Knowledge talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision

1507:: I would be hesitant to restrict the committee from ever considering evidence outside that which is presented on the evidence and workshop page, though I understand your concern that the noticeboard links might not have been subject to scrutiny and discussion in the earlier phases. However, to prohibit inclusion of the links (and possible passing a somewhat misleading finding) merely because they weren't put onto the evidence page would be to allow the triumph of form over substance. There are potentials for cases where participants - for whatever reason - do not submit evidence (or enough evidence) to craft a fair decision, and the committee would be required to source it themselves. One thing that was suggested, and that may have allayed your concern would have been to post the proposed decision to the workshop for community comments prior to putting it onto the PD page. We did have a few days until our "new target" PD date. Alas. We are here now. It seems the objection over the noticeboard threads was not expected, given they were present on the ARC page, and for other reasons discussed in this thread. All that being said: you are still free to challenge the 3243:

issue with a long-time experienced editor that has many friendly talk page watchers, as they'll quickly defend the editor, sometimes in aggressive ways. And I understand why that's a natural impulse, when many trolls or biased editors show up on the talk pages for active editors: with editors who truly aren't here to improve Knowledge, a brusque response can be the more time-efficient way to deal with them. For well-connected editors, this sheltering effect extends to the incidents and administrators' noticeboards as well. As a result, it's hard for legitimate concerns to be raised, and most editors find it easier to just avoid the editor or avoid discussing issues that may trigger them. I agree ideally we'd sit down and talk out the issues in all cases, but realistically there are situations where the moving pieces (such as a clear incident, feedback from respected editors, a receptiveness to understanding the point of views of others, few mitigating circumstances that can be used to excuse behaviour, and so forth) don't quite fit together well enough to enable this to happen.

2978:

perceives himself to be in dispute with, threats of investigations and implying subtly that he's quite happy to engage in stalking behaviour, which are, of course, behavioural issues which we routinely deal with by lengthy or indefinite blocks where that user doesn't have the misfortune to hold advanced permissions. Their general administrator accountability is lamentable, even when taking into account the areas he works. The new page patrols and new page reviewing work does, sadly, result in many questions from inexperienced users and many allegations of untoward behaviour, but this can normally be dealt with without resorting to defensive or abusive tactics, making allegations of "trolling" and invoking the mythical "anti-admin brigade".

1537:? – who never introduced the evidence in the evidence stage (and why did he not introduce the same? Would it have been considered procedurally incorrect as arbs are expected to be at least a step away from being the investigators?). Or others, who have had bad experiences with Kudpung, but never posted these links to discuss them through the full evidence stage of the case? The same links that were given by an arbitrator and not by any community editor? And links which an arbitrator on the case page clarified have no relevance to the premise of the case! The same links, the PD of which have two arbitrators opposing in the PD page? If your submission is that all is fair game (given Bradv's contention that 2096:. That's why they're scrambling around looking for reasons to let Kudpung off the hook. It hasn't escaped anyone's attention that remedies like "12 month admin probation" weren't considered during BrownHairedGirl's trial. I strongly suspect that, if Kudpung's case had been opened first and BHG's last, they would have been more inclined for harshness towards Kudpung and leniency towards BHG. It's still early in the voting, but if it ends with Kudpung remaining free to make vague yet forceful threats against people and nuke IP editors for correctly placing maintenance tags, while BHG lost her bit for nothing more than chronic grouchiness, I will be disappointed but not surprised. 5015:

any way shape or form, but that if it were restricted to this then I wouldn't see it as an immediate desysop. My interest has been more on power differential. On wikipedia, you're an arbitrator and on good terms with many people, making you a powerful person and someone not easily bullied. The deal-breaker for me was revisiting the many other comments made to non-admins (well, all sorts of people) with veiled threats, which are antithetical to the level playing field model of WP. I hope that doesn't sound dismissive and apologise if it does. It is horrible being stuck in prolonged disputes, and often other people don't 'get' how horrible it feels to be in one.

1450:: I'm not sure I follow the argument that the proposed decision must exclude material submitted during the request phase of the case if that material is not also re-introduced into evidence. Those opening statements form the justification for opening the case in the first place, so the committee needs to be able to reference that information in the final decision to be able to contextualize their actions. Yes, the evidence phase is for participants to submit evidence, and to challenge that evidence. The proposed decision stage also affords all participants an equal opportunity to challenge the evidence referenced in the decision by posting to this page. – 1301:"Please tell me if I missed some but from that I can't see that previous steps of dispute resolution were actually exhausted or even tried.Except the current ANI thread, I see no evidence that this was attempted. Unfortunately, with the case request, the ANI discussion stalled and probably should instead continue. Furthermore, Kudpung has since elaborated on their comment and apologized to Chris and Chris has himself indicated that he is willing to work with Kudpung going forward. So as long as there is no evidence of the community actually attempting and failing to resolve the alleged user misconduct issues, this request seems premature." 3720:"I cannot speak for Xeno but I don't think it's a punishment per se but it is somewhat of a reversal of a prior community consensus to grant the userright. As such, before doing so, the user in question should at least have had a clear warning that this will happen if they continue a certain kind of behavior. I think I have made it clear that my comments were based on the fact that the community has for years expressed tolerance for Kudpung's behavior even when it has been discussed and thus might have inadvertently caused some of the problems now under discussion. Regards SoWhy 1:28 pm, Today (UTC+0)" 3616:. All under the pretext of understanding another AC member's rationale for asking about historical cases (with no mention of Kudpung anywhere in that thread how could he possibly interpret Maxim's request?). Are semi-back channel discussions really appropriate when they have pointedly avoided participation in the case? This is similar to obscure behaviour when he temporarily resigned during the Signpost fiasco - nothing is simply out in the open with this guy. Friendships and hidden influence appear to play too big a part in his MO for the clarity needed in community dealings concerning his behavior. 6033:

agrees are likely to be successful. So -- again without having looked into specifics -- I'd put the odds of success greater if Kudpung has committed, or will commit, to something specific, such as "I will avoid situations like ... / I will consult with ... when I feel ... / I will not comment on ...", rather than if it's remedy imposed top-down saying "Kudpung is advised to fully comply with ". Basically, it should be the admin proposing, and the committee willing to try, an alternative to a (full) desysop; rather than something that would feel like a (pinball) extra ball awarded.

5620:

long-term poor behaviour. I see there's a majority opposing this FoF at the moment, but I'm shocked that there are any supporters - have you really properly read those links, or just superficially skimmed them without really thinking? I'm seeing no evidence that anyone had communciated with Kudpung to make any serious attempt at suggesting there's been a long-term problem with his approach and to try to work it out. This ArbCom case is the first, and I think he could be forgiven if he sees it as having come out of the blue. And as a first resort, you seem to be heading for desysop.

554:

respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

5769:, which could be very beneficial in cases like this. I think the issue here is that it is happening in the most Knowledge-cronyism way possible: on the talk page of another admin, and where the subject is a well-established admin. I doubt that this option would be available to someone with less wikifriends. I think that Xeno went into this with the best intentions, but the optics are not great, and if this route is going to be pursued in the future it should be done through a formal policy or process rather than on an ad-hoc basis when the subject happens to be an "insider". -- 2366:, is that it is an unenforceable slap on the wrist. I support full desysopping of Kudpung. It is clear that he would never pass a RfA after the evidence revealed in this investigation. I have gained the perception that the arbitration process may have been tainted by cronyism. Whether or not this perception is justified, for the sake of ensuring that the process is seen to be above suspicion, I suggest you recuse. (Off topic: I also have been advised of multiple failed attempts to log into my account, not by me. It would be interesting to know the IP addresses responsible. 1478:

expected of arbcoms, the arbitrator in question Bradv should not have used these links unilaterally here before allowing the community to discuss these links during the evidence stage. If your answer to my query is yes, then there is no point of my arguing here as then there is lack of some level of integrity in this procedure. Any arbitrator can then decide on their own links to trawl and make up their own interpretation of findings of fact without being one step away from the procedure of evidence collation and analysis.

3097:

instances of harassment and intimidation being shown clearly. These are findings of fact, as I've said previously, which would result in a normal editor being blocked for a significant period of time. Kudpung has, regrettably, been allowed to get away with harassment and intimidation for a long period precisely because he's an administrator and even more regrettably, because other administrators (most likely including myself) have circled the wagons and given him undue protection to behave in this way.

3120:

position to try to ward off future problems and conflicts. Additionally, I suggest reminding editors receiving feedback to strive to put aside any poor wording and look for ways to defuse future disagreements. Yes, there will always be hateful messages that can be filed directly into the trash. But most do have some kernel of insight that can be considered. This doesn't necessarily mean changing one's viewpoint; sometimes all that is needed is a change in how one responds to other editors.

