy:

3393:

rear its ugly head on the extremes of the LGBTQ community

10408:

Most of my recent edits were "shorten, shorten, shorten"

9677:

and the type of people introducing evidence, including:

4965:

what words mean, according to the wider speech community

3628:

GorillaWarfare's comments about Kudpung holding a grudge

2930:

The evidence about a Signpost article about WMF employee

2053:"slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth" 10241:

I'll go one step further. Leveling such a charge for a

9596:

I know this is closed and all, but what does FOF mean?

8466:, and has performed over 14,450 administrate actions. ( 6516:

such as their non-participation in the Arbitration case

3632:

I can find no significant interactions in the past year

2720:

be referred to by my username when discussed among men.

6518:, despite actively editing other areas of Knowledge... 4238:" and I misunderstood what you intended "this" to be. 3266:

have not been substantiated by the evidence provided.

10643:

doing an excellent job as ambassador for the movement

10099:

Analysis by Robert McClenon of Evidence Presented by

6500:

I think that's a mischaracterization on the decision

2466:

As stated below, I didn't see it as a "minor point".

1281:

can clarify their meaning so we don't have to guess.

10414:, in which I have a rather long discussion, and ask 8979:

Is such syntactical pedantry helpful to the debate?

7251:

the evidence has been taken with a single-sided view

3827:

I don't see the point in this. This is self-evident.

2795:

Kudpung resigned his admin tools...to avoid scrutiny

1822:

Kudpung has made vague threats to suppress criticism

10329:Analysis By Xxanthippe of evidence of presented by 2529:

Clear evidence has been presented by GorillaWarfare

541:, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. 6447:, whatever), but it isn't explicitly spelled out. 6403:. As it stands now, that's your personal opinion. 4926:" implies dishonesty. I'm saying you're making an 4453:regulars take extreme umbrage at being "templated" 3534:I've made my points long ago and I stand by them. 8116:"Get someone to review your posts before posting" 3202:I have no idea what your question even is here. 1173:, civil manner in their interactions with others. 7576:assume you're the one who they are talking about 3810:the accused does not need to prove his innocence 2377:Knowledge:Requests_for_adminship/Megalibrarygirl 2375:The only one that GRuban presented evidence on: 1618:have independently reported feeling this way. - 8102:Get someone to review your posts before posting 7806:I'm not seeing this as the appropriate remedy. 5694:Insufficient Evidence Presented for Desysopping 5303:Like I said, I wouldn't have done it that way. 4718:lack of courtesy expected from an administrator 3026:We'll agree to disagree then. Have a good day! 2979:Knowledge". If one small and polite request by 2235:interactions between Kudpung and GorillaWarfare 8867:Knowledge:Administrators#Administrator conduct 8511:2) Kudpung has been uncivil to other editors ( 7040:1) Per the recent Portals case (paraphrased), 2759:(Is it still mansplaining if I'm quoting her? 2037:invokes dishonesty, which I'm not advocating. 8271:Regularly banning editors from your talk page 5002:3.6.4) Xxanthippe's assessment of additional 4686:Repetitious = not additional evidence. YMMV. 3530:Struck. This conversation is not productive. 2539:, in context it is not especially egregious. 1666:Kudpung continues to defend his past behavior 1351:relevant portions of the policy at the time. 487: 3876:. I doubt you will find the support for it. 5472:I'm not seeing this as a threat. Likewise, 4712:3.6.3) Evidence presented by Xxanthippe in 4455:, we will continue to have these problems. 4159:I'm sorry you see this as a requirement of 49:The Workshop phase for this case is closed. 6348:On this issue I have to disagree. I think 5052:My summary of Kudpung's long term behavior 3012:Then you see offence where none exists. - 494: 480: 5219:Knowledge talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers 4791:editor Kundpung told me to 'pipe down'" ( 4469:He didn’t communicate this directly with 6510:to support their claims and conduct. He 5006:problems lacks substantiating evidence. 4007:Kudpung is cryptically vilifying editors 3148:a) Agree that it's perfectly reasonable 2423:. If you look at what he wrote, it was: 8863:Knowledge:Administrators#Accountability 8541:Casting aspersions is 100% a problem -- 7881:I agree with your line of reasoning. - 6645:After having read all the responses, I 4668:Not valid. See the discussion above of 14: 9873:2) {text of proposed finding of fact} 9832:1) {text of proposed finding of fact} 8167:. This almost sums up the entire case. 8154:(and anyway, 22 admitted is too many). 6805:2) {text of proposed finding of fact} 6764:1) {text of proposed finding of fact} 6202:Is the second sentence policy-based?-- 1750:, and not in particularly good taste. 549:Consequences of inappropriate behavior 8158:an attack on the ethos of the project 5625:initiated the search for a new E-in-C 3395:just like it does in the extremes of 3264:Accusations of gaslighting and outing 10771:to close, and shortly following the 10637:positions they hold. The article in 10512:Lourdes 08:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 10343:may be taken as it is (or as it was 9462:this is also infinitely gameable ... 9391:Kudpung self-statement on politeness 9300:Lourdes 09:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9043:Lourdes 14:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8844:Lourdes 09:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8608:Lourdes 06:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 8587:Lourdes 09:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8424:Lourdes 09:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8137:Lourdes 13:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8106:Lourdes 09:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 7869:Lourdes 06:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7844:Lourdes 09:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 7459:The point of the evidence presented 7245:Lourdes 14:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6728:Lourdes 17:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6588:Lourdes 09:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 5226:this instance, the user is an admin. 4221:No, there is no such requirement in 4082:banning someone from their talk page 2760: 1636:It is why a case has been accepted. 1414:Kudpung's Contributions to Knowledge 267:Clarification and Amendment requests 37: 9543:It's not new, it's from link 20 at 5906:Reminder to try other avenues first 4286:Evidence presented by Leaky caldron 568:Motions and requests by the parties 35: 10054:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 10013:1) {text of proposed enforcement} 8213:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 7654:The best example of this was when 6986:2) {text of proposed enforcement} 6945:1) {text of proposed enforcement} 5142:Oh! I see what you're saying. ok! 1885:Chris.sherlock previously asserted 1574:has sometimes been inappropriate. 36: 10805: 8812:Seriously, too readily provoked. 7249:Can you explain what you mean by 3445:In that case let me clarify that 2275:"I'm fairly open about who I am " 1744:Kudpung has made personal attacks 1632:It is clear and irrefutable that 1094:, reinstating a reverted action, 9783:2) {text of Proposed principle} 9742:1) {text of Proposed principle} 8370:. It is explictly allowed under 6032:Proposals by User:GorillaWarfare 5641:Thank you for that information. 4487:Then we will agree to disagree. 3532:I'm just going to bow out of it. 3327:I'm afraid I tend to agree with 2761: 1140: 174: 41: 8620:Kudpung's use of Talk Page bans 7023:Proposals by User:Leaky Caldron 6163:Administrator accountability #2 5241:page and writes the following: 4430:of abuse of power. An admin of 3911:Someone else has mentioned the 3174:treatment exist because of it. 10496:Agreed. Bit of a red herring. 4284:3.5.3) Over the past 2 years, 4084:is explicitly permitted under 2533:Knowledge policies on civility 1931:) 23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 1086:of, as long as they have nice 699:Proposed temporary injunctions 528:Expected standards of behavior 13: 1: 9967:2) {text of proposed remedy} 9926:1) {text of proposed remedy} 7389:"enemy" of the Admin. group. 7327:Collective weight of evidence 6899:2) {text of proposed remedy} 6858:1) {text of proposed remedy} 3447:on this point I do not agree. 2434:That's a remarkable response. 10790:02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 10758:21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 10735:20:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 10717:20:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 10703:18:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 10675:18:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 10530:20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 10506:21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 10492:21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 10470:21:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 10450:21:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 10429:16:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 10373:06:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 10321:14:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 10284:11:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 10255:23:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 10237:20:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC) 10223:22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 10197:09:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 10171:09:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 10125:01:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC) 9708:16:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9694:13:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9667:04:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9653:04:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9638:03:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9621:14:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9605:13:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9589:01:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9574:21:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9557:01:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9539:20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9502:16:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9488:16:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9474:11:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9457:20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9442:19:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9378:20:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9368:I'm on board here 100% too! 9364:19:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9288:19:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 9274:21:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 9248:06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 9190:08:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9175:16:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9157:12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9143:11:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9127:08:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9108:08:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9091:00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9076:17:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9060:05:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 9023:16:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 9005:16:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 8989:23:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8975:21:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8953:01:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8927:01:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8822:18:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 8799:16:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 8783:23:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8725:22:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8711:21:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8697:21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8661:06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 8601:20:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8577:22:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8554:01:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8415:05:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8398:21:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8384:21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8359:17:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 8334:01:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8310:06:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 8255:Proposals by User:Guerillero 8128:10:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 8089:21:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 8052:05:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7995:09:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 7981:21:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7967:21:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7950:17:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7905:Kudpung seeks reconciliation 7891:19:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7862:20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 7833:22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7816:21:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7796:02:20, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 7781:19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7755:21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7733:17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7673:18:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7621:22:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7606:21:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7591:21:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7568:19:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7550:19:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7535:19:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7521:19:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7494:19:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7474:18:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7455:17:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7440:14:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7376:20:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7308:17:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7293:17:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7278:16:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 