2262: 43: 4734:, it seems difficult to get behind you that Kudpung did not start that thread as part of a disagreement about Missvain, which was unhelpful as conduct. Perhaps Kudpung did have genuine questions about how to deal with NPP errors by admins. But how does that mean, as you assert, that the thread was not at the same time about Missvain? And whether it was deliberate or unthinking, why do you disagree that Kudpung could have handled matters better than by starting 2301:) should be no big deal either. After a period of rest and reflection, anybody who feels that they retain the confidence of the community is free to reapply for the admin tools to be restored to them as Kudpung has done once before (although his application was adjudicated by a Bureaucrat rather than in a RfA). Indeed, an enforced period of R&R for all administrators every few years might be beneficial for their health, the same for ordinary editors too. 1101:

important, or that some things should not be rushed and put more thought into and so on. So, just give a heads up, maybe even change the date before the target passses and give yourself a comfortable margin for the next target. Looks better, common courtesy to all involved, really not much effort to do and people are surely more willing to extend good will when they are kept in the loop even a little bit. Anyway, just food for thought. Feel free to ignore.

220: 3328:. For the avoidance of doubt, the whole part of that evidence should be read in full context. Selectively highlighting a particle of the evidence is incongruous. The fact is that it was not "trolling" of any kind. It was a genuine attempt to curtail the concerted attack on Kudpung. It was dismissed / deleted in a typical act of bad faith when Kudpung saw who it was from - me - who he could only possibly consider to be a troll. A personal attack, IIRC. 5608:

bad relationship developing between the two of them for some time - and bear in mind that only one of the two has been blocked as part of their fights, and it's not Kudpung. This is the crux of the case, and my overall take from it is sadness that two people I like and respect are in such a situation, but they're both partly responsible for it. Accusations of misogyny and misandry have been flying, but in my view neither is guilty of either.

71: 701:

when it comes to the involvement of the full community. But the PD is in the universe of control by arbs. I would appreciate it if arbs follow some basic procedural structure and inform participants in advance if their own set deadline is going to be missed by them. Otherwise, you know how it comes off – bad analogy but akin to a judge who gives a date for the judgement, misses the same and just keeps quiet till asked by others.

5898:

And there's nothing to suggest that if he is no longer an administrator he can't make comments like this, or that such comments would result in an appropriate remedy. But the threats and intimidating messages, which to me are the worst offences, wouldn't be received the same way if they didn't come from an administrator, and therefore would not have the same effect on other good faith editors or on the project.

2407:

think some action was needed there, this probation option sounds like it would have been perfect there, allowing her to continue her admin work with the guarantee of action if problems recurred. I don't suppose it's gender bias, but it does strike me as unfair for BHG to be desysopped outright while Kudpung is just probationed. Probationing both would have been fairer and a better outcome for the project. —

4117:@GW, I cannot believe you're really going with this logic: "he talked about me without mentioning my name...the same happened with others!...This is inherently uncivil!!!" (paraphrased). I've said things about experiences I've had with others and omitted names out of respect, not as an act of disrespect or an attempt to hide. There's nothing nefarious about that. Certainly nothing worthy of desysopping. 5480:

Knowledge's hierarchical structure and would like to see it abolished. Since Kudpung was very active in the discussions a decade ago around revamping the editor/admin/crat/arb pyramid, it's reasonable to assume he's more aware than most that there are some people who object to the concept of "admin" as currently implemented on Knowledge and would like us to go back to no-big-deal days when

4710:

problem, mentioning the editor whose edits prompted you to start the discussion will inevitably lead to people focusing on those edits in specific and not the general problem. Which has happened here. I think the last comment can easily be understood as Kudpung regretting that he was not able to keep Missvain's name out of it.As for the ACE2019 question, he answered your question by saying

2568:

does not seem to understand or recgnize that being told to "step back" by an admin is threatening, that they have no right to make such a statement during an arbcase reviewing their threatening conduct, and in the context of Kudpung not having participated in this case, this is a pretty good indication that they have not taken on board the problems that brought us here.

6037:

the party in question is on board. I do expect a remedy of this sort would be presented to the community, whether in the workshop or as a proposed discussion, and credible concerns that the conditions proposed are insufficient would be entertained. But I think the chance of success is much higher if co-developed with the admin in question than when imposed from above.

5200:. I think it would have been a lot better for Xeno to have refrained from initiating such a discussion during the case, or else recused entirely - and I think that he probably should now at this point considering the remedy he has now proposed. (For the record, I don't fault Kudpung at all in this discussion, as he even wondered if this was a good idea). -- 648:

feels like communication is only reactive based on complaints/queries. Likewise, ArbCom appears to be delaying its own deadlines (ones they hold others to relatively tightly. While we all want a fair and impartial result, I concur with Ritchie333...this has been going on for over a month now and the community/Kudpung deserve closure ASAP. Please expedite.

5707:

the few productive venues for concerns about administrator conduct. While the "general reminder" is something that I like in spirit, it shies away from the discussions that occurred during this case about how and where to actually have those conversations. Breaking down the rouge wall of silence is hard when the only venue besides Arbitration is

3816:

but actually quite a significant blaze? And then there is the attitude towards specific editors more recently. I get that he has fostered close personal relationships with several AC members - hence the recuses - but don't duped - even some of those are not impressed by his antics. Anyway, the place to test what the community really think is

2920:

arbitration policy? I suppose the committee could pass a remedy indicating the earlier remedy is suspended in favour of new conditions and allowing the user to seek simple restoration at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. That would send it back to the community, but I wouldn't envy the bureaucrats that would have to sit on that resysop request. –

1118:'no comment = total guilt = desysop', but I would like to point out that while I realise the Committee is possibly struggling with the challenge of meeting the right and equitable decision, this is becoming a double punishment like being held on death row for years before being finally executed anyway. Please don't rush your decision, and 6029:

processes through battle fatigue, but do get their head screwed on straight through the very different (many would say painful) RFAR process. Since sanctions should be preventative not punitive, a "suspended desysop" (however implemented) in such a situation seems worth trying. I'm delighted to see the Committee is considering this.

1770:

is not a punishment. Desysop is for upholding obligations voluntarily entered into by administrators. And desysop is already elaborately protected from occurring, but now if desysop is viewed as punishment, it can likely never occur, at least not while upholding the fundamental principles of valid action (ie.

4163:" GW, I think you mean well. You cannot simply present your perspective in ArbCom and expect it to not be questioned or have other perspectives presented. This comes across as "my feelings trump any facts. Now, you're a bad person, but I'm better because I'm disengaging". I truly would expect more from you. 3497:. If I may, jumping on the length of service as mitigation raised by 3 or 4 others on this page, maybe it plausible in some rare cases. But surely it cannot mitigate in a situation when some of the behavior which has been raised as concern in the case dates back nearly as long as Kudpung has been an admin? 6066:

for restorations of their PAID work). We need more members of ArbCom to open their minds to this fact (I think some have). and show compassion and respect for a decade of a person's life devoted to daily admin activity in Knowledge, and what can happen to their mental state (one day, it could be you).

6065:

The small group of highly productive long-term admins in Knowledge (of which BHG, KP and RH were part of), are subject to unique stresses. Fighting UPEs, Socks, etc. on a daily basis for a decade is going to affect you (RH's talk page was like sock-central, with many bitter/tricky characters looking

5996:

I don't quite see it that way. To me, a misuse of the admin tools should be the most important factor in deciding whether to desysop or not. In the previous trials, BHG did not misuse the admin toolset and RHaworth repeatedly did which is primarily why I thought the former desysop was unnecessary and

5897:

You are right in saying that Kudpung's behaviour would not be okay even if he were not an administrator. There are diffs in evidence that would have resulted in a block for someone less well-connected, and there are diffs in evidence that probably should have resulted in a block despite his position.

5839:

another editor without at least making a good faith attempt to understand their point of view. Robust remediation can only occur in the context of a true collaborative effort between the committee and the parties, and a breakdown in that collaborative framework signals a basic failure of due process.

5741:

A lot has been said here and on Lourdes' talk page that Kudpung couldn't participate in this case because any defence could be used against him. I'm not sure that's true. I think that if he made an extensive statement showing how the other side in all of these various conflicts was in the wrong, that

4896:

I'm confused about your addition of standard enforcement; that usually only applies to remedies like topic/interaction bans, which are usually enforced with blocks. Usually desysop remedies don't involve standard enforcement. Does this mean that if Kudpung breaches the terms in that remedy, he should

4834:

me by claiming that it's silly for me to think he was referring to me, is worse. Him doing the same thing (criticizing an editor without using her name or alerting her in any way) with MissVain makes me worry it's a pattern, and with her there was a serious conversation about potentially removing her

4676:

has expressed concerns that Kudpung will continue his habit of clearly referring to other editors while claiming he is not, in odd locations, and that it won't be covered by the trigger conditions laid out in the desysop alternatives. I share this concern, especially if arbitrators will be so willing

3300:

regarding evidence, just an anecdote. During the Workshop my evidence supporting a FoF was challenged and 10 evidence links produced as requested in support of it. In fact it was suggested that this be included retrospectively into the evidence page but unfortunately the request was at first declined

3062:

Do you mean concern over how Kudpung is being treated differently than BrownHairedGirl; or do you mean concern over how Kudpung and BrownHairedGirl are being treated in comparison to other ArbCom cases about administrative conduct? While the Portals case and this case are inherently different in many

2977:

I must fully agree with the comments above which express a great deal of concern over the ways in which BrownHairedGirl and Kudpung are being treated differently by the Committee. I'm especially confused given the damning findings which have been presented - threats of taking actions against those he

2791:

My support for proposed remedy 1.1 is based on my comment on remedy 1, i.e. that I believe that the community has for a long time signaled Kudpung that his behavior is not that problematic, mere "grouchiness" that does not require any intervention, as seen by the discussions mentioned in proposed FoF

2762:

Several editors on this page already "feel that Kudpung's behaviour does not accord with the letter or the spirit of the remedy" because of the two posts (and others) Kudpung made in the last few days; do you see that you are setting up the same ongoing failure to address a problem that we had in the

2735:

to take on board feedback made during this case". Part of the wording is that Kudpung is advised to "consider criticism objectively, and assume good faith ... and refrain from suggesting editors critical of his actions are making personal attacks or engaging in sanctionable behaviour ... and refrain

1332:

contains a list of what sort of evidence the committee may consider, and there is no stipulation that this must be presented on the evidence page. When the evidence consists of allegations of wrongdoing, I would consider it good practice to allow for rebuttal at the evidence stage, but this is just a

6073:

than the new recruits? As long as we have no concerns that they know how to operate their weapons safely (i.e. no tool misuse), when they do start to lose it, we put them on "involuntary leave" for a period to help them recover. We don't fire them and ask them to reapply (knowing the stain on their

6061:

Was busy and missed this. I commend the draft the remedy of 1.1 (suspended deysop), but sad it did not get passed. We have a bifurcation of views in ArbCom around deysop for ADMINACCT, but because the !vote is a simple majority, the edge of deysop for ADMINACCT has held the floor in the last three

5838:

I ran on a platform of fairness and due process. To be sitting on a case where the principal party (actutally, the only party, apart from the filer) was feeling alienated, and hesitant to engage with the process on the formal case pages was to me, an untenable position. I will not sit in judgment of

5822:

I understand that Kudpung has not yet engaged with the case pages beyond the request and a general comment on the workshop. I am also aware that this year's committee passed a finding censuring a named party for their submissions to an arbitration case. My reading of that case was that the party had

5745:

If he made a statement in the case request stage saying "Huh, I didn't realize that I had been acting this way repeatedly. I'm honestly still not sure that I was totally in the wrong in these cases, but I recognize that my actions could use improvement, and I commit to improving in the future. Sorry

4714:

I don't know whether that's true or not but there is no further evidence that the previous comment was specifically directed at you or anyone in specific. Kudpung does have a habit of inserting general commentary into specific questions. I concede, it might not be "equally" possible in the strictest

4621:

Nor that she needs reminding of the minimum criteria of quality for creating new articles? Being a prolific content creator and admin is not a passport to lower our standards. Missvain has built a reputation on giving advice to other users. One could expect an experienced editor to at least properly

4588:

It's not about "buying" anything. I myself have in the past used specific incidents in order to start discussions on what I perceived as general problems and when I did, I also left out the name of the editor because I wanted to avoid singling someone out. I cannot rule out that Kudpung wanted to do

4565:

admin right (and also perhaps others, but definitely hers specifically). With the ArbCom question, how many other queer women on Knowledge has he called man-haters? Perhaps there are others, though that would arguably be a more concerning pattern than the clear pattern of obliquely attacking editors

4244:

The reason that I filled this case, is that you are the only process on this website with teeth to address admin issues. Pro forma discussions about ADMINCONDUCT issues at AN(I) are a complete waste of everyone time. Sure, people could have engaged in discussions about these issues on Kudpung's talk

4040:

I found your analysis on FoF#6 quite compelling. Kudpung has not been accused of treating new Wikipedians poorly nor has evidence been presented to state otherwise. If anyone else has evidence to back anything other than the middle sentence, that too should be considered. Otherwise, I don't see that

3889:

The diff provided by Leaky suggests to me that nothing has been learned thus far. Furthermore, you can add me to the list of those who don't see why 'length of service' is relevant. I also agree with Nick that ArbCom would be justified in desysopping Kudpung purely for lack of adequate participation

3834:

I cannot judge that. I have however not seen evidence of any AN* discussions that were radically different until the 2020 one that was cut short. I don't know about close personal relationships that others might have but anyways, I am all for clearly stating that Kudpung has crossed lines and should

3735:

with it (the behaviour) absent any sign he would do something about it because he's been impervious to and totally dismissive of criticism. And probably, for most of the time, had enough Admins. to prevent any attempts to rectify his sense of entitlement by any practical means. I cannot believe that

3664:

It looks - it is indeed - far less in practical terms. Tools are given to those who are trusted based on track record of all sorts of characteristics including TRUST - not evidence of tool capability. Ask yourself this - given the irrefutable evidence, would Kudpung be likely to pass an RfA now? And

3425:

As I said in evidence, my example was a personal anecdote. The drafters have decided to use it, along with other links they have aggregated under the consolidated PFoF 3.2.3. Maybe I have incorrectly read your concern as being aimed at my evidence rather than directed towards the drafters, in which

3200:

The short answer is: I wasn’t a drafter. So the question was hypothetical because I hadn’t taken a deep dive into the case yet. Discussing a potential remedy does not automatically imply that the remedy is indictated or the best choice, besides. That’s why I wish some (not you, isaacl) would dial it

3096:

It's drifting towards being a moot point, but it's the unease (for me) with which the findings of fact sit with those proposed remedies short of a desysop. I understand why these proposed decisions are presented but it is somewhat unsettling to see admonishment being considered where we have several

1808:

I appreciate the response. But the Arbitrator's job is the hard task to formally and publicly say whether conduct complies with obligation, and to publicly remedy--that cannot be a punishment, either, unless one views the committee's very operation and purpose as punishment. At any rate, thank you.

1371:

The stage for discussing evidence is over, and it is, just in my opinion, absolute bad form on your part to incorporate links arbitrarily in this manner, and you are an arbitrator. I would request you to remove those links and the finding of fact that you have created without providing the community

1117:

I don't know how many commenters/Arbs here have been at the receiving end of an Arbcom case and know what it feels like, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate for me to be commenting here at all - speaking out before, I was accused of 'doubling down', and later exercising my Miranda right was called

1100:

While really not my place to comment here, may i just suggest that when the drafting arbs know a designated target date will not be met, they just pop a quick note on one of the related talk pages before it passes? Everyone is a volunteer after all and everyone understands real life matters are more

731:

The Proposed Decision date is intentionally called a "target" date as it is something to shoot for, not a deadline. The drafters are still working on the proposed decision. I don’t think it will be more than a week late, but if it looks to be trending that way, I will ask them to set a new PD target

6081:

ArbCom needs to get into a huddle and find tools/sanctions they would be happy with (or at least for a majority), for ADMINACCT violations, that do not involve deysop (which we now know, for various reasons, is usually a permanent state). I can think of more very valuable such admins in Knowledge,

6036:

I see there is a bit of concern on this page about the idea of a remedy crafted in collaboration with the prisoner in the dock. I am not concerned about this at all. We want arbcom to solve intractable cases, and that requires custom and adapted remedies, and the chance of success is much higher if

6001:

admin status abuse. But if I had been the target of one of Kudpung's cryptic threats or "investigation"s I'd be more concerned than if some random non-admin had made similar comments. Neither would be acceptable in my opinion, but threats are always more worrying when made by someone with the power

5826:

My position is that parties should be afforded some latitute if they exhibit the same behaviours during arbitration that prompted the case in the first place. It is not unexpected, as the undesired behaviours are ofted deep-seated (otherwise they could have been resolved in prior dispute resolution

5706:

Perhaps it would be better to explicitly suggest the community consider (re)creating a venue for requesting comment on administrator conduct, rather than the current general reminder. As Brad and Katie note, and as I said in my preliminary statement on this case, the Arbitration Committee is one of

5607:

FoF 7, "Kudpung and GorillaWarfare". You have "temporarily resigned as an administrator" included there as if it's something to do with the disagreement between the two of them. It isn't, it's because he was seriously ill (which I know for a fact) and didn't want a fuss made over it. There's been a

5501:

It was not my intention to quote you out of context. I actually agree with you that using such language gives the impression of arrogance ("comes across") even when it's most likely not intended as such. I thought my comment has conveyed this but I'm happy to clarify to avoid any misunderstandings.