7263:20:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 7226:21:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7205:20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7191:14:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7132:Administrator accountability 7124:20:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 7110:17:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 7096:18:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6743:01:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 6721:16:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6706:16:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6690:16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6675:15:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6660:14:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6639:14:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6602:16:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6554:01:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 6536:17:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 6494:23:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6471:22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6457:21:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6435:20:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6413:16:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6395:21:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 6380:19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 6363:17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 6344:14:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 6310:21:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 6292:15:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 6269:23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6246:15:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6231:13:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6212:11:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6155:20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 6134:15:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 6114:02:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6083:05:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 6020:18:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 6005:17:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5983:20:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5969:17:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5955:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5894:17:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5880:17:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5865:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5804:18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5786:17:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5768:23:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5754:12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5680:17:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 5651:16:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 5637:16:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 5600:23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5586:20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5572:20:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5544:20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5529:19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5505:18:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5490:18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5468:17:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5442:11:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5415:literally the responsibility 5401:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5327:18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 5313:23:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5299:19:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5280:19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5262:16:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5221:and what Kudpung wrote was: 5213:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5152:23:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5138:19:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5124:19:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5110:16:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5089:23:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 5070:06:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 5048:23:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 5004:Kudpung's long term behavior 4992:22:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4977:22:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4940:22:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4918:19:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4904:19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4889:18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4874:17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4860:16:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 4837:18:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4823:18:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4805:17:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4783:03:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 4769:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 4696:20:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4681:01:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4664:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 4591:00:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 4577:20:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 4561:22:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4547:18:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 4526:21:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4512:19:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4497:19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4483:18:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4465:18:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4444:16:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 4417:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 4355:16:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 4264:20:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4248:20:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4199:19:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4181:18:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4155:13:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 4130:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 4066:12:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 4051:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3983:16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 3964:12:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 3950:17:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3936:21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3900:21:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3886:21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3860:21:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3839:17:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 3822:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3764:no obligation to participate 3758:GorillaWarfare's evidence p6 3744:21:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3726:21:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3708:21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3694:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3648:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3622:GorillaWarfare's evidence p5 3598:20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3581:17:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3566:00:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3544:23:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3525:23:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3509:21:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3460:20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3441:19:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3427:19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3413:19:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3383:18:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3369:16:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 3323:02:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 3308:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 3258:GorillaWarfare's evidence p4 3226:16:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 3212:16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 3198:21:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3184:21:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3169:20:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3144:20:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3129:18:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3114:17:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3099:00:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 3084:23:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3067:23:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3053:21:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3036:19:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3022:19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 3008:18:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2994:16:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 2974:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 2924:GorillaWarfare's evidence p3 2908:11:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 2893:18:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2878:12:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 2857:00:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 2839:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 2789:GorillaWarfare's evidence p2 2779:19:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2756:is an article on the topic). 2733:20:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2676:19:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2652:18:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2637:15:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 2620:12:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 2605:02:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 2590:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 2523:GorillaWarfare's evidence p1 2505:23:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2491:19:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2476:18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2462:18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 2448:16:19, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 2389:16:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 2370:23:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2353:23:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2338:22:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2322:18:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2306:00:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2287:23:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 2207:05:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 2192:01:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 2178:23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2164:22:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2145:23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2130:22:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2108:23:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2091:22:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2076:05:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 2047:21:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2028:19:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 2009:18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1995:15:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1974:18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1959:00:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1943:18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1871:15:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1806:16:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 1792:16:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1730:15:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1712:00:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 1646:11:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1628:18:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 1613:16:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 1599:15:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1584:12:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC) 1524:18:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1502:15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1478:18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 1389:18:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1375:12:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 1361:18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 1311:01:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1291:00:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 1273:16:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC) 1259:20:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1245:18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 1231:14:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC) 1208:18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC) 1190:20:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1159:20:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1135:20:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1112:19:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1081:18:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1067:16:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC) 1021:Administrator accountability 885:Proposals by Robert McClenon 398:Conflict of interest reports 7: 9728:Proposals by User:Example 6 8687:of murder on my talk page. 7100:I fully agree with this. - 4280:Leaky caldron's evidence p3 4076:Leaky caldron's evidence p2 4001:Leaky caldron's evidence p1 3348:. It's all a bit odd really 3154:to be called GorillaWarfare 227:Search archived proceedings 10: 10810: 9354:I 100% agree with this. - 6421:spelled out in ADMINACCT: 5548:"Please don't do XYZ" is " 4879:particularly unhelpful. - 3556:is worth a read, perhaps. 