5281:

I am not even sure if recusal is possible at this point since voting has started - and I think that if the objective of the discussion had been made more clear (as it stands I'm not even sure Kudpung understood the conversation was about his own case) I would see no reason to recuse. But given some

5263:

Thank you for explaining. The conversation was really a continuation of my consideration of Martinp’s suggestion at the RH PD talk, but I don’t think there were any illusions as the potential applicability to the ongoing case. I’ve noted your concern in the comments of that remedy and will think on

5143:

I'll hold back on commenting further at the moment, but I do feel compelled to wonder out loud (a) why a "parole" option has suddenly been introduced for this case and not other recent ones where it would obviously have been relevant, and (b) that I find it grimly ironic that length of tenure of an

5103:

trigger parole, coupled with additional sanctions, would have worked for all three of these cases. It is, annoyingly, too late for ARBCOM to do that for BHG & RHaworth, which comes with significant losses to the Community, but could well be a reasonable option here. I do have some concerns that

4994:

Why is admins saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment something that women on Knowledge should have to live with? I do appreciate that you are saying this in the context of a support vote for the desysop remedy, but how is the odd misogynistic comment here or there (in the absence of

4934:

It is confusing. I'm not clear what kinds of behaviors would be blockworthy but shouldn't trigger the suspended remedy. Plus I would've expected that the conditions there were meant to be interpreted strictly (especially given the talk about it being "much more than just the removal of a toolset");

3910:

Is there any precedent for using suspended desysopping in the past? The cynic in me believes that excessive leeway is being given to an entrenched, well-connected admin. If his actions merit a desysop, take his tools away now rather than kicking the can down the road. If they don't merit a desysop,

3869:

I can see no good reason other than subterfuge for discussions held elsewhere attempting to exert influence on their potential remedies. It is completely disingenuous - so add that to the charge sheet. They didn't wish to engage in the allocated public venue but instead hoped to garner support from

3815:

Highly selective and likely not representative, or anywhere near. Even Kudpung has ardent followers who see no wrong in anything he says or his grotesque reaction to minor situations. Are you really saying that the weight of evidence produced dating back 10 years is not just "no smoke without fire"

3787:

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. If I squint, I can sort-of see how you could interpret Kudpung's AFD comment as mildly biting towards the creator of the article. However, it's not your place to be insulted on someone else's behalf, especially over something so minor. Please

3076:

were two recent examples that went on to full cases and where the leading named parties involved did not materially participate. In both examples they were swiftly desysopped for failing to meet ADMINCOND and their non-participation in the case was cited as a contributing factor to the decision. To

2981:

I am also greatly concerned that the Committee is failing to address Kudpung's failure to adequately involve themselves in the case; that sets an unfortunate precedent moving forward, telling other administrators that one way to retain adminship is to ignore the RFAR. I'd personally advocate a zero

2758:

Please help me (or the community) understand why you would propose a remedy only days after the same behaviors were observed. With evidence to the contrary posted to this very page within days of the remedy being put forward, what is it that leads you to believe that Kudpung has committted to take

2446:

is somewhat vague and really describes the sort of thing that could apply to anybody. Whereas this "probation period" is quite explicit in saying that repetition of the conduct mentioned would be immediately dealt with by ArbCom. I don't know if the availability of a clearly-worded option like that

1825:

I cannot speak for Xeno but I don't think it's a punishment per se but it is somewhat of a reversal of a prior community consensus to grant the userright. As such, before doing so, the user in question should at least have had a clear warning that this will happen if they continue a certain kind of

1769:

has a similar view. I think that is a fundamental category error for an arbitrator. There is no punishment in being placed in the central position of editor on this website, especially until a new community consensus can be formed to give additional permission. Sysop is not a reward, and desysop

1560:

to guide our decision on how to resolve a dispute. When drafting the PD I also did my own research beyond the evidence submissions – the only difference here is Bradv found something just after we moved it on-wiki. If we ignore it for procedural reasons, we'd be in the awkward situation of having a

1477:

My related rhetorical query is, if the links had not been introduced in the case page, would Arbcom still have allowed an arbitrator to use them at this stage? If your answer is no, then I presume it is so because of procedure. In the same lines, upholding the highest levels of procedural integrity

1018:

In view of the likely continued delay can I make a request - for consistency? During the Workshop a lack of tangible evidence in one of my contributions was challenged by another editor. I provided the requested links - but into the Workshop section where it was suggested that these links should be

913:

I wouldn't have thought anyone objects to the Arbs taking their time to get the thing right etc. but the issue here seems to be the lack of communication. I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes, but either they are close to something to post or they aren't. If the latter, then they should

6032:

I do think what differentiates such situations from ineffective "civility paroles" (referencing Katie's pithy oppose) is that there is a credible, voluntary, and reasonable commitment from the admin in question, showing insight and promising specific changes in their behaviour, which the committee

5965:

As a former administrator that was desysopped for fault by the committee long ago, believe that clemency should be extended here via the remedy of 1.1 Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy). I am stating this having had none or very few if any exchanges with Kudpung, yet am aware of his work at Rfa

5929:

essay, and that this case will likely be used as a textbook example of it. But I also feel that the Super Mario effect is based to a certain extent on a misunderstanding of what adminship is. It is not a prize, a reward, or even something that is necessarily earned. It is a reflection of the trust

5818:

The thread on my talk page was started by another user and was in response to my exploratory remarks about suspended remedies. I raised it in the case I helped draft, but the committee was unable to come to an agreement as to how to appropriately curtail the behaviours that were identified in that

5613:

FoF 6, "Kudpung and Missvain". I've seen no evidence that that's related to anything other than genuine concern for new articles she created. I don't want to cause any more discomfort for Missvain, but Kudpung had justified reason for concern. I don't see that addressed, and I really don't see any

5467:

rather than just one sentence it ought to be clear that I don't actually believe Kudpung was being arrogant, but that he was unintentionally using language which came across as arrogant; in the context of this case the semantic difference here is important since this is a "thoughtcrime" case about

5245:

what you were doing? Because in all seriousness, I thought that you were having an academic discussion about adminship and the previous arbitration cases and you didn't even mention Kudpung's own case (and I'm not even sure Kudpung made more than passing references to it either). What I don't like

5014:

hat on) to be extreme stubbornness on the issue rather than prejudice as such (also as no-one had reported other misogynistic comments other than in the relation to the dispute). People say (and type) plenty of ...rash...comments in the heat of the moment. I am not saying I condone what he said in

4775:

creations and no longer the question initially posed. I am assuming good faith that Kudpung saw this as a potential problem if he included Missvain's name when starting the discussion and thus deliberately left her name out of it, both in order to not single her creations out as problematic and to

4709:

Except for the first comment, which does not contain any information to identify Missvain, all the other comments were made after someone else singled her out and the conversation turned on her edits after her comment. Which is somewhat my point: If you want to start a conversation about a general

4401:

Is the "General reminder" remedy useful? The community currently doesn't have a proper process to vote desysopping an admin, does it? They can vote to forbid an admin from doing something that would have gotten him/her into an arbitration case, but I'm unsure whether a community saction against an

3270:

genuine community concern is considered significant enough for Kudpung to respond with a positive mindset. There is enough factual evidence presented to indicate the existence of "a problem" - I think that is undeniable. But, rather than engaging directly, Kudpung goes to supporter's talk pages to

3242:

Regarding community feedback: I believe it should be borne in mind that most editors have no desire to confront others over their behaviour. Personally, I don't like to give feedback unless I can glean some indications that the editor will be receptive to it. It's particularly daunting to raise an

3218:

On the other matter, I agree arbitrators should be free to discuss a wide variety of options openly. Various editors have called for more transparency in deliberations. Inevitably that will mean an array of possibilities will be presented, some of which may have a direct correspondence with other

2533:

I wouldn't say it directly bears on the decision of whether there's been a failure to meet ADMINCOND or whether a desysop is an appropriate remedy. But it does provide context to the rest of the conduct evidence in the case. As a hypothetical example, we would probably look differently at an admin

2406:

The "probation period" is certainly an interesting idea, an I'm not sure I've heard of this in the ArbCom toolbox before. But like Xxanthippe above, I would have to ask the ArbCom why that option wasn't considered for BrownHairedGirl? Her civility issues were limited to one area and although I do

1789:

In that post, I am not considering the removal of user rights to be the punishment (which will not be much of a punishment to Kudpung, and should not be seen as such: I agree, they are no big deal) - the formal, public, permanent, nigh-irrevocable censure on the arbitration page is the punishment.

1701:

was one where the main individual provided a statement during the case request, which included evidence, but did not participate in the case's evidence and workshop phases. The committee was sharply criticized by some in the community for noting their "non-participation in the Arbitration case" in

1305:

Bradv, I am asking this as I am unclear about the procedure. Is it okay for an arbitrator to pick up links which were not discussed during the evidence stage, and create a proposed finding of fact out of them even though nobody got a chance to discuss them during the evidence stage? And especially

700:

With no disrespect to any of the arbs (and I know I tread on flimsy ground when I write this), it's quite odd for arbs to write two days and then shift it to next week without informing participants, unless queried. I realise that closing of specific sessions in any arbcom case is a fluid exercise

688:

My experience, as a clerk, arb, outside contributor, and now, party is that arbs have a bad habit of being unrealistic as to how long it takes to draft a case. This is especially true when you have first time drafters, there is a pressing issue on arbcom-l, or when the drafters disagree. I've seen

6077:

We are not replacing the older high-productivity admins on Knowledge – I think we know this and are all kind of quietly concerned about it. I see messages on the Talk Pages of these three cases from other deysoped admins saying that life was better without the tools? If that is the case, then we

5933:

I also agree with you that administrator misconduct cases shouldn't come down to a binary solution. But at the same time, the remedies passed need to sufficiently address the problem without adding needless complexity. In this case in particular I feel that this solution does have, in your words,

5865:

If it becomes clear that arbitration cases involving single administrators are a binary choice: desysop or not, then it is highly likely we will see less engagement from parties, and more summary resignations at the time of case outset. I'm duty-bound to vote for the remedies I feel will have the

5846:

On the other hand I don't think it's quite fair to call it "back-channelling" because 1) there are not multiple parties in this case; 2) the conversation occurred onwiki, publicly, on a fairly well-watched talk page; 3) the conversation was noted to my colleagues and 4) the community has not been

5369:

For a case where one of the concerns was a lack of accountability and transparency (as well as allegations of administrators enabling bad behavior from another administrator) - an arbitrator starting what appears to be a back-channel discussion that lacks accountability and transparency, and that

4622:

complete one article before creating the next. The problem here is that the articles I tagged - and I did not single 'Missvain' out - were out of character for someone of her experience and so much so that it even crossed my mind that her account may have been compromised and being used by an UPE.

3557:

Does this remedy include non-personal, offensive references usually found on senior friends talk pages describing unspecified members of the community as "peanut gallery" and, of course, "anti-admin brigade"? I fear that anything not specifically contained in the remedy will simply be regarded as

3420:

Kudpung's accountability as an administrator 3) Kudpung frequently reacts to feedback on his conduct unobjectively and without assuming good faith. On multiple occasions, he has interpreted criticism as a vendetta against himself or admins in general, making numerous references to an "anti-admin

2919:

Has the committee ever walked back a decision to remove administrative privileges before? Not intentional temporary removals, which I understand occurred 9+ years ago, but vacating a desysop and directing bureaucrats to resysop someone? Would the community be accepting of that? Is it permitted by

2879:

Some days later. Kudpung reiterates, discarding criticism as peanuts thrown from the peanut gallery. Isn't there a coconut gallery, in charge of coconut/desysop throwing against such behavior ? But hands are shaking in the coconut gallery. Coconuts are rather for the not-guilty cases. Because, as

2567:

adopts the very threatening, intransigent and unremorseful tone that brought us here, and gives us a very good indication of how well probation is likely to work. Telling another editor they "need to consider stepping back" during an arbcase examining that very behavior is utterly brazen. Kudpung

647:

Respectfully, "Joe Roe indicated" that it would be "a couple of days" on the 12th. It's now the 14th. This is a reasonable question considering we don't see anything at this point. Now it is maybe this weekend or maybe next week or possibly after that? I understand delays happen, but it very much

553:

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to

5842:

Accordingly, I do not accept that inviting Kudpung to engage with questions that I was grappling with (in all three cases); that had clear and obvious applications to his case, in a venue where the volume was lower, and he was able to speak more freely and openly - was "bad practice". I agree it

5184:

On the surface: remedies 1 and 5 contradict. The arbs who voted for both are saying that Kudpung should be desysopped (which only ArbCom can do) but then the community should have handled this whole matter (which they couldn't have if the remedy is to desysop). An argument could be made that the

3150:

To clarify, a particularly unusual aspect was discussing possible sanctions without any prior discussion of whether or not sanctions were appropriate in the first place. Entering into discussion is good, but I think it was premature to ask questions that assumed sanctions were necessary, without

1084:

I will point out that the last two cases, Portals and RHaworth, actually had the preliminary decision provided on the target date. This had not happened previously for a long time. The current arbitrators actually have gotten two cases decided on time. Thank you. Yes, I would prefer that all

5794:

In all three case, I have attempted to ensure that the committee's decision is fair and accurate, provides appropriate guidance to the parties, participants, and wider community as to appropriate standards of conduct, prevents disruption from recurring, and attempts, where possible, to heal the

4317:

What I have learned from this case is that you can be incivil to other editors, but get off if you are a powerful enough admin who can get AN(I) threads closed quickly. When you are finally called to the carpet by ArbCom, you can just ignore the case because you don't want to make the situation

5479:

isn't entirely fair. While I obviously believe that Kudpung has thrown the term "anti-admin brigade" around much too liberally, at least some of the people he's levelled the accusation at (Eric Corbett, for example) are people who genuinely are "anti-admin" in the sense that they disapprove of

3273:

I would have expected the drafters to at least be honest. What see (sic) here is partially deliberate bias and blatant distortion of the facts by the drafter(s). I don't mind complying with an Arbcom verdict, and what I do afterwards is up to me, but if it has to be a permanent and unappealble

3214:

I'm not clear once again on your response to my question on starting with asking about the circumstances of the various incidents that took place: whether or not you were a drafter, or if your questions were hypothetical doesn't, in my view, affect your choice of where to start. Nonetheless, I

2491:

Why is "length of service" relevant to whether someone has or has not upheld the standards required of administrators? (I haven't read all the evidence in this case, so I don't have an opinion about whether they should or should not be desysopped but I don't understand why length of service is

1219:

Thanks Casliber for placing the well-thought out principles, facts and decisions. I for one think the Arbcom has done a very fair assessment for the final decisions. I am not that sure about the community reminder. Logically right, but may seem tad affronting to the community. Just my personal

6028:

I have not been following this case in detail, so I don't have a firm opinion if such a remedy is appropriate in this case. I do think there have been and will be cases where sysops have developed unfortunate behaviour patterns, have proven unable to take on community feedback in conventional

5814:

I'm not interested in simply handing out punishment, without at least trying to explore other options. Administrator arbitration cases are not meant to be a binary decision. It is clear to me that the community expects the committee to consider carefully when deciding whether or not to remove

5810:

to administrator conduct standards sends the wrong message. If this is the only remedy passed, we are implying Kudpung's behaviour would have been okay if it had come from a non-administrator. This is not so. Should the undesired behaviours not ameliorate on their own, it is highly likely the

5619:

FoF 4, "Previous attempts at resolution" is nonsense. If there's been a long-term problem with Kudpung's approach, none of those links have tried to address it. They're all individual issues, closed as resolved. I don't see anywhere where anyone has tried to speak to Kudpung about any alleged

5328:, the "General reminder" remedy implies that the underlying matter might have been resolved by earlier and more persistent intervention by the community. It is not, as you assert, saying this matter has not risen to the level of arbitration at all. I am therefore not seeing an incongruence. 4638:

Regarding Kudpung's ACE question reply: either he was referring to me, or he was not referring to me and there is some other editor that a) Kudpung got into conflict with, b) leading him to boycott WiR, who is a c) queer d) woman e) who Kudpung feels has accused him of misogyny, f) who he has

3119:

Given that providing constructive negative feedback to someone is a very difficult task, if the arbitration committee wants to remind the community to do this, I suggest it should remind editors who feel they are trusted by the editor exhibiting sub-optimal behaviour that they are in the best

673:

It's the slipping "soon" that's a problem. I don't mind if you say "We will have it done next week" and it's done early. but when you say "a couple of days" and it turns into "hopefully sometime in the next 2 weeks", how accurate was the first statement? It feels like placating (not saying it

5035:

I would not advocate for Kudpung to be desysopped if the incident involving me was the only incident here, so we don't disagree on that. My concern is more with the comment "I can live with saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment" being preserved in an ArbCom decision (though

4560:

I'm surprised you are buying into Kudpung's claims that because he has not mentioned a username, he is not discussing specific editors. It is painfully clear that he was referring to MissVain and to me in the two incidents of this presented in evidence. In MissVain's case, the timing and the

2985:

There's more than enough here to see any ordinary user blocked for a very long time, Kudpung being an admin has got them out of trouble, whether they realise it or not, too many times and it really is about time that 'diplomatic immunity' was removed, not just for Kudpung, but for all of us.

2817:

incident where I found Kudpung's comment so disrespectful, it didn't occur after the ANI where Kudpung kept doubling down, it didn't occur when the Proposed decision was posted, it hasn't occurred yet. I don't believe the one thing that Kudpung did post went as far as needed, as explained by

1774:

punishment). It would do much good for the project if you worked to dispel the notion that may well be common among some administrators and others that desysop is punishment. Moreover, as arbitrators, the only people who may desysop, you can no longer afford to view desysop as punishment. --

1706:

and it was argued that the ARC statement and evidence was sufficient. In other cases, often people will submit a link to an entire ANI or AN thread and state that everything necessary for review can be found there. It is clear to me that many people have different ideas about how the process

1421:) that it is unreasonable and unfair to include these links at this stage. At the least, I would hope the community sees the mistakes in your action, of being the collator, investigator and decider, all in one, and the subsequent misrepresentation of the links. I'll leave it at this. Thanks, 4224:

Its been a long time since I've seen arbs try so hard to fall over themselves to ignore the evidence in front of them to find an escape hatch for a powerful administrator. Length of tenure? Endorsing Kudpung's refusal to take part in the case? Waving away Kudpung's obvious statements about

3134:

Regarding the conversation with xeno: I don't know if recusal would accomplish anything, since all of the arbitrators were made aware of the conversation and so there's no unringing the bell. I recall thinking that it was a bit weird to essentially ask the subject of a case how to sanction

4871:

I don't think I have to explain why being accused of "manufacturing outrage" (rather than describing my honest experience with Kudpung) is extremely ABF. I have spent enough time having my motives and experiences questioned here; I don't expect you to stop, but I'm done engaging with it.