2237:escalated to the point of 1098:, and admin noticeboards, 272:Arbitrator motion requests 9823:Proposed findings of fact 9386:Proposed findings of fact 8366:This is not supported by 7322:Proposed findings of fact 7213:specifically states that 6755:Proposed findings of fact 4322:See my comments above. - 1889:concerns had been allayed 1879:Chris.sherlock's evidence 1716:Whilst I sympathize with 1409:Proposed findings of fact 979:Administrator involvement 4998:Xxanthippe's evidence p4 4708:Xxanthippe's evidence p3 4670:Xxanthippe's evidence p1 4615:Xxanthippe's evidence p2 4363:Xxanthippe's evidence p1 4203:Sorry if I was unlcear. 3762:3.4.6) Kudpung is under 2718:in the future I'd prefer 1816:Rschen7754's evidence p3 1738:Rschen7754's evidence p2 1660:Rschen7754's evidence p1 868:Questions to the parties 10617:Indeed, according to 10584:Comment by Arbitrators: 10546:Comment by Arbitrators: 10380:Comment by Arbitrators: 10131:Comment by Arbitrators: 10059:Comment by Arbitrators: 10018:Comment by Arbitrators: 9972:Comment by Arbitrators: 9931:Comment by Arbitrators: 9878:Comment by Arbitrators: 9837:Comment by Arbitrators: 9788:Comment by Arbitrators: 9747:Comment by Arbitrators: 9405:Comment by Arbitrators: 9328:Comment by Arbitrators: 9220:Comment by Arbitrators: 8892:Comment by Arbitrators: 8632:Comment by Arbitrators: 8526:Comment by Arbitrators: 8475:Comment by Arbitrators: 8278:Comment by Arbitrators: 8218:Comment by Arbitrators: 8177:Comment by Arbitrators: 8020:Comment by Arbitrators: 7914:Comment by Arbitrators: 7696:Comment by Arbitrators: 7395:Comment by Arbitrators: 7340:Comment by Arbitrators: 7268:would change anything. 7146:Comment by Arbitrators: 7057:Comment by Arbitrators: 6991:Comment by Arbitrators: 6950:Comment by Arbitrators: 6904:Comment by Arbitrators: 6863:Comment by Arbitrators: 6810:Comment by Arbitrators: 6769:Comment by Arbitrators: 6176:Comment by Arbitrators: 6055:Comment by Arbitrators: 5915:Comment by Arbitrators: 5825:Comment by Arbitrators: 5816:Admonishment of Kudpung 5703:Comment by Arbitrators: 5364:Comment by Arbitrators: 5176:Comment by Arbitrators: 5011:Comment by Arbitrators: 4724:Comment by Arbitrators: 4627:Comment by Arbitrators: 4376:Comment by Arbitrators: 4296:Comment by Arbitrators: 4093:Comment by Arbitrators: 4014:Comment by Arbitrators: 3771:Comment by Arbitrators: 3654:Comment by Arbitrators: 3634:. If GorillaWarfare is 3271:Comment by Arbitrators: 2937:Comment by Arbitrators: 2802:Comment by Arbitrators: 2573:After remarks like this 2544:Comment by Arbitrators: 2481:the way Kudpung did. - 2421:because of this request 2246:Comment by Arbitrators: 1896:Comment by Arbitrators: 1830:Comment by Arbitrators: 1755:Comment by Arbitrators: 1673:Comment by Arbitrators: 1547:Comment by Arbitrators: 1441:Comment by Arbitrators: 1404:Proposals by User:Buffs 1031:Comment by Arbitrators: 989:Comment by Arbitrators: 947:Comment by Arbitrators: 905:Comment by Arbitrators: 880:Proposed final decision 836:Comment by Arbitrators: 795:Comment by Arbitrators: 754:Comment by Arbitrators: 713:Comment by Arbitrators: 664:Comment by Arbitrators: 623:Comment by Arbitrators: 582:Comment by Arbitrators: 507:Purpose of the workshop 9675:"new sheriffs in town" 5448:this NPA block warning 4056:produces no evidence. 2531:that Kudpung violated 2296:? Please give a diff. 1196:the presented evidence 1194:I'm seeing nothing in 10746:Comment by Xxanthippe 10684:Comment by others:' 9318:Administrator conduct 8885:request for adminship 8003:Kudpung is admonished 7049:I would add to this: 7036:Administrator conduct 6259:, the second is not. 6042:Administrator conduct 5772:I have to agree with 4961:Lexico, citing Oxford 937:Administrator conduct 468:Track related changes 328:Arbitration Committee 168:Knowledge Arbitration 18:Knowledge:Arbitration 10653:could be improved. 10412:User talk:GRuban/RfA 10091:Analysis of evidence 10004:Proposed enforcement 9308:Proposals by Bagumba 9185:January 2010, huh. — 8806:please stay off here 8729:13 easy finds using 8507:Kudpung and Civility 8468:Knowledge:ADMINSTATS 8250:Proposed enforcement 7683:Kudpung is Desysoped 6936:Proposed enforcement 6665:governance process. 6048:conduct expectations 5735:diversity of thought 5551:witness intimidation 3766:in ArbCom hearings. 3490:You take offense? I 3399:and the extremes of 2642:insinuating sexism. 2294:Xxanthippe's opinion 1434:Knowledge:ADMINSTATS 1214:Signpost discussion, 895:Purpose of Knowledge 277:Enforcement requests 205:Guide to arbitration 126:Drafting arbitrators 10775:that it's about to 10691:provably inaccurate 10557:Comment by parties: 10391:Comment by parties: 10189:Boing! said Zebedee 10163:Boing! said Zebedee 10142:Comment by parties: 10101:User:GorillaWarfare 10070:Comment by parties: 10029:Comment by parties: 9983:Comment by parties: 9942:Comment by parties: 9889:Comment by parties: 9848:Comment by parties: 9799:Comment by parties: 9758:Comment by parties: 9733:Proposed principles 9416:Comment by parties: 9339:Comment by parties: 9313:Proposed principles 9231:Comment by parties: 8903:Comment by parties: 8643:Comment by parties: 8537:Comment by parties: 8486:Comment by parties: 8289:Comment by parties: 8260:Proposed principles 8229:Comment by parties: 8188:Comment by parties: 8031:Comment by parties: 7925:Comment by parties: 7707:Comment by parties: 7406:Comment by parties: 7351:Comment by parties: 7333:"business as usual" 7157:Comment by parties: 7068:Comment by parties: 7031:Proposed principles 7002:Comment by parties: 6961:Comment by parties: 6915:Comment by parties: 6874:Comment by parties: 6821:Comment by parties: 6780:Comment by parties: 6187:Comment by parties: 6145:message/statement. 6066:Comment by parties: 6037:Proposed principles 5926:Comment by parties: 5870:does not change. - 5836:Comment by parties: 5714:Comment by parties: 5375:Comment by parties: 5345:Headbomb's evidence 5187:Comment by parties: 5166:Missvain's evidence 5022:Comment by parties: 4757:persecution complex 4735:Comment by parties: 4638:Comment by parties: 4387:Comment by parties: 4307:Comment by parties: 4104:Comment by parties: 4025:Comment by parties: 3782:Comment by parties: 3665:Comment by parties: 3401:left-leaning causes 3282:Comment by parties: 2948:Comment by parties: 2813:Comment by parties: 2555:Comment by parties: 2257:Comment by parties: 1907:Comment by parties: 1841:Comment by parties: 1766:Comment by parties: 1684:Comment by parties: 1558:Comment by parties: 1452:Comment by parties: 1042:Comment by parties: 1000:Comment by parties: 958:Comment by parties: 916:Comment by parties: 890:Proposed Principles 847:Comment by parties: 806:Comment by parties: 765:Comment by parties: 724:Comment by parties: 675:Comment by parties: 634:Comment by parties: 593:Comment by parties: 10595:Comment by Kudpung 10578:General discussion 10568:Comment by others: 10402:Comment by others: 10153:Comment by others: 10081:Comment by others: 10040:Comment by others: 9994:Comment by others: 9953:Comment by others: 9900:Comment by others: 9859:Comment by others: 9810:Comment by others: 9769:Comment by others: 9427:Comment by others: 9350:Comment by others: 9298:absolutely weird. 9257:Comment by others: 9204:Kudpung prohibited 8936:Comment by others: 8857:Kudpung desysopped 8670:Comment by others: 8563:Comment by others: 8497:Comment by others: 8345:Comment by others: 8240:Comment by others: 8199:Comment by others: 8149:Anti-admin brigade 8061:Comment by others: 7936:Comment by others: 7718:Comment by others: 7417:Comment by others: 7362:Comment by others: 7168:Comment by others: 7079:Comment by others: 7013:Comment by others: 6972:Comment by others: 6926:Comment by others: 6885:Comment by others: 6832:Comment by others: 6791:Comment by others: 6198:Comment by others: 6092:Comment by others: 5945:here, people! :-) 5937:Comment by others: 5855:here, people! :-) 5847:Comment by others: 5725:Comment by others: 5386:Comment by others: 5198:Comment by others: 5033:Comment by others: 4746:Comment by others: 4649:Comment by others: 4398:Comment by others: 4318:Comment by others: 4115:Comment by others: 4036:Comment by others: 3793:Comment by others: 3676:Comment by others: 3515:their tendencies. 3293:Comment by others: 3150:for GorillaWarfare 2959:Comment by others: 2824:Comment by others: 2566:Comment by others: 2268:Comment by others: 1918:Comment by others: 1852:Comment by others: 1777:Comment by others: 1695:Comment by others: 1569:Comment by others: 1463:Comment by others: 1053:Comment by others: 1011:Comment by others: 969:Comment by others: 927:Comment by others: 858:Comment by others: 817:Comment by others: 776:Comment by others: 735:Comment by others: 686:Comment by others: 645:Comment by others: 604:Comment by others: 522:/Proposed decision 299:Contentious topics 197:Arbitration policy 10788: 10448: 10221: 10110:, is very strong 9918: 9910:Proposed remedies 9706: 9572: 9089: 8852:Proposed remedies 8675:Oppose as written 8599: 8440: 8432:Proposed findings 8396: 7979: 7860: 7794: 7753: 7678:Proposed remedies 7261: 7224: 6850: 6842:Proposed remedies 6741: 6704: 6552: 6492: 6469: 6433: 6393: 6308: 6267: 6112: 5744: 4928:appeal to emotion 4781: 4341: 4328:comment added by 4254:Hope that helps. 3934: 3910: 3858: 3742: 3706: 3682:a nefarious cabal 3596: 3564: 3507: 3321: 3224: 3196: 3142: 3097: 3051: 2768: 2731: 2603: 2460: 2229:GRuban's evidence 2128: 1522: 1289: 1257: 1133: 1079: 504: 503: 471: 439: 309:General sanctions 257:All open requests 187:About arbitration 160: 149: 138: 124: 107: 99:Proposed decision 96: 85: 74: 63: 62: 10801: 10784: 10444: 10319: 10217: 9914: 9702: 9601: 9568: 9515:Oppose inclusion 9245: 9239: 9085: 8941:Support desysopp 8924: 8918: 8913: 8685: 8658: 8652: 8595: 8551: 8545: 8436: 8392: 8331: 8325: 8320: 8307: 8301: 8118:. A cheap shot. 8049: 8043: 7975: 7856: 7790: 7749: 7432: 7257: 7220: 7183: 6846: 6737: 6700: 6637: 6548: 6488: 6465: 6429: 6389: 6336: 6304: 6279: 6263: 6108: 6080: 6074: 5742: 5678: 5440: 4809:You said above, 4777: 4323: 3930: 3904: 3854: 3738: 3702: 3592: 3560: 3503: 3317: 3220: 3192: 3138: 3093: 3047: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2758: 2727: 2714:Very minor point 2599: 2456: 2124: 1518: 1348:US Supreme Court 1303: 1285: 1253: 1223: 1182: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1129: 1075: 539:personal attacks 496: 489: 482: 470: 465: 458: 437: 393:Clerk procedures 385: 343: 314:Editor sanctions 291:Active sanctions 249:Open proceedings 219: 178: 164: 163: 154: 143: 132: 118: 101: 90: 79: 68: 45: 38: 10809: 10808: 10804: 10803: 10802: 10800: 10799: 10798: 10667:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 10612:Robert McClenon 10580: 10542: 10334: 10298: 10292:, but it's not 10117:Robert McClenon 10104: 10093: 10052: 10011: 10006: 9965: 9924: 9912: 9871: 9830: 9825: 9781: 9740: 9735: 9730: 9643:needed or not.— 9599: 9579:incriminating?— 9393: 9388: 9320: 9315: 9310: 9243: 9237: 9206: 9112:Desysopping is 8922: 8916: 8907: 8859: 8854: 8808:. For example, 8679: 8656: 8650: 8622: 8549: 8543: 8509: 8446: 8434: 8329: 8323: 8314: 8305: 8299: 8267: 8265:User Talk pages 8262: 8257: 8252: 8211: 8151: 8047: 8041: 8005: 7907: 7745:be desysopped. 