1685:

I would say that I appreciate the time that all of you have taken to respond to this issue. While I am still at odds with your perspective, I respect the fact that you've given it proper attention (and hopefully, going forward, maybe this issue is resolved out of the grey area). Warmly,

3280:

seems not to be sinking in. No editor, regardless of their personal background, quantity of edits, length of service, can be an island able to disregard standards which they, as an Admin., are expected to uphold. Arbcom drafters dishonest, biased, blatantly distorting facts.... really?

4268:

Two extra special "keep your nose clean for a year" remedies that weren't considered for BHG or RHaworth (and further haven't been on the table since I started clerking in 2012) is further proof that several arbs really want to protect Kudpung against any real sanctions in this case.

1856:

I will add, be sure you are not underestimating how much we as a community rely and have relied on the self-circumspection of the user involved in the cases that come before you, even more so the administrator. We have little choice but to so rely, especially with administrators.

5563:

which I understood as an acknowledgment that a different approach might have avoided an escalation but I accept that by rewording your comments, I might have added something you did not mean. I will rephrase my comment accordingly and I apologize for any misunderstanding. Regards

6062:

cases (BHG and KP were pure ADMINACCT, RH was half ADMINACCT and half tool misuse). Perhaps, we should allow deysops at ArbCom to pass an RfA at the same 50.1% majority (same as ArbCom for a deysop), given that it seems rare for an ArbCom deysop to ever become a resyop again?

5893:

Kudpung is an admin. Being held to a high standard cuts both ways: it means that bad behaviour looks that much worse on the project, but it also means that bad behaviour is more easily overlooked and harder to deal with. That's not unique to Knowledge; it's true of any volunteer

5742:

may very well have backfired, because that's really not the point here. The point is whether he can take criticism onboard and act in a manner consistent with community expectations of an administrator, even in situations where the other side is at least partially in the wrong.

4057:

You meant Principle 6, of course. From what I’m gathering, Kudpung’s NPP efforts bring him into contact with new editors and I guess that’s what’s being focused on here, but I don’t see anything in FoF concerning new editors specifically. I will have to go over the diffs again.

1826:

behavior. I think I have made it clear that my comments were based on the fact that the community has for years expressed tolerance for Kudpung's behavior even when it has been discussed and thus might have inadvertently caused some of the problems now under discussion. Regards

3011:

Only two arbs have voted on the remedies so far and they're split across the desysop, probation, and admonishment – so it's a bit early in the day to be comparing outcomes. The purpose of the proposed decision is to consider a range of options. If you look at the PDs for both

6041:(I have not pinged Xeno and Katie above, since I expect arbs don't appreciate being pinged every time someone takes their name in vain on the proposed decision talk page. If it would be a good idea, could someone do it for me, since I am getting on a 14 hour flight.) 1794:

explore remedies that would have (in my written opinion) greater preventative effect was why I put forward alternative remedies. Simply returning a user to rank in hope that all the other problems work themselves out is another form of kicking the can down the road.

4916:

The intent would be to allow enforcement by uninvolved administrators if there were perhaps minor breaches that was felt was not serious enough to put forward the request to enact the desysop (or in advance of doing so), addressing one of the concerns of bradv at

1019:

added into the Evidence page. The acting clerk declined that request due to formality of the stage dates. As the AC deliberations now continue well beyond the target date can I request again that the requested evidence (links) be inserted into the evidence page?

5823:

trouble identifying when they were crossing the line. So it was natural for them to cross the line in arbitration. In this context, I was rather uncomfortable seeing them criticized for their participation, and I worried that it would create a chilling effect.

2135:, what on earth has Wikimania 2020 got to to with this? I really think you've said more than enough during this case, your 'evidence' has been noted and comments are officially closed, and whichever way this case goes for me, you need to consider stepping back. 1387:

You are welcome to ask the committee to review my actions. I saw a finding of fact that I consider to be incorrect, and so I provided a corrected version. That's very much a part of the decision process, and I would expect any other arbitrator to do the same. –

5930:

the community places in an editor's judgment and their ability to perform certain functions. Therefore, taking away the administrator tools is also not a punishment – it is merely a recognition that the community's level of trust in this person has changed.

631:, we are in the final stages of drafting the PD but not yet done. Hopefully the weekend will give us sufficient time to finish it, so it can be posted next week (no guarantees). While I can imagine the stress, rushing this will do no good either. Regards 5602:

I'm not really active on Knowledge these days. And as a disclaimer, Kudpung is a personal friend. So feel free to take anything I say in the light of that. I'd hoped to keep away from this, but I'm disturbed by a few things and feel I need to comment...

2818:

Ajraddatz, which would give some assurance that he understood. Now, it's too late for me to believe it is possible, but I would still like to know why the five arbs above believe there had been indication that Kudpung has taken the concerns on board.

5827:

attempts). And I do not agree that a party exhibiting undesired behaviour during the case is proof that alternate remedies contemplated are doomed to failure, or that they will not have the desired preventative effect. Evidence of undesired behaviour

2178:, considering your own lack of involvement in a case that centered on you (which some might interpret as disrespectful to the community), you aren't really in a position to criticize the extent to which other users participated in this case, are you? 4991:

I can live with dustups with other people, and even saying misogynistic comments in the heat of the moment, but looking back, the number of veiled threats where Kudpung alludes to admin status or tools is actually too many for me to feel comfortable

3043:

That's true, but given the outcomes of those cases/where the new committee has set the bar for administrator conduct, together with the evidence presented for the findings of fact, some of the proposed decisions available seem a little incongruous.

5246:

about this was that it was completely non-transparent (this wasn't even linked from the case pages) and did not give other community members the opportunity to participate unless they happened to see your talk page (as one of 15 arbitrators). --

4306:

I will give you a spot of leway for RHaworth, but the BHG admonishment is nothing like wheeling out pre-2010 remedies. Further, in neither of those cases did the principle party try to evade scrutiny by avoiding the case while simultaneously

3911:

then there's no reason for a suspended desysop. This is a half-measure. Neither BHG or RHaworth were given a suspended remedy. What makes Kudpung any more deserving than they? He barely even participated in his own case, for crying out loud.

4644: 5144:

administrator (around 9 years for Kudpung) vs "number of incidents" is being considered as a type of migitation - when the committee has just desysopped someone with 13+ years admin tenure over a single incident. I also strongly endorse

4770:

actions in this thread. As the thread shows, before Missvain was singled out, most editors discussed the general problem of bundling "autopatrolled" with +sysop. Once she was mentioned and got involved, the thread became a discussion on

3301:

by a clerk and a subsequent request not responded to. But there was no dispute (indeed there was agreement) that the evidence could be recorded in the proper place, subject to clerk approval, despite the stage being "officially" closed.

4102:

A thousand times, yes. That was the whole reason I got involved. I'm not saying that all such conduct by Kudpung is appropriate, but even a cursory glance shows the evidence doesn't support the conclusions (as you outlined). Well done!

1664:

Ah okay, I see that. Still, I don't have a problem with Bradv's edit. We are elected to be arbitrators and to use discretion and foresight to come to conclusions that we feel to be the best and fairest for wikipedia and its community.

3219:

cases, and some of which may not. A number of years ago, some drafting arbitrators would have made use of the workshop period to present and discuss these choices, but it wasn't commonplace, and hasn't been the trend for a while now.

2862:

Kudpung saying "you need to consider stepping back" versus BrownHairedGirl saying "you are not telling the truth". The first sentence is not true, while the second one is not false. What is worse ? Many weeks are required to decide.

5087:

This doesn't mean that it has to be discounted here (otherwise one error would mean no-one else during this committee could ever use it), but I do think it's worth the arbs noting that a difference in consideration is occurring. I

2792:

4.2 and that this Case - once it's over - serves as the warning the community has previously failed to give. Consequently, a failure to abide by a remedy can only be sanctioned once a remedy has actually been implemented. Regards

5886:, I really appreciate all the thought and effort you have put into this decision. It's not a comfortable feeling desysopping the third person in 2 months, and you are not alone in trying to think about and look for alternatives. 4765:

Specific incidents can be the reason to start a discussion about general problems.As I said, his interactions with Missvain were - admittedly - the reason he started this thread. But that does not mean that he wanted to discuss

4402:

active admin would benefit anyone or be effective, especially without trying to desysop an admin. If neither, and without a community-based desysop process, then that would leave ArbCom to decide whether to sysop or desysop. --

886:

The issue with a slipping "due" date, is about the appropriate managing of expectations. Has that been appropriate here? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But it is something for all of us to think about and try to improve upon.

3795:

Those are not the comments of a community that thought it might be required to intervene because of problematic behavior. If anything, they signaled that the behavior is okay and there is no need to worry or change. Regards

1085:

cases either start the decision process by the target date or revise the date and communicate the revision, but sometimes getting it right is better than never getting it right, with recent previous arbitration committees.

5862:. I disagree on this, as there are examples where the middle ground was successful in retaining an administrator and providing long-lasting actual restorative solutions to the problems that were presented the committee. 5462:

you're attaching my name to it in the text of an arbcom case which means that if uncorrected it will go in Knowledge's permanent record that I said pretty much the opposite of what I actually said. If one actually reads

4366:

If the last proposed remedy or some variation of it is adopted, I suggest the heading "General reminder" as opposed to "Community reminded." It's a nuance, but the latter somehow comes off to my ear as slightly grating.

4185:

This whole mess appears to be coming to a close. I would like to thank all participants in this discussion (and the active ArbCom members deciding this case in particular) for considering all of the evidence/discussion.

5523:, you don't have to take this advice but I strongly advise knocking it off. You're not doing your cause any favours and your recent comments are veering very close to the line separating "steadfast" from "obsessive". ‑ 2426: 5370:

results in a lesser sanction, certainly does not model good behavior to follow, and significantly colors the outcome of this case. I think recusal is moot at this point - the damage has been done already. This was

5843:

would have been a good idea to place a pointer to the talk page discussion somewhere obvious for the benefit of other stakeholders, and I will be be sure to do so should these circumstances present in the future.

2004:

Male/female, minor/insidious, portals/other editors... Of the contrasts, the first is probably undisputed, the second is what the ArbCom is there to deliberate on, the third one is outright wrong. So, I disagree.

5684: 1913: 3078: 1357:

thanks again for the response. I understand your point of view about rebuttal. However, you and I both know that this is a wrong way to re-insert links that were not placed in the evidence stage for discussion.

2982:

tolerance approach and would like to see 'failing to participate in a relevant arbitration case' as a legitimate ground for desysopping as part of an enhanced admin accountability policy, but that's just me.

6082:

whose ArbCom cases could trawl up the same type of evidence as say per Kudpung – E.g. periods of ADMINACCT violations in a long carer. If we don't find a better solution to this, we are all going to suffer.

5282:

of the objections raised above by others the discussion as it stands doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the neutrality of the decision. I guess I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is now. --

5624:

In short, ArbCom, I think you have taken far too much at face value in this case, have oversimplified and misrepresented important issues, and I fear you're on the verge of another hamfisted over-reaction.

4712:

I did not refer to you. It was a generalisation. I have supported LGBT and women's rights for 58 years and come across many different types, and sadly I have come across some gay women who are misandrists.

5162: 5901:

Against a wide range of other options that have been tried from time to time (and some that haven't), I consider desysopping a sufficient and appropriate solution in this case, for the following reasons:

5866:

greatest chance of providing a lasting solution to the underlying concern, and in this instance I truly believe a suspended remedy has a better chance of achieving that goal. Reasonable minds can differ.

1703: 5223:

Arbitration, like all other pursuits on this project, is a collaborative endeavour. Seeking buy-in from the affected parties is part-and-parcel of the process (though it usually happens on case pages).

3625: 5668: 1368:

This clearly does not mention the case page or any other page across the project – and for a reason, so that editors don't randomly insert links without having given the community a chance to respond.

3835:

be admonished for it, something the community has in the past failed to do. I just also recognize that some of that behavior might have been encouraged by the lack of opposition in the past. Regards

2742:(perhaps from your vantage point as arbs, you may not realize how non-admins perceive being told to step back as a threat), while also failing to assume good faith and being critical of unnamed arbs. 6098: 5580:

thank you :-) your rephrasing is more what I meant. FWIW, the arbs are doing a good job here, and I absolutely do think Kudpung is a good admin, despite the matters that are being addressed here. -

3073: 3955:

Thanks to ArbCom for posting the decision. For those who want to revisit the decisions on RHaworth or BHG in light of this ruling, let's see what the end result is here first. We can then refer to

1533:, who has decided and at what stage have they decided that these links provide evidence that Kudpung is "wrong"? You, right now while typing your message? (yay to arbcom procedures then, right) Or 3597: 2900:

The probation thing has been done before, eg the Giantsnowman case. BHG’s and RHarwoth’s cases should be reopened to consider probation, as it is being considered here. It’s not too late. We have

2339: 2310: 1905: 5778: 2596:

that anything has been taken on board. Criticizing the arbs as biased and dishonest after failing to participate in the case himself, when most of the arbs haven't even voted ... <sigh: -->

760:(endquote ☺). To me at least, the word due implies that the PD does have a deadline. To be clear I completely agree with you that the date is just a guideline, I was just wondering if the word 5889:

At the end of the day, I agree with you that desysopping does not address all the problems. However, most of the behavioural issues we have identified in this case were particularly egregious

5299:

I think an arbitrator themself is permitted to recuse whenever they see fit. And you can petition for recusal despite the late stage if you can demonstrate the circumstances are extraordinary.

3135:

themselves. With this particular case, it could be seen as a novel way to get the subject to engage. I would be more comfortable with this approach if it didn't seem like a one-off situation.

1784: 1254:, you have listed out various links about Kudpung's behaviour being discussed on community noticeboards. Can you please confirm whether these links were taken from the Evidence stage? Thanks, 5997:

cruel but don't disagree with the latter. The Kudpung situation is a bit more nuanced. Aside from nuking that IP editor who put maintenance tags on the Baked Beans article, there wasn't much

1763: 1110: 4881: 4866: 4686: 4526: 2044:

That's a very generous description of repetitive attacks on the intelligence and honesty of several other editors, combined with a refusal to listen to anyone who objected to this behavior.

3405:

would be several instances of him dismissing/removing criticism and calling it trolling or similar, not a single instance of him removing criticism directed at another editor as trolling. –

3371:

and took this to indicate that I was now probably welcome to comment there . In March 2019 I noticed him having a particular rough time relating to his role as Signpost co-editor in chief:

1995: 1967: 1333:

list of prior attempts to address Kudpung's behaviour. And, as it was already presented during this case, there was, and continues to be, opportunity to provide feedback on this finding. –

3310: 2396: 5634: 2813:. At any step in this process, that would have satisfied me. We are all human, and acknowledgement of mistakes and realization we need to do better goes a long way. It didn't occur after 2689: 2670: 1949: 4784:

but that does not mean the discussion following the creation was about that situation but instead the need of having a policy like that in general and what it should look like. Regards

4691: 2656: 2611: 5795:

divide that has presented itself within the community. And in all of these cases, I didn't feel that simply pulling the user right would strike the right balance among these concerns.

5459: 5130: 5065: 5045: 5030: 5010:

Okay, it seemed to me that it was an isolated and extremely ill-considered comment that initiated a situation where he dug his heels in afterwards - hence the driver appeared (with my

4261: 3925: 2038: 2014: 1131: 5760: 2208: 2078: 2058: 941: 6110: 5696: 5221:: Could you clarify why you feel that my discussion of potential remedies with the named party during this case, and proposing a potential middle-ground remedy, warrants my recusal? 4281: 4237: 3506: 1866: 1851: 1837: 1053: 1039: 1028: 5589: 5575: 4901:

brought to ARCA for potential desysopping? It seems like a lot to put all in one remedy. Not to mention it will potentially limit Kudpung from participating in the ARCA discussion.

4726: 4667: 4600: 4545: 1818: 1803: 1188: 4971: 4957: 4944: 4929: 4702: 3846: 3829: 3807: 2286: 2192: 1842:

Thank you for your response. I suppose, when enough is enough, and whether enough has been said is always a judgement you will be called upon to make. Best wishes and wisdom. --

1749: 1067: 894: 4627:

There is no conjecture surrounding Missvain's edits, however, Alex. Facts are facts, and I think I'm being rather generous and Assuming a lot of Good Faith under the circumstances

4376: 3708: 3691: 3643: 3591: 3468: 3448: 3435: 3413: 3396: 3358: 2803: 2526: 2268:

although we will leave the current responses here, if you wish to continue the above conversation, please respond in your own section per the instructions at the top of the page.

2255: 2233: 2167: 2144: 772: 6091: 5546: 5004: 4910: 4844: 4575: 4507: 3674: 3421:

brigade". He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it as "trolling" or similar or by requesting that users not edit his talk page (at least six times, by Kudpung's own count).