7685: 7680: 7430: 7386: 7384:Ongoing pattern 7329: 7324: 7181: 7134: 7038: 7033: 7025: 6984: 6943: 6938: 6897: 6856: 6844: 6803: 6762: 6757: 6647:strongly oppose 6616: 6613:WP:ADMINCONDUCT 6514:did not do so, 6334: 6273: 6165: 6078: 6072: 6044: 6039: 6034: 5908: 5818: 5696: 5657: 5556:Are you serious 5446:I'm sorry, but 5419: 5347: 5286:cannot be found 5168: 5000: 4710: 4617: 4535:directly notify 4365: 4282: 4078: 4003: 3760: 3624: 3260: 2926: 2791: 2762: 2525: 2231: 1881: 1818: 1740: 1662: 1536: 1416: 1411: 1406: 1301: 1221: 1180: 1141: 1139: 1023: 981: 939: 897: 892: 887: 882: 870: 829: 788: 747: 706: 701: 657: 616: 575: 570: 537:or engaging in 500: 466: 460: 459: 454: 444: 443: 442: 431: 414: 404: 403: 402: 389: 381: 369: 344: 339: 330: 320: 319: 318: 293: 283: 282: 281: 251: 241: 238: 223: 215: 193: 162: 50: 34: 33: 32: 12: 11: 5: 10807: 10797: 10796: 10795: 10794: 10793: 10792: 10782:GorillaWarfare 10740: 10739: 10738: 10737: 10727:Chris.sherlock 10719: 10705: 10680: 10679: 10678: 10677: 10660: 10659: 10658: 10657: 10631: 10630: 10629: 10628: 10604: 10603: 10602: 10601: 10591: 10590: 10589: 10588: 10579: 10576: 10575: 10574: 10573: 10572: 10564: 10563: 10562: 10561: 10553: 10552: 10551: 10550: 10541: 10538: 10537: 10536: 10535: 10534: 10533: 10532: 10508: 10494: 10480:John M Wolfson 10472: 10455: 10454: 10453: 10452: 10442:GorillaWarfare 10434: 10433: 10432: 10431: 10398: 10397: 10396: 10395: 10387: 10386: 10385: 10384: 10346:before a clerk 10333: 10327: 10326: 10325: 10324: 10323: 10286: 10259: 10258: 10257: 10225: 10215:GorillaWarfare 10202: 10201: 10200: 10199: 10175:Also, as for " 10173: 10149: 10148: 10147: 10146: 10138: 10137: 10136: 10135: 10103: 10097: 10092: 10089: 10088: 10087: 10086: 10085: 10077: 10076: 10075: 10074: 10066: 10065: 10064: 10063: 10051: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10045: 10044: 10036: 10035: 10034: 10033: 10025: 10024: 10023: 10022: 10010: 10007: 10005: 10002: 10001: 10000: 9999: 9998: 9990: 9989: 9988: 9987: 9979: 9978: 9977: 9976: 9964: 9961: 9960: 9959: 9958: 9957: 9949: 9948: 9947: 9946: 9938: 9937: 9936: 9935: 9923: 9920: 9911: 9908: 9907: 9906: 9905: 9904: 9896: 9895: 9894: 9893: 9885: 9884: 9883: 9882: 9870: 9867: 9866: 9865: 9864: 9863: 9855: 9854: 9853: 9852: 9844: 9843: 9842: 9841: 9829: 9826: 9824: 9821: 9819: 9817: 9816: 9815: 9814: 9806: 9805: 9804: 9803: 9795: 9794: 9793: 9792: 9780: 9777: 9776: 9775: 9774: 9773: 9765: 9764: 9763: 9762: 9754: 9753: 9752: 9751: 9739: 9736: 9734: 9731: 9729: 9726: 9725: 9724: 9723: 9722: 9721: 9720: 9719: 9718: 9717: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9710: 9700:GorillaWarfare 9630:Chris.sherlock 9625: 9624: 9623: 9610:LakesideMiners 9600:LakesideMiners 9566:GorillaWarfare 9561: 9560: 9559: 9526: 9512: 9511: 9510: 9509: 9508: 9507: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9434:Chris.sherlock 9423: 9422: 9421: 9420: 9412: 9411: 9410: 9409: 9392: 9389: 9387: 9384: 9383: 9382: 9381: 9380: 9366: 9356:Chris.sherlock 9346: 9345: 9344: 9343: 9335: 9334: 9333: 9332: 9319: 9316: 9314: 9311: 9309: 9306: 9305: 9304: 9303: 9302: 9292: 9291: 9290: 9280:Chris.sherlock 9253: 9252: 9251: 9250: 9227: 9226: 9225: 9224: 9205: 9202: 9201: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9196: 9195: 9194: 9193: 9192: 9183: 9182: 9181: 9180: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9135:Chris.sherlock 9093: 9083:GorillaWarfare 9045: 9032: 9031: 9030: 9029: 9028: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9007: 8963: 8956: 8932: 8931: 8930: 8929: 8899: 8898: 8897: 8896: 8858: 8855: 8853: 8850: 8849: 8848: 8847: 8846: 8836: 8835: 8834: 8833: 8832: 8831: 8830: 8829: 8828: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8824: 8666: 8665: 8664: 8663: 8639: 8638: 8637: 8636: 8621: 8618: 8617: 8616: 8615: 8614: 8613: 8612: 8611: 8610: 8593:GorillaWarfare 8579: 8559: 8558: 8557: 8556: 8533: 8532: 8531: 8530: 8508: 8505: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8493: 8492: 8491: 8490: 8482: 8481: 8480: 8479: 8445: 8442: 8433: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8417: 8400: 8390:GorillaWarfare 8386: 8364:EXTREME Oppose 8361: 8351:Chris.sherlock 8341: 8340: 8339: 8338: 8337: 8336: 8317:GorillaWarfare 8285: 8284: 8283: 8282: 8266: 8263: 8261: 8258: 8256: 8253: 8251: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8225: 8224: 8223: 8222: 8210: 8207: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8203: 8195: 8194: 8193: 8192: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8181: 8168: 8161: 8155: 8150: 8147: 8146: 8145: 8144: 8143: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8091: 8077: 8070: 8057: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8027: 8026: 8025: 8024: 8004: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7998: 7997: 7983: 7973:GorillaWarfare 7969: 7952: 7942:Chris.sherlock 7932: 7931: 7930: 7929: 7921: 7920: 7919: 7918: 7906: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7883:Chris.sherlock 7878: 7874: 7854:GorillaWarfare 7836: 7818: 7804: 7803: 7802: 7801: 7800: 7799: 7798: 7788:GorillaWarfare 7773:Chris.sherlock 7764:GorillaWarfare 7761: 7747:GorillaWarfare 7725:Chris.sherlock 7714: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7703: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7684: 7681: 7679: 7676: 7665:Chris.sherlock 7656:GorillaWarfare 7644: 7643: 7642: 7641: 7640: 7639: 7638: 7637: 7636: 7635: 7634: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7629: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7623: 7579: 7560:Chris.sherlock 7552: 7542:Chris.sherlock 7513:Chris.sherlock 7508: 7504: 7486:Chris.sherlock 7447:Chris.sherlock 7413: 7412: 7411: 7410: 7402: 7401: 7400: 7399: 7390: 7385: 7382: 7381: 7380: 7379: 7378: 7358: 7357: 7356: 7355: 7347: 7346: 7345: 7344: 7328: 7325: 7323: 7320: 7319: 7318: 7317: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7312: 7311: 7310: 7295: 7255:GorillaWarfare 7230: 7229: 7228: 7218:GorillaWarfare 7193: 7164: 7163: 7162: 7161: 7153: 7152: 7151: 7150: 7133: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7126: 7112: 7102:Chris.sherlock 7098: 7075: 7074: 7073: 7072: 7064: 7063: 7062: 7061: 7037: 7034: 7032: 7029: 7027: 7024: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7009: 7008: 7007: 7006: 6998: 6997: 6996: 6995: 6983: 6980: 6979: 6978: 6977: 6976: 6968: 6967: 6966: 6965: 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6942: 6939: 6937: 6934: 6933: 6932: 6931: 6930: 6922: 6921: 6920: 6919: 6911: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6896: 6893: 6892: 6891: 6890: 6889: 6881: 6880: 6879: 6878: 6870: 6869: 6868: 6867: 6855: 6852: 6843: 6840: 6839: 6838: 6837: 6836: 6828: 6827: 6826: 6825: 6817: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6802: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6796: 6795: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6784: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6773: 6761: 6758: 6756: 6753: 6752: 6751: 6750: 6749: 6748: 6747: 6746: 6745: 6735:GorillaWarfare 6723: 6698:GorillaWarfare 6694: 6693: 6692: 6643: 6642: 6641: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6577: 6576: 6575: 6574: 6573: 6572: 6571: 6570: 6569: 6568: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6562: 6561: 6560: 6559: 6558: 6557: 6556: 6546:GorillaWarfare 6523: 6522: 6521: 6505:<ADMIN: --> 6486:GorillaWarfare 6463:GorillaWarfare 6427:GorillaWarfare 6387:GorillaWarfare 6367: 6366: 6365: 6355:Chris.sherlock 6322: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6318: 6317: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6312: 6302:GorillaWarfare 6261:GorillaWarfare 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6183: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6164: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6157: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6126:Chris.sherlock 6119: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6106:GorillaWarfare 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6043: 6040: 6038: 6035: 6033: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6023: 6022: 6012:Chris.sherlock 6007: 5961:Chris.sherlock 5957: 5933: 5932: 5931: 5930: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5907: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5872:Chris.sherlock 5843: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5829: 5817: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5792:Chris.sherlock 5778:Chris.sherlock 5770: 5738: 5730: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5718: 5710: 5709: 5708: 5707: 5695: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5683: 5682: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5602: 5578:Chris.sherlock 5559: 5536:Chris.sherlock 5516: 5497:Chris.sherlock 5460:Chris.sherlock 5452: 5444: 5382: 5381: 5380: 5379: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5346: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5319:Chris.sherlock 5291:Chris.sherlock 5254:Chris.sherlock 5249: 5248: 5247: 5230: 5229: 5228: 5194: 5193: 5192: 5191: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5167: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5130:Chris.sherlock 5102:Chris.sherlock 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5029: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5015: 4999: 4996: 4995: 4994: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4910:Chris.sherlock 4881:Chris.sherlock 4852:Chris.sherlock 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4775:GorillaWarfare 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4709: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4698: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4616: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4583:Chris.sherlock 4549: 4539:Chris.sherlock 4537:Xxanthippe? - 4504:Chris.sherlock 4475:Chris.sherlock 4436:Chris.sherlock 4419: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4369:given evidence 4364: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4347:Chris.sherlock 4342: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4281: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4219: 4191:Chris.sherlock 4187: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4080:3.5.2) Anyone 4077: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4002: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3928:GorillaWarfare 3902: 3852:GorillaWarfare 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3831:Chris.sherlock 3824: 3806:other policies 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3759: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3736:GorillaWarfare 3700:GorillaWarfare 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3623: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3590:GorillaWarfare 3558:GorillaWarfare 3528: 3501:GorillaWarfare 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3452:Chris.sherlock 3419:Chris.sherlock 3385: 3361:Chris.sherlock 3352: 3351: 3350: 3329:GorillaWarfare 3315:GorillaWarfare 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3259: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3218:GorillaWarfare 3190:GorillaWarfare 3157: 3136:GorillaWarfare 3131: 3121:Chris.sherlock 3091:GorillaWarfare 3087: 3072:GorillaWarfare 3045:GorillaWarfare 3040: 3039: 3038: 3014:Chris.sherlock 2986:Chris.sherlock 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2925: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2790: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2725:GorillaWarfare 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2668:Chris.sherlock 2663:GorillaWarfare 2658: 2629:Chris.sherlock 2624: 2623: 2622: 2597:GorillaWarfare 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2524: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2483:Chris.sherlock 2454:GorillaWarfare 2440:Chris.sherlock 2435: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2407:GorillaWarfare 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2341: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2233:3.3) In 2018, 2230: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2199:Chris.sherlock 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2122:GorillaWarfare 2112: 2111: 2110: 2078: 2068:Chris.sherlock 2064: 2020:Chris.sherlock 2015: 1987:Chris.sherlock 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1880: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1863:Chris.sherlock 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1817: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1784:Chris.sherlock 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1739: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1722:Chris.sherlock 1714: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1661: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1620:Chris.sherlock 1591:Chris.sherlock 1586: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1535: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1516:GorillaWarfare 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1494:Chris.sherlock 1490:GorillaWarfare 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1415: 1412: 1410: 1407: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1283:GorillaWarfare 1251:GorillaWarfare 1127:GorillaWarfare 1092:WP:SECUREADMIN 1073:GorillaWarfare 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1022: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 996: 995: 994: 993: 980: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 965: 964: 963: 962: 954: 953: 952: 951: 938: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 923: 922: 921: 920: 912: 911: 910: 909: 896: 893: 891: 888: 886: 883: 881: 878: 877: 876: 869: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 854: 853: 852: 851: 843: 842: 841: 840: 828: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 813: 812: 811: 810: 802: 801: 800: 799: 787: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 772: 771: 770: 769: 761: 760: 759: 758: 746: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 731: 730: 729: 728: 720: 719: 718: 717: 705: 702: 700: 697: 695: 693: 692: 691: 690: 682: 681: 680: 679: 671: 670: 669: 668: 656: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 641: 640: 639: 638: 630: 629: 628: 627: 615: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 600: 599: 598: 597: 589: 588: 587: 586: 574: 571: 569: 566: 565: 564: 561: 558: 555: 546: 545: 542: 502: 501: 499: 498: 491: 484: 476: 473: 472: 462: 461: 452: 450: 449: 446: 445: 441: 440: 432: 427: 422: 416: 415: 410: 409: 406: 405: 401: 400: 395: 390: 380: 375: 370: 365: 360: 355: 350: 345: 338: 332: 331: 326: 325: 322: 321: 317: 316: 311: 306: 295: 294: 289: 288: 285: 284: 280: 279: 274: 269: 264: 259: 253: 252: 247: 246: 243: 242: 240: 239: 234: 229: 224: 214: 207: 202: 194: 189: 183: 180: 179: 171: 170: 66:Main case page 64: 61: 60: 55:and create an 48: 46: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10806: 10791: 10787: 10783: 10778: 10774: 10770: 10766: 10762: 10761: 10759: 10755: 10751: 10747: 10744: 10743: 10742: 10741: 10736: 10732: 10728: 10723: 10720: 10718: 10714: 10710: 10706: 10704: 10700: 10696: 10695:Leaky caldron 10692: 10687: 10686: 10685: 10682: 10681: 10676: 10672: 10668: 10664: 10663: 10662: 10661: 10655: 10652: 10648: 10644: 10640: 10635: 10634: 10633: 10632: 10626: 10624: 10620: 10616: 10613: 10608: 10607: 10606: 10605: 10598: 10597: 10596: 10593: 10592: 10587: 10586: 10585: 10582: 10581: 10571: 10570: 10569: 10566: 10565: 10560: 10559: 10558: 10555: 10554: 10549: 10548: 10547: 10544: 10543: 10531: 10527: 10523: 10519: 10515: 10514: 10513: 10509: 10507: 10503: 10499: 10498:Leaky caldron 10495: 10493: 10489: 10485: 10481: 10477: 10473: 10471: 10467: 10463: 10459: 10458: 10457: 10456: 10451: 10447: 10443: 10438: 10437: 10436: 10435: 10430: 10426: 10422: 10417: 10413: 10409: 10405: 10404: 10403: 10400: 10399: 10394: 10393: 10392: 10389: 10388: 10383: 10382: 10381: 10378: 10377: 10376: 10374: 10370: 10366: 10361: 10357: 10353: 10349: 10345: 10342: 10338: 10332: 10322: 10317: 10313: 10309: 10305: 10301: 10295: 10291: 10287: 10285: 10281: 10277: 10272: 10270: 10267: 10265: 10263: 10260: 10256: 10252: 10248: 10244: 10240: 10239: 10238: 10234: 10230: 10226: 10224: 10220: 10216: 10211: 10206: 10205: 10204: 10203: 10198: 10194: 10190: 10186: 10182: 10178: 10174: 10172: 10168: 10164: 10160: 10156: 10155: 10154: 10151: 10150: 10145: 10144: 10143: 10140: 10139: 10134: 10133: 10132: 10129: 10128: 10127: 10126: 10122: 10118: 10113: 10109: 10102: 10096: 10084: 10083: 10082: 10079: 10078: 10073: 10072: 10071: 10068: 10067: 10062: 10061: 10060: 10057: 10056: 10055: 10043: 10042: 10041: 10038: 10037: 10032: 10031: 10030: 10027: 10026: 10021: 10020: 10019: 10016: 10015: 10014: 9997: 9996: 9995: 9992: 9991: 9986: 9985: 9984: 9981: 9980: 9975: 9974: 9973: 9970: 9969: 9968: 9956: 9955: 9954: 9951: 9950: 9945: 9944: 9943: 9940: 9939: 9934: 9933: 9932: 9929: 9928: 9927: 9919: 9917: 9903: 9902: 9901: 9898: 9897: 9892: 9891: 9890: 9887: 9886: 9881: 9880: 9879: 9876: 9875: 9874: 9862: 9861: 9860: 9857: 9856: 9851: 9850: 9849: 9846: 9845: 9840: 9839: 9838: 9835: 9834: 9833: 9820: 9813: 9812: 9811: 9808: 9807: 9802: 9801: 9800: 9797: 9796: 9791: 9790: 9789: 9786: 9785: 9784: 9772: 9771: 9770: 9767: 9766: 9761: 9760: 9759: 9756: 9755: 9750: 9749: 9748: 9745: 9744: 9743: 9709: 9705: 9701: 9697: 9696: 9695: 9691: 9687: 9686:Leaky caldron 9683: 9680: 9676: 9671: 9670: 9668: 9664: 9660: 9656: 9655: 9654: 9650: 9646: 9641: 9640: 9639: 9635: 9631: 9626: 9622: 9619: 9617: 9616: 9611: 9608: 9607: 9606: 9603: 9602: 9595: 9592: 9591: 9590: 9586: 9582: 9577: 9576: 9575: 9571: 9567: 9562: 9558: 9554: 9550: 9546: 9542: 9541: 9540: 9536: 9532: 9527: 9525: 9520: 9516: 9513: 9503: 9499: 9495: 9491: 9490: 9489: 9485: 9481: 9477: 9476: 9475: 9471: 9467: 9463: 9460: 9459: 9458: 9454: 9450: 9445: 9444: 9443: 9439: 9435: 9430: 9429: 9428: 9425: 9424: 9419: 9418: 9417: 9414: 9413: 9408: 9407: 9406: 9403: 9402: 9401: 9400: 9398: 9379: 9375: 9371: 9367: 9365: 9361: 9357: 9353: 9352: 9351: 9348: 9347: 9342: 9341: 9340: 9337: 9336: 9331: 9330: 9329: 9326: 9325: 9324: 9301: 9296: 9293: 9289: 9285: 9281: 9277: 9276: 9275: 9271: 9267: 9263: 9260: 9259: 9258: 9255: 9254: 9249: 9246: 9240: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9229: 9228: 9223: 9222: 9221: 9218: 9217: 9216: 9215: 9211: 9191: 9188: 9184: 9176: 9172: 9168: 9164: 9160: 9159: 9158: 9154: 9150: 9149:Leaky caldron 9146: 9145: 9144: 9140: 9136: 9131: 9130: 9128: 9124: 9120: 9115: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9105: 9101: 9100:Leaky caldron 9097: 9094: 9092: 9088: 9084: 9079: 9078: 9077: 9073: 9069: 9064: 9063: 9061: 9057: 9053: 9049: 9046: 9044: 9039: 9036: 9035: 9034: 9033: 9024: 9020: 9016: 9011: 9008: 9006: 9002: 8998: 8993: 8992: 8990: 8986: 8982: 8978: 8977: 8976: 8972: 8968: 8964: 8960: 8957: 8954: 8950: 8946: 8942: 8939: 8938: 8937: 8934: 8933: 8928: 8925: 8919: 8911: 8906: 8905: 8904: 8901: 8900: 8895: 8894: 8893: 8890: 8889: 8888: 8886: 8882: 8879: 8876: 8872: 8868: 8864: 8845: 8840: 8837: 8823: 8819: 8815: 8814:Leaky caldron 8811: 8807: 8802: 8801: 8800: 8796: 8792: 8788: 8787: 8786: 8785: 8784: 8780: 8776: 8775:Leaky caldron 8772: 8769: 8766: 8763: 8760: 8757: 8754: 8751: 8748: 8745: 8742: 8739: 8736: 8732: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8722: 8718: 8714: 8713: 8712: 8708: 8704: 8703:Leaky caldron 8700: 8699: 8698: 8694: 8690: 8683: 8676: 8673: 8672: 8671: 8668: 8667: 8662: 8659: 8653: 8646: 8645: 8644: 8641: 8640: 8635: 8634: 8633: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8626: 8609: 8604: 8603: 8602: 8598: 8594: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8585:admin tools. 8583: 8580: 8578: 8574: 8570: 8566: 8565: 8564: 8561: 8560: 8555: 8552: 8546: 8540: 8539: 8538: 8535: 8534: 8529: 8528: 8527: 8524: 8523: 8522: 8520: 8517: 8515: 8513: 8500: 8499: 8498: 8495: 8494: 8489: 8488: 8487: 8484: 8483: 8478: 8477: 8476: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8469: 8465: 8461: 8458: 8455: 8451: 8441: 8439: 8425: 8421: 8418: 8416: 8412: 8408: 8404: 8401: 8399: 8395: 8391: 8387: 8385: 8381: 8377: 8373: 8369: 8365: 8362: 8360: 8356: 8352: 8348: 8347: 8346: 8343: 8342: 8335: 8332: 8326: 8318: 8313: 8312: 8311: 8308: 8302: 8296: 8292: 8291: 8290: 8287: 8286: 8281: 8280: 8279: 8276: 8275: 8274: 8272: 8243: 8242: 8241: 8238: 8237: 8232: 8231: 8230: 8227: 8226: 8221: 8220: 8219: 8216: 8215: 8214: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8197: 8196: 8191: 8190: 8189: 8186: 8185: 8180: 8179: 8178: 8175: 8174: 8173: 8169: 8166: 8159: 8138: 8134: 8133:Leaky caldron 8131: 8130: 8129: 8125: 8121: 8120:Leaky caldron 8117: 8113: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8103: 8098: 8095: 8092: 8090: 8086: 8082: 8078: 8075: 8071: 8067: 8064: 8063: 8062: 8059: 8058: 8053: 8050: 8044: 8038: 8034: 8033: 8032: 8029: 8028: 8023: 8022: 8021: 8018: 8017: 8016: 8014: 8010: 7996: 7992: 7988: 7987:Leaky caldron 7984: 7982: 7978: 7974: 7970: 7968: 7964: 7960: 7956: 7953: 7951: 7947: 7943: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7934: 7933: 7928: 7927: 7926: 7923: 7922: 7917: 7916: 7915: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7892: 7888: 7884: 7879: 7875: 7872: 7871: 7870: 7865: 7864: 7863: 7859: 7855: 7851: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7840: 7837: 7834: 7830: 7826: 7822: 7819: 7817: 7813: 7809: 7805: 7797: 7793: 7789: 7784: 7783: 7782: 7778: 7774: 7769: 7765: 7762: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7752: 7748: 7744: 7739: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7730: 7726: 7721: 7720: 7719: 7716: 7715: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7705: 7704: 7699: 7698: 7697: 7694: 7693: 7692: 7690: 7675: 7674: 7670: 7666: 7660: 7657: 7652: 7648: 7622: 7618: 7614: 7609: 7608: 7607: 7603: 7599: 7598:Leaky caldron 7594: 7593: 7592: 7588: 7584: 7580: 7577: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7565: 7561: 7557: 7553: 7551: 7547: 7543: 7538: 7537: 7536: 7532: 7528: 7527:Leaky caldron 7524: 7523: 7522: 7518: 7514: 7509: 7505: 7501: 7497: 7496: 7495: 7491: 7487: 7482: 7477: 7476: 7475: 7471: 7467: 7466:Leaky caldron 7462: 7458: 7457: 7456: 7452: 7448: 7443: 7442: 7441: 7437: 7433: 7429: 7425: 7423: 7420: 7419: 7418: 7415: 7414: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7404: 7403: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7393: 7392: 7391: 7377: 7373: 7369: 7365: 7364: 7363: 7360: 7359: 7354: 7353: 7352: 7349: 7348: 7343: 7342: 7341: 7338: 7337: 7336: 7334: 7309: 7305: 7301: 7296: 7294: 7290: 7286: 7285:Leaky caldron 7281: 7280: 7279: 7275: 7271: 7266: 7265: 7264: 7260: 7256: 7252: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7241: 7237: 7234: 7231: 7227: 7223: 7219: 7216: 7212: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7202: 7198: 7194: 7192: 7188: 7184: 7180: 7176: 7174: 7171: 7170: 7169: 7166: 7165: 7160: 7159: 7158: 7155: 7154: 7149: 7148: 7147: 7144: 7143: 7142: 7140: 7125: 7121: 7117: 7113: 7111: 7107: 7103: 7099: 7097: 7093: 7089: 7088:Leaky caldron 7086: 7082: 7081: 7080: 7077: 7076: 7071: 7070: 7069: 7066: 7065: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7055: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7048: 7045: 7028: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7011: 7010: 7005: 7004: 7003: 7000: 6999: 6994: 6993: 6992: 6989: 6988: 6987: 6975: 6974: 6973: 6970: 6969: 6964: 6963: 6962: 6959: 6958: 6953: 6952: 6951: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6929: 6928: 6927: 6924: 6923: 6918: 6917: 6916: 6913: 6912: 6907: 6906: 6905: 6902: 6901: 6900: 6888: 6887: 6886: 6883: 6882: 6877: 6876: 6875: 6872: 6871: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6851: 6849: 6835: 6834: 6833: 6830: 6829: 6824: 6823: 6822: 6819: 6818: 6813: 6812: 6811: 6808: 6807: 6806: 6794: 6793: 6792: 6789: 6788: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6778: 6777: 6772: 6771: 6770: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6744: 6740: 6736: 6731: 6730: 6729: 6724: 6722: 6718: 6714: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6703: 6699: 6695: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6672: 6668: 6667:Leaky caldron 6663: 6662: 6661: 6657: 6653: 6648: 6644: 6640: 6635: 6631: 6627: 6623: 6619: 6614: 6610: 6607: 6603: 6599: 6595: 6591: 6590: 6589: 6584: 6581: 6580: 6579: 6578: 6555: 6551: 6547: 6543: 6539: 6538: 6537: 6533: 6529: 6524: 6519: 6517: 6513: 6509: 6502: 6501: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6491: 6487: 6482: 6477: 6474: 6473: 6472: 6468: 6464: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6454: 6450: 6446: 6442: 6438: 6437: 6436: 6432: 6428: 6425: 6420: 6416: 6415: 6414: 6410: 6406: 6402: 6398: 6397: 6396: 6392: 6388: 6383: 6382: 6381: 6377: 6373: 6368: 6364: 6360: 6356: 6351: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6341: 6337: 6333: 6329: 6327: 6323: 6311: 6307: 6303: 6299: 6295: 6294: 6293: 6290: 6286: 6282: 6277: 6276:Leaky caldron 6272: 6271: 6270: 6266: 6262: 6258: 6253: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6243: 6239: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6228: 6224: 6223:Leaky caldron 6221: 6219: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6209: 6205: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6196: 6195: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6185: 6184: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6170: 6156: 6152: 6148: 6143: 6142: 6141: 6140: 6135: 6131: 6127: 6123: 6122: 6121: 6120: 6115: 6111: 6107: 6103: 6099: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6090: 6089: 6084: 6081: 6075: 6069: 6068: 6067: 6064: 6063: 6058: 6057: 6056: 6053: 6052: 6051: 6049: 6021: 6017: 6013: 6008: 6006: 6002: 5998: 5994: 5990: 5986: 5985: 5984: 5980: 5976: 5975:Leaky caldron 5972: 5971: 5970: 5966: 5962: 5958: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5944: 5940: 5939: 5938: 5935: 5934: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5924: 5923: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5895: 5891: 5887: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5877: 5873: 5868: 5867: 5866: 5862: 5858: 5854: 5850: 5849: 5848: 5845: 5844: 5839: 5838: 5837: 5834: 5833: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5805: 5801: 5797: 5793: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5783: 5779: 5775: 5771: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5757: 5756: 5755: 5751: 5747: 5739: 5736: 5731: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5723: 5722: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5712: 5711: 5706: 5705: 5704: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5681: 5676: 5672: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5648: 5644: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5626: 5622: 5620: 5617: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5569: 5565: 5560: 5557: 5553: 5552: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5541: 5537: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5517: 5513: 5508: 5507: 5506: 5502: 5498: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5487: 5483: 5479: 5475: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5465: 5461: 5457: 5453: 5449: 5445: 5443: 5438: 5434: 5430: 5426: 5422: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5404: 5403: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5384: 5383: 5378: 5377: 5376: 5373: 5372: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5362: 5358: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5328: 5324: 5320: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5310: 5306: 5302: 5301: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5287: 5283: 5282: 5281: 5277: 5273: 5268: 5265: 5264: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5250: 5246: 5243: 5242: 5240: 5239:Talk:Evel Pie 5236: 5231: 5227: 5223: 5222: 5220: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5210: 5206: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5196: 5195: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5185: 5184: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5153: 5149: 5145: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5135: 5131: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5090: 5086: 5082: 5078: 5077: 5074: 5073: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5054: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5031: 5030: 5025: 5024: 5023: 5020: 5019: 5014: 5013: 5012: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5005: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4941: 4937: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4920: 4919: 4915: 4911: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4901: 4897: 4892: 4891: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4857: 4853: 4849: 4846: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4753: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4744: 4743: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4733: 4732: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4715: 4697: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4684: 4682: 4678: 4674: 4671: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4647: 4646: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4636: 4635: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4592: 4588: 4584: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4565: 4564: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4536: 4532: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4509: 4505: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4454: 4450: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4420: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4406: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4396: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4385: 4384: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4374: 4373: 4372: 4370: 4356: 4352: 4348: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4316: 4315: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4305: 4304: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4287: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4224: 4220: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4204: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4188: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4147:Leaky caldron 4145: 4141: 4136: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4102: 4101: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4087: 4083: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4058:Leaky caldron 4054: 4053: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4034: 4033: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4023: 4022: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4012: 4011: 4010: 4008: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3971: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3956:Leaky caldron 3953: 3952: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3916: 3915: 3908: 3907:edit conflict 3903: 3901: 3897: 3893: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3825: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3800:. Nothing in 3799: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3791: 3790: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3780: 3779: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3765: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3674: 3673: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3663: 3662: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3552: 3549:parts of the 3547: 3546: 3545: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3448: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3394: 3392: 3386: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3349: 3346: 3343: 3340: 3337: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3280: 3279: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3265: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3132: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2991: 2987: 2982: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2931: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2900:Leaky caldron 2896: 2895: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2870:Leaky caldron 2867: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2822: 2821: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2811: 2810: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2796: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2757: 2755: 2751: 2746: 2742: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2685: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2664: 2659: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612:Leaky caldron 2608: 2607: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2563: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2553: 2552: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2538: 2537:not excusable 2534: 2530: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2436: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2424: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2408: 2404: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2373: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2310: 2309: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2266: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2240: 2236: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2083:Leaky caldron 2079: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2061:false dilemma 2058: 2054: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2016: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1962: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1930: 1926: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1890: 1886: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1843: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1823: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1775: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1749: 1745: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1682: 1681: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1667: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1638:Leaky caldron 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1587: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1567: 1566: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1556: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1541: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1461: 1460: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1449: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1435: 1431: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1401: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1367:Leaky caldron 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1277:Well perhaps 1276: 1275: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1172: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1051: 1050: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 997: 992: 991: 990: 987: 986: 985: 972: 971: 970: 967: 966: 961: 960: 959: 956: 955: 950: 949: 948: 945: 944: 943: 930: 929: 928: 925: 924: 919: 918: 917: 914: 913: 908: 907: 906: 903: 902: 901: 875: 872: 871: 861: 860: 859: 856: 855: 850: 849: 848: 845: 844: 839: 838: 837: 834: 833: 832: 820: 819: 818: 815: 814: 809: 808: 807: 804: 803: 798: 797: 796: 793: 792: 791: 779: 778: 777: 774: 773: 768: 767: 766: 763: 762: 757: 756: 755: 752: 751: 750: 738: 737: 736: 733: 732: 727: 726: 725: 722: 721: 716: 715: 714: 711: 710: 709: 696: 689: 688: 687: 684: 683: 678: 677: 676: 673: 672: 667: 666: 665: 662: 661: 660: 648: 647: 646: 643: 642: 637: 636: 635: 632: 631: 626: 625: 624: 621: 620: 619: 607: 606: 605: 602: 601: 596: 595: 594: 591: 590: 585: 584: 583: 580: 579: 578: 562: 559: 556: 553: 552: 551: 550: 543: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 529: 525: 523: 519: 515: 509: 508: 497: 492: 490: 485: 483: 478: 477: 475: 474: 469: 464: 463: 448: 447: 436: 433: 430: 426: 423: 421: 418: 417: 413: 408: 407: 399: 396: 394: 391: 388: 384: 379: 376: 374: 371: 368: 364: 361: 359: 356: 354: 351: 349: 346: 342: 337: 334: 333: 329: 324: 323: 315: 312: 310: 307: 304: 300: 297: 296: 292: 287: 286: 278: 275: 273: 270: 268: 265: 263: 262:Case requests 260: 258: 255: 254: 250: 245: 244: 237: 233: 230: 228: 225: 222: 218: 213: 211: 208: 206: 203: 201: 198: 195: 192: 188: 185: 184: 182: 181: 177: 173: 172: 169: 166: 165: 161: 158: 153: 147: 142: 136: 131: 127: 122: 117: 113: 109: 105: 100: 94: 89: 83: 78: 72: 67: 58: 54: 47: 44: 40: 39: 31: 27: 23: 19: 10776: 10773:notification 10768: 10764: 10745: 10690: 10683: 10650: 10642: 10639:The Signpost 10638: 10622: 10594: 10583: 10567: 10556: 10545: 10415: 10401: 10390: 10379: 10360:User:Kudpung 10336:The evidence 10335: 10293: 10289: 10242: 10209: 10176: 10158: 10152: 10141: 10130: 10105: 10094: 10080: 10069: 10058: 10053: 10039: 10028: 10017: 10012: 9993: 9982: 9971: 9966: 9952: 9941: 9930: 9925: 9915: 9913: 9899: 9888: 9877: 9872: 9858: 9847: 9836: 9831: 9818: 9809: 9798: 9787: 9782: 9768: 9757: 9746: 9741: 9678: 9674: 9614: 9598: 9523: 9518: 9514: 9461: 9426: 9415: 9404: 9396: 9394: 9349: 9338: 9327: 9321: 9294: 9261: 9256: 9230: 9219: 9207: 9162: 9113: 9047: 9037: 8958: 8940: 8935: 8902: 8891: 8877: 8860: 8838: 8809: 8805: 8734: 8730: 8674: 8669: 8642: 8631: 8623: 8581: 8562: 8536: 8525: 8510: 8496: 8485: 8474: 8456: 8447: 8437: 8435: 8419: 8363: 8344: 8288: 8277: 8268: 8239: 8228: 8217: 8212: 8198: 8187: 8176: 8170: 8164: 8157: 8152: 8115: 8101: 8096: 8093: 8065: 8060: 8030: 8019: 8013:WP:ADMINCOND 8009:WP:ADMINACCT 8006: 7954: 7935: 7924: 7913: 7908: 7849: 7838: 7820: 7767: 7742: 7737: 7717: 7706: 7695: 7686: 7661: 7653: 7649: 7645: 7499: 7480: 7427: 7416: 7405: 7394: 7387: 7361: 7350: 7339: 7332: 7330: 7250: 7239: 7235: 7232: 7214: 7211:WP:ADMINACCT 7178: 7167: 7156: 7145: 7139:WP:ADMINCOND 7135: 7085:WP:ADMINACCT 7078: 7067: 7056: 7050: 7043: 7041: 7039: 7026: 7012: 7001: 6990: 6985: 6971: 6960: 6949: 6944: 6925: 6914: 6903: 6898: 6884: 6873: 6862: 6857: 6847: 6845: 6831: 6820: 6809: 6804: 6790: 6779: 6768: 6763: 6646: 6608: 6582: 6541: 6515: 6511: 6507: 6504: 6480: 6422: 6418: 6401:WP:ADMINACCT 6331: 6298:WP:ADMINACCT 6280: 6257:WP:ADMINACCT 6251: 6197: 6186: 6175: 6169:WP:ADMINACCT 6166: 6101: 6097: 6091: 6065: 6054: 6045: 5936: 5925: 5914: 5909: 5846: 5835: 5824: 5819: 5774:FeydHuxtable 5746:FeydHuxtable 5724: 5713: 5702: 5697: 5549: 5511: 5414: 5411:The Signpost 5410: 5407:The Signpost 5406: 5385: 5374: 5363: 5348: 5285: 5244: 5224: 5197: 5186: 5175: 5169: 5057: 5032: 5021: 5010: 5001: 4969:Newimpartial 4958: 4894:assessment. 4810: 4792: 4788: 4751: 4745: 4734: 4723: 4714:this section 4711: 4669: 4648: 4637: 4626: 4618: 4534: 4427: 4397: 4386: 4375: 4366: 4324:— Preceding 4317: 4306: 4295: 4283: 4236:WP:ADMINCOND 4223:WP:ADMINCOND 4165:WP:ADMINCOND 4161:WP:ADMINCOND 4143: 4140:WP:ADMINCOND 4114: 4103: 4092: 4079: 4035: 4024: 4013: 4004: 3969: 3923: 3920:ad infinitum 3919: 3914:Arthur Rubin 3912: 3874:WP:ADMINCOND 3826: 3802:WP:ADMINCOND 3792: 3781: 3770: 3761: 3732:ad infinitum 3731: 3714:WP:ADMINCOND 3675: 3664: 3653: 3636:WP:FOLLOWING 3625: 3585: 3531: 3513: 3495: 3491: 3446: 3390: 3389:as such, it 3347: 3341: 3335: 3292: 3281: 3270: 3261: 2980: 2958: 2947: 2936: 2927: 2863:incompetence 2862: 2845: 2823: 2812: 2801: 2792: 2747: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2682: 2565: 2554: 2543: 2536: 2526: 2426: 2420: 2412: 2357: 2293: 2267: 2256: 2245: 2232: 2056: 1922: 1917: 1906: 1895: 1882: 1851: 1840: 1829: 1819: 1776: 1765: 1754: 1741: 1700: 1694: 1683: 1672: 1663: 1633: 1576:FeydHuxtable 1568: 1557: 1546: 1540:WP:ADMINACCT 1537: 1462: 1451: 1440: 1426: 1417: 1399: 1298: 1279:SandyGeorgia 1218: 1177: 1170: 1168: 1165:WP:ADMINCOND 1145: 1123:WP:ADMINACCT 1117: 1088:WP:OMGWTFBBQ 1052: 1041: 1030: 1024: 1010: 999: 988: 982: 968: 957: 946: 940: 926: 915: 904: 898: 873: 857: 846: 835: 830: 816: 805: 794: 789: 775: 764: 753: 748: 734: 723: 712: 707: 694: 685: 674: 663: 658: 644: 633: 622: 617: 603: 592: 581: 576: 548: 547: 527: 526: 510: 506: 505: 125: 111: 110: 108: 87: 57:edit request 10358:for RfA by 10352:User:GRuban 10341:User:GRuban 10331:User:GRuban 10294:prima facie 10112:prima facie 8735:"post here" 7366:Too vague. 7047:Knowledge." 6592:Well said! 3968:No, that's 3630:has merit. 232:Ban appeals 210:Noticeboard 10750:Xxanthippe 10645:', while, 10365:Xxanthippe 10288:It may be 9659:Xxanthippe 9244:Parlez Moi 9238:Guerillero 9119:Xxanthippe 9052:Xxanthippe 9010:Guerillero 8981:Xxanthippe 8945:Xxanthippe 8923:Parlez Moi 8917:Guerillero 8731:"stay off" 8682:Guerillero 8657:Parlez Moi 8651:Guerillero 8550:Parlez Moi 8544:Guerillero 8330:Parlez Moi 8324:Guerillero 8306:Parlez Moi 8300:Guerillero 8048:Parlez Moi 8042:Guerillero 7825:Xxanthippe 6512:repeatedly 6283:There was 6252:reasonably 6079:Parlez Moi 6073:Guerillero 5515:situation. 5355:Addendum: 5081:Xxanthippe 5062:Xxanthippe 4673:Xxanthippe 4553:Xxanthippe 4471:Xxanthippe 4428:perception 3551:manosphere 3076:Xxanthippe 2362:Xxanthippe 2330:Xxanthippe 2298:Xxanthippe 1951:Xxanthippe 1887:that such 1748:WP:UNCIVIL 1718:Rschen7754 1468:behavior. 1171:respectful 1163:How about 1100:WP:ANYUSER 438:(pre-2016) 425:Statistics 358:Procedures 112:Case clerk 10647:Cullen328 10619:Jehochman 10516:LOL! Ok, 10356:nominated 10348:suggested 6713:Ymblanter 6682:Ymblanter 6652:Ymblanter 6441:WP:BEBOLD 6289:FlyingAce 6285:this case 6238:Ymblanter 6204:Ymblanter 5512:requested 4171:applies. 2438:point. - 514:/Evidence 363:Elections 116:CodeLyoko 10777:actually 10765:engaging 10651:position 10540:Template 10488:contribs 10300:Headbomb 10290:evidence 10050:Template 10009:Template 9963:Template 9922:Template 9869:Template 9828:Template 9779:Template 9738:Template 8881:contribs 8460:contribs 8209:Template 7507:ethical. 7233:Disagree 7209:Not so. 6982:Template 6941:Template 6895:Template 6854:Template 6801:Template 6760:Template 6618:Headbomb 6583:Disagree 6506:has had 6102:RHaworth 5790:Concur, 5659:Headbomb 5478:WP:CIVIL 5474:Headbomb 5421:Headbomb 5235:Missvain 5058:Signpost 4793:EMPHASIS 4338:contribs 4326:unsigned 4290:WP:CIVIL 4186:clarify? 3397:feminism 3357:Missvain 3345:misandry 2535:. While 2428:efforts. 1430:contribs 1212:In this 1096:WP:WHEEL 827:Template 786:Template 745:Template 704:Template 655:Template 614:Template 573:Template 141:Casliber 88:Workshop 77:Evidence 28:‎ | 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 10722:Kudpung 10518:Lourdes 10276:Bagumba 9698:Agree. 9645:Bagumba 9594:Bagumba 9581:Bagumba 9549:Bagumba 9466:Bagumba 9187:Cryptic 9048:Comment 8871:Kudpung 8464:in 2011 8450:Kudpung 8444:Kudpung 8407:Bagumba 8372:WP:USER 8112:Lourdes 8074:WP:USER 7821:Support 7431:Georgia 7182:Georgia 6609:Support 6350:Kudpung 6335:Georgia 6098:Portals 5456:WP:AN/I 4432:Kudpung 4216:WP:USER 4208:WP:USER 4169:WP:USER 4135:WP:USER 4086:WP:USER 3970:exactly 3626:3.4.5) 3262:3.4.4) 3152:to ask 2928:3.4.3) 2578:uncivil 2527:3.4.1) 2239:uncivil 1858:Kudpung 1820:3.1.3) 1742:3.1.2) 1664:3.1.1) 1420:Kudpung 1302:Georgia 1222:Georgia 1181:Georgia 535:incivil 435:Reports 373:History 353:Members 348:Contact 336:Discuss 200:(CU/OS) 130:Joe Roe 30:Kudpung 10786:(talk) 10446:(talk) 10421:GRuban 10243:single 10219:(talk) 10185:WP:ABF 10181:WP:AGF 9704:(talk) 9570:(talk) 9519:except 9295:Oppose 9262:Oppose 9214:WP:ANI 9087:(talk) 9038:Oppose 8959:Oppose 8839:Oppose 8733:& 8597:(talk) 8582:Oppose 8420:Oppose 8394:(talk) 8094:Oppose 8066:Oppose 8011:& 7977:(talk) 7955:Oppose 7858:(talk) 7839:Oppose 7792:(talk) 7751:(talk) 7743:should 7689:WP:RFA 7300:isaacl 7259:(talk) 7222:(talk) 6739:(talk) 6702:(talk) 6550:(talk) 6490:(talk) 6476:Isaacl 6467:(talk) 6445:WP:RFC 6431:(talk) 6391:(talk) 6306:(talk) 6265:(talk) 6110:(talk) 5993:WP:ANI 5943:WP:AGF 5853:WP:AGF 5623:, and 4924:impugn 4815:isaacl 4779:(talk) 4752:you're 4405:WP:TPO 4228:WP:ANI 4212:WP:OWN 3932:(talk) 3924:at all 3870:WP:ANI 3856:(talk) 3740:(talk) 3704:(talk) 3594:(talk) 3562:(talk) 3505:(talk) 3496:asking 3319:(talk) 3222:(talk) 3194:(talk) 3161:GRuban 3140:(talk) 3095:(talk) 3049:(talk) 2771:GRuban 2729:(talk) 2716:, but 2684:users. 2601:(talk) 2458:(talk) 2184:isaacl 2156:isaacl 2126:(talk) 2035:impugn 1520:(talk) 1287:(talk) 1255:(talk) 1151:GRuban 1131:(talk) 1104:GRuban 1077:(talk) 1059:GRuban 378:Clerks 236:Report 150:& 139:& 10769:meant 10709:Buffs 10522:Buffs 10462:Buffs 10274:too.— 10247:Buffs 10229:Buffs 9531:Buffs 9494:Buffs 9480:Buffs 9449:Buffs 9370:Buffs 9266:Buffs 9210:WP:AN 9167:Buffs 9068:Buffs 9015:Buffs 8997:Buffs 8967:Buffs 8910:Buffs 8791:Buffs 8717:Buffs 8689:Buffs 8569:Buffs 8403:WP:TE 8376:Buffs 8368:WP:TE 8295:WP:TE 8293:From 8081:Buffs 7959:Buffs 7808:Buffs 7613:Buffs 7583:Buffs 7461:Chris 7428:Sandy 7368:Buffs 7270:Buffs 7197:Buffs 7179:Sandy 7116:Buffs 6594:Buffs 6528:Buffs 6449:Buffs 6405:Buffs 6372:Buffs 6332:Sandy 6147:Buffs 5997:Buffs 5989:WP:AN 5947:Buffs 5886:Buffs 5857:Buffs 5796:Buffs 5760:Buffs 5643:Buffs 5592:Buffs 5564:Buffs 5521:Buffs 5482:Buffs 5393:Buffs 5305:Buffs 5272:Buffs 5205:Buffs 5144:Buffs 5116:Buffs 5040:Buffs 4984:Buffs 4932:Buffs 4922:No, " 4896:Buffs 4866:Buffs 4848:Buffs 4829:Buffs 4797:Buffs 4789:WOMAN 4761:Buffs 4688:Buffs 4656:Buffs 4569:Buffs 4531:Buffs 4518:Buffs 4489:Buffs 4457:Buffs 4424:WP:AN 4409:Buffs 4330:Buffs 4256:Buffs 4240:Buffs 4232:WP:AN 4173:Buffs 4122:Buffs 4043:Buffs 3975:Buffs 3942:Buffs 3892:Buffs 3878:Buffs 3866:WP:AN 3814:Buffs 3718:Buffs 3686:Buffs 3640:Buffs 3573:Buffs 3536:Buffs 3517:Buffs 3492:asked 3433:Buffs 3405:Buffs 3375:Buffs 3339:proud 3300:Buffs 3204:Buffs 3176:Buffs 3106:Buffs 3059:Buffs 3028:Buffs 3000:Buffs 2966:Buffs 2885:Buffs 2831:Buffs 2644:Buffs 2582:Buffs 2497:Buffs 2468:Buffs 2381:Buffs 2358:Which 2345:Buffs 2314:Buffs 2279:Buffs 2170:Buffs 2137:Buffs 2100:Buffs 2039:Buffs 2001:Buffs 1966:Buffs 1935:Buffs 1925:Buffs 1883:3.2) 1798:Buffs 1605:Buffs 1470:Buffs 1381:Buffs 1353:Buffs 1299:Sandy 1265:Buffs 1237:Buffs 1219:Sandy 1200:Buffs 1178:Sandy 1102:. -- 412:Audit 152:SoWhy 16:< 10754:talk 10731:talk 10713:talk 10699:talk 10671:talk 10526:talk 10502:talk 10484:talk 10476:said 10466:talk 10425:talk 10416:both 10369:talk 10354:was 10280:talk 10251:talk 10233:talk 10193:talk 10183:and 10167:talk 10121:talk 9690:talk 9663:talk 9649:talk 9634:talk 9615:xeno 9585:talk 9553:talk 9535:talk 9498:talk 9484:talk 9470:talk 9453:talk 9438:talk 9374:talk 9360:talk 9284:talk 9270:talk 9171:talk 9153:talk 9139:talk 9123:talk 9104:talk 9072:talk 9056:talk 9019:talk 9001:talk 8985:talk 8971:talk 8949:talk 8875:talk 8865:and 8818:talk 8795:talk 8779:talk 8758:x2, 8721:talk 8707:talk 8693:talk 8573:talk 8454:talk 8411:talk 8380:talk 8355:talk 8124:talk 8085:talk 8035:Per 7991:talk 7963:talk 7946:talk 7887:talk 7829:talk 7812:talk 7777:talk 7729:talk 7669:talk 7617:talk 7602:talk 7587:talk 7564:talk 7558:. - 7556:here 7546:talk 7531:talk 7517:talk 7490:talk 7481:does 7470:talk 7451:talk 7436:Talk 7372:talk 7304:talk 7289:talk 7274:talk 7201:talk 7187:Talk 7120:talk 7106:talk 7092:talk 6717:talk 6686:talk 6671:talk 6656:talk 6598:talk 6542:only 6532:talk 6453:talk 6409:talk 6376:talk 6359:talk 6340:Talk 6242:talk 6227:talk 6208:talk 6151:talk 6130:talk 6100:and 6016:talk 6001:talk 5979:talk 5965:talk 5951:talk 5890:talk 5876:talk 5861:talk 5800:talk 5782:talk 5764:talk 5750:talk 5647:talk 5633:talk 5596:talk 5582:talk 5568:talk 5540:talk 5525:talk 5501:talk 5486:talk 5464:talk 5397:talk 5323:talk 5309:talk 5295:talk 5276:talk 5258:talk 5209:talk 5148:talk 5134:talk 5120:talk 5106:talk 5085:talk 5066:talk 5044:talk 4988:talk 4973:talk 4936:talk 4914:talk 4900:talk 4885:talk 4870:talk 4856:talk 4833:talk 4819:talk 4801:talk 4765:talk 4692:talk 4677:talk 4660:talk 4587:talk 4573:talk 4557:talk 4543:talk 4522:talk 4508:talk 4493:talk 4479:talk 4461:talk 4440:talk 4413:talk 4351:talk 4334:talk 4260:talk 4244:talk 4195:talk 4177:talk 4151:talk 4126:talk 4062:talk 4047:talk 3979:talk 3960:talk 3946:talk 3896:talk 3882:talk 3835:talk 3818:talk 3722:talk 3690:talk 3644:talk 3577:talk 3540:talk 3521:talk 3456:talk 3437:talk 3423:talk 3409:talk 3391:does 3379:talk 3365:talk 3304:talk 3208:talk 3180:talk 3165:talk 3125:talk 3110:talk 3080:talk 3063:talk 3032:talk 3018:talk 3004:talk 2990:talk 2970:talk 2904:talk 2889:talk 2874:talk 2853:7754 2850:chen 2835:talk 2775:talk 2754:here 2750:here 2745:here 2672:talk 2648:talk 2633:talk 2616:talk 2586:talk 2501:talk 2487:talk 2472:talk 2444:talk 2385:talk 2366:talk 2349:talk 2334:talk 2318:talk 2302:talk 2283:talk 2203:talk 2188:talk 2174:talk 2160:talk 2141:talk 2104:talk 2087:talk 2072:talk 2043:talk 2024:talk 2005:talk 1991:talk 1970:talk 1955:talk 1939:talk 1929:talk 1867:talk 1802:talk 1788:talk 1726:talk 1708:7754 1705:chen 1642:talk 1624:talk 1609:talk 1595:talk 1580:talk 1498:talk 1474:talk 1424:talk 1385:talk 1371:talk 1357:talk 1346:the 1307:Talk 1269:talk 1241:talk 1227:Talk 1204:talk 1186:Talk 1155:talk 1149:. -- 1146:Done 1108:talk 1063:talk 831:4) 790:3) 749:2) 708:1) 659:3) 618:2) 577:1) 518:sign 429:Talk 420:Talk 387:Talk 367:Talk 221:Talk 191:Talk 157:Talk 146:Talk 135:Talk 121:Talk 104:Talk 93:Talk 82:Talk 71:Talk 53:here 26:Case 10375:. 10339:of 10210:not 10157:Re: 9212:or 9114:not 8470:) 8448:1) 7850:for 7768:was 7438:) 7189:) 6481:has 6417:It 6342:) 5991:or 5629:Bri 4230:or 3804:or 2981:one 2057:you 1436:) 1418:1) 1309:) 1229:) 1188:) 303:Log 10760:. 10756:) 10733:) 10715:) 10701:) 10673:) 10621:, 10528:) 10504:) 10490:) 10486:• 10468:) 10427:) 10371:) 10314:· 10310:· 10306:· 10282:) 10253:) 10235:) 10195:) 10187:? 10169:) 10123:) 9692:) 9669:. 9665:) 9651:) 9636:) 9587:) 9555:) 9547:.— 9537:) 9500:) 9486:) 9472:) 9455:) 9440:) 9376:) 9362:) 9286:) 9272:) 9241:| 9173:) 9155:) 9141:) 9129:. 9125:) 9106:) 9098:. 9074:) 9062:. 9058:) 9021:) 9003:) 8991:. 8987:) 8973:) 8951:) 8920:| 8887:. 8869:, 8820:) 8797:) 8781:) 8773:. 8755:, 8752:, 8749:, 8746:, 8743:, 8740:, 8723:) 8709:) 8695:) 8654:| 8648:-- 8627:) 8575:) 8547:| 8521:) 8413:) 8382:) 8357:) 8327:| 8303:| 8297:-- 8126:) 8104:. 8087:) 8045:| 7993:) 7965:) 7948:) 7889:) 7831:) 7814:) 7779:) 7731:) 7691:. 7671:) 7619:) 7604:) 7589:) 7566:) 7548:) 7533:) 7519:) 7500:he 7492:) 7472:) 7453:) 7374:) 7306:) 7291:) 7276:) 7203:) 7122:) 7108:) 7094:) 6719:) 6688:) 6673:) 6658:) 6632:· 6628:· 6624:· 6600:) 6534:) 6455:) 6443:, 6419:is 6411:) 6378:) 6361:) 6300:. 6244:) 6229:) 6210:) 6153:) 6132:) 6076:| 6018:) 6003:) 5981:) 5967:) 5953:) 5892:) 5878:) 5863:) 5802:) 5784:) 5766:) 5752:) 5673:· 5669:· 5665:· 5649:) 5635:) 5598:) 5584:) 5570:) 5542:) 5527:) 5503:) 5488:) 5466:) 5435:· 5431:· 5427:· 5399:) 5325:) 5311:) 5297:) 5278:) 5260:) 5211:) 5150:) 5136:) 5122:) 5108:) 5087:) 5072:. 5068:) 5046:) 4990:) 4975:) 4967:. 4938:) 4916:) 4902:) 4887:) 4872:) 4858:) 4835:) 4821:) 4803:) 4767:) 4694:) 4683:. 4679:) 4662:) 4589:) 4575:) 4563:. 4559:) 4545:) 4524:) 4510:) 4495:) 4481:) 4463:) 4442:) 4415:) 4353:) 4340:) 4336:• 4262:) 4246:) 4210:. 4197:) 4179:) 4153:) 4142:- 4128:) 4064:) 4049:) 4009:. 3981:) 3962:) 3948:) 3898:) 3884:) 3837:) 3820:) 3734:. 3724:) 3692:) 3646:) 3579:) 3542:) 3523:) 3458:) 3439:) 3425:) 3411:) 3381:) 3367:) 3306:) 3210:) 3182:) 3167:) 3127:) 3112:) 3082:) 3065:) 3034:) 3020:) 3006:) 2992:) 2972:) 2906:) 2891:) 2876:) 2847:Rs 2844:-- 2837:) 2797:" 2777:) 2769:-- 2674:) 2650:) 2635:) 2618:) 2588:) 2503:) 2489:) 2474:) 2446:) 2387:) 2372:. 2368:) 2351:) 2336:) 2320:) 2308:. 2304:) 2285:) 2205:) 2190:) 2176:) 2162:) 2143:) 2117:, 2106:) 2089:) 2074:) 2045:) 2026:) 2007:) 1993:) 1972:) 1961:. 1957:) 1941:) 1869:) 1804:) 1790:) 1728:) 1702:Rs 1644:) 1626:) 1611:) 1597:) 1582:) 1500:) 1476:) 1387:) 1373:) 1359:) 1271:) 1243:) 1206:) 1167:, 1157:) 1110:) 1065:) 128:: 114:: 97:— 86:— 75:— 10752:( 10729:( 10711:( 10697:( 10669:( 10656:. 10524:( 10500:( 10482:( 10464:( 10423:( 10367:( 10318:} 10316:b 10312:p 10308:c 10304:t 10302:{ 10278:( 10249:( 10231:( 10191:( 10165:( 10119:( 9688:( 9661:( 9647:( 9632:( 9583:( 9551:( 9533:( 9496:( 9482:( 9468:( 9451:( 9436:( 9372:( 9358:( 9282:( 9268:( 9169:( 9161:" 9151:( 9137:( 9121:( 9102:( 9070:( 9054:( 9017:( 8999:( 8983:( 8969:( 8955:. 8947:( 8912:: 8908:@ 8878:· 8873:( 8816:( 8793:( 8777:( 8770:, 8767:, 8764:, 8761:, 8719:( 8705:( 8691:( 8684:: 8680:@ 8571:( 8457:· 8452:( 8409:( 8378:( 8353:( 8319:: 8315:@ 8122:( 8110:@ 8083:( 7989:( 7961:( 7944:( 7885:( 7835:. 7827:( 7810:( 7775:( 7727:( 7667:( 7615:( 7600:( 7585:( 7562:( 7544:( 7529:( 7515:( 7488:( 7468:( 7449:( 7434:( 7370:( 7302:( 7287:( 7272:( 7199:( 7185:( 7137:( 7118:( 7104:( 7090:( 6715:( 6684:( 6669:( 6654:( 6636:} 6634:b 6630:p 6626:c 6622:t 6620:{ 6596:( 6530:( 6520:" 6503:" 6451:( 6407:( 6374:( 6357:( 6338:( 6278:: 6274:@ 6240:( 6225:( 6206:( 6149:( 6128:( 6014:( 5999:( 5977:( 5963:( 5949:( 5888:( 5874:( 5859:( 5798:( 5780:( 5762:( 5748:( 5677:} 5675:b 5671:p 5667:c 5663:t 5661:{ 5645:( 5631:( 5594:( 5580:( 5566:( 5538:( 5523:( 5499:( 5484:( 5462:( 5439:} 5437:b 5433:p 5429:c 5425:t 5423:{ 5395:( 5321:( 5307:( 5293:( 5274:( 5256:( 5207:( 5146:( 5132:( 5118:( 5104:( 5091:. 5083:( 5064:( 5042:( 4986:( 4971:( 4934:( 4912:( 4898:( 4883:( 4868:( 4854:( 4831:( 4817:( 4799:( 4763:( 4690:( 4675:( 4658:( 4585:( 4571:( 4555:( 4541:( 4520:( 4506:( 4491:( 4477:( 4459:( 4438:( 4411:( 4349:( 4332:( 4258:( 4242:( 4193:( 4175:( 4149:( 4124:( 4060:( 4045:( 3977:( 3958:( 3944:( 3909:) 3905:( 3894:( 3880:( 3868:/ 3833:( 3816:( 3720:( 3688:( 3642:( 3575:( 3538:( 3519:( 3454:( 3435:( 3421:( 3407:( 3377:( 3363:( 3302:( 3206:( 3178:( 3163:( 3156:. 3123:( 3108:( 3086:. 3078:( 3061:( 3030:( 3016:( 3002:( 2988:( 2968:( 2902:( 2887:( 2872:( 2833:( 2773:( 2767:) 2670:( 2646:( 2631:( 2614:( 2584:( 2499:( 2485:( 2470:( 2442:( 2383:( 2364:( 2347:( 2340:. 2332:( 2316:( 2300:( 2281:( 2201:( 2186:( 2172:( 2158:( 2139:( 2102:( 2085:( 2070:( 2041:( 2022:( 2003:( 1989:( 1968:( 1953:( 1937:( 1927:( 1865:( 1800:( 1786:( 1724:( 1640:( 1622:( 1607:( 1593:( 1578:( 1496:( 1472:( 1427:· 1422:( 1383:( 1369:( 1355:( 1305:( 1267:( 1239:( 1225:( 1202:( 1184:( 1153:( 1106:( 1061:( 495:e 488:t 481:v 383:+ 341:+ 305:) 301:( 217:+ 159:) 155:( 148:) 144:( 137:) 133:( 123:) 119:( 106:) 102:( 95:) 91:( 84:) 80:( 73:) 69:( 59:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Workshop - Knowledge

Index