3201:

back just a bit while the committee comes to their decisions. The ink is still wet, this is a collaborative process, we need the space to be able to explore alternate remedies. –

2850: 2832: 2785: 2545: 2349:: I will come back to your concern of form. This page is really to source opinions on the substance, though. Could you let me know your thoughts about the remedy on the merits? – 908: 5513: 4390: 3942: 3533: 2728: 1680: 1638: 1491:"After considering the evidence and workshop pages, and any private discussions among the Arbitration Committee, one or more arbitrators will write and post a proposed decision. 1366:"After considering the evidence and workshop pages, and any private discussions among the Arbitration Committee, one or more arbitrators will write and post a proposed decision. 695: 683: 668: 642: 5434: 5421: 5404: 5310: 5294: 5272: 5258: 5235: 5173: 4428: 4353: 4328: 4294: 3290: 2511:, the terms "Repeated or consistent" are used twice. Hence some context is needed to qualify (or not) repeated behaviour. i.e. "x events in 6 months vs. x events in 10 years". 2375: 2357: 2126: 2109: 1692: 1576: 1547: 1245: 5712: 5360: 5343: 3751:

You call it "putting up", I call it tolerating. The sentiment and the end result are the same. Just look at the discussions linked to in FoF proposal #4.2 with comments like

3160: 2962: 2949: 2928: 2732: 2636: 2582: 2461:

I can only offer the mea culpa that the Portals case went into voting only a few weeks into my term, and there is a rather lot of stuff thrown at you those first few weeks. –

1427: 1404: 1382: 1349: 1320: 1291: 1003: 923: 3879: 3053: 3031: 2469: 2456: 2437: 1721: 1519: 1499: 1458: 1147: 986: 965: 752:

I'm not sweating anything or rushing anything, I do have massive amounts of respect for the hard-working arbs, but I'm just wondering why the main page that lists Requests (

740: 142: 5527: 5488: 5113: 4218: 4195: 4172: 4154: 4140: 4126: 4112: 4050: 4028: 3904: 3745: 3337: 3228: 3209: 3195: 3173: 1596: 726: 657: 5954: 5755: 4090: 4066: 4003: 3989: 1094: 441: 5726: 5386: 5212: 5152: 5080:

I too don't feel that the parole method suggested here was properly suggested in BHG's - the two phrasings are very different, and might have led to a different result.

4795: 4753: 4632:

I have attempted here to resolve one issue without opening one huge can of worms which those with proper memories here have been discrete enough not embarass anyone with.

3106: 3091: 5815:

administrative user rights, if there is another way to remedy the situation while retaining the positive elements of that administrator's contributions to the project.

4411: 3069: 2501: 2748: 1487:"After considering any page on Knowledge, and any private discussions among the Arbitration Committee, one or more arbitrators will write and post a proposed decision. 1106: 478: 310: 84: 6015: 4477: 3571: 2913: 628: 136: 125: 5854:

I'm also not sure how it can be said that my proposing (or other arbitrators' support for) an alternative remedy represents some form of collusion. In fact, if you

3658:"The community is looking for much more than just the removal of a toolset. There is no guarantee that simply removing the user rights will have the desired effect" 2416: 1260: 1226: 1033:

Fwiw, and as everyone may realise that I had opposed Leaky caldron's evidence links during the workshop stage, I think that Lc's request seems fair and reasonable.

614: 6051: 2740: 2621: 2564: 583: 2092:

I'm not convinced gender is really the deciding factor here. More likely ArbCom just don't want to desysop three times in a row because it'd make them look like

1876: 1711:

run, but in my experience, few believe that ARC should not be taken under consideration during a case, or for ARC to be seen as outside the arbitration process.

880: 243: 3968: 2889: 2872: 4835:

tools that she was not notified of. It's not courteous to have that kind of conversation without alerting her, it goes against basic dispute resolution rules.

3252: 3144: 3129: 849: 5975: 5104:

it will become the default option in unclear cases (i.e. involved admins will be placed under parole quite lightly), but that too doesn't rule out its usage.

3762: 3488: 3276:. And this is not an isolated, recent understandable venting of exasperation. It's a trend. Yes it's tough to be referred to Arbom., but the realisation that 2998: 1175: 5877: 472: 4735: 1623:

I note that the segment you highlight would seem to be at odds with the big prominent bit highlighted here, so I think it is a good idea to talk about it.

131: 120: 4616:

If the editor was not an admin I would have pulled the autpat. flag already. Unfortunately I have a feeling that there is more to this than meets the eye.

5938:. We obviously do not need to agree, but I hope that you will find my explanation for why I'm voting for this course of action helpful and reasonable. – 5484:. While it's a demonstrable fact that Kudpung over-uses "anti-admin", it's not at all clear that it's intended as an insult on all of these occasions. ‑ 1139:: I think that we could probably post shortly, with some of the finer details needing to be worked out on the PD page itself. I'll query the drafters. – 5092:, that with the 3rd desysop case coming through in quick succession, in non-slamdunk cases, additional thought into alternatives is now being put in. 4962:

Makes sense. Might be worth voting on as a separate remedy, but I won't get into the weeds of advising how to write the PD. Thanks for your hard work.

2747:

The remedy further reads, "If any editor feels that Kudpung's behaviour does not accord with the letter or the spirit of this remedy, they may file an

2699: 2295:. I am surprised by the drama and passion that this case has engendered. We are told by Kudpung that becoming a Knowledge administrator is no big deal. 3649: 4286:

Both cases had lesser remedies available, and I don’t believe my position in the present case is inconsistent with my positions in the prior cases. –

2299: 2067: 436: 6074:

record, coupled with the person's own sense of hurt or being so publically rejected by the focus of their efforts, will make this very unlikely)?

3607: 1299:, thanks. I had quick queries here. These links were mentioned in the case report presumably by one of the arbitrators, with the following comment: 1698: 468: 264: 256: 114: 29: 2224:

Don't bring the gender thing into this, please. Anyways, it does indeed taste bad, if one administrator looses the tools & the other doesn't.

3665:

if you believe he would, the remedy is straightforward without putting him through a year of misery. And by the way, what about after 12 months?

2739:

This proposal was put forward and supported only days after Kudpung posted a personalizing response to an editor who was critical of his actions,

5860:"each arbcom case against an admin has to handled as unique, with the only possible solutions being either admonishment or removal of the tools" 1896:

for much more insidious behavior towards other users, some editors may feel that this is another example of Knowledge not being gender neutral.

949:: I would say we are close but not quite ready. I’ve suggested to the drafters to consider updating the PD target date to the 25th for clarity. 3457: 3384: 1922: 1482: 1361: 6102: 3244: 3220: 3187: 3152: 3136: 3121: 2642:

Knowledge has been notifying me of attempts to access my account; probably related to the vandalism on this page. Change your passwords :)

1917: 410: 3856: 3369: 3326:

Although he is removing a post with the edit summary "rm trolling" , the removed post was criticism directed at another editor, not Kudpung.

5736: 2560: 3714: 3316: 2066:

was no angel then, but I think there are prospects of rehabilitation. In the current case, from comments made on this page and elsewhere,

260: 4589:

the same, especially since he avoided using her name and explicitly claimed that he did not want to discuss any specific editor. Regards

430: 275: 253: 109: 98: 5765:

Working with case parties to mediate a solution as part of the proposed decision process is not in itself a bad thing. It reminds me of

2429:, which involved an admonishment with an explicit warning that desysop remains in abeyance (this is probation without using the word). – 1409:

Thanks for the response. No, I would not wish to ask the Committee to review your actions. But I would wish to point out to you (and to

5711:. I think a more forceful remedy than "reminder" is warranted given the discussions, and I worry this remedy as it stands goes against 5189:

it got to a point where the only remedy was a desysop - but that's not how I read remedy 5. If that's so you need to be more specific.

4446:

concerning the addition of 'new' links in the proposed decision. If something's wrong, then it needs to be pointed out as wrong. Going

1606: 511: 463: 401: 320: 248: 91: 4161:

I have spent enough time having my motives and experiences questioned here; I don't expect you to stop, but I'm done engaging with it.

4145:

I think you're wrong, explain what I'm seeing, and that's "cruel"? You're literally using a different dictionary than the rest of us.

3381: 932:

and that hopefully the weekend would be enough time. I'll note that today is a holiday in the US for some, so may still be "weekend".

3756:

nothing here rises to a level that would lead the community in general to question an individual's "fitness as an editor (and) admin"

1329: 426: 5994:

If this is the only remedy passed, we are implying Kudpung's behaviour would have been okay if it had come from a non-administrator.

5791:

My position in this case has been consistent with my positions in the previous two cases that involved administrative user rights.

1511:

of the finding that those noticeboard threads are attached to it at this stage and I will consider your concerns in that context. –

537: 406: 25: 6069:

I don't know where ADMINACCT came from, but in war, we don't expect the soldiers who have spent 10-years on the front line, to be

5278: 3186:

of their actions. Why start with looking at possible remedies, instead of trying to understand more context for findings of fact?

1373: 5674: 5597: 5409:

I have to ultimately agree with Ajraddatz below: this may be allowable by the letter of the policy, but it looks really shady. --

4382:

I've made the change to the heading, though note here that the community is still being reminded in the paragraph underneath... –

4361: 4308: 3271:

attack the integrity of those who have participated or to pass derogatory remarks about the PD drafters. Today for example, ...."

1958:

was desysopped mostly and probably only because it was pointed out that he ought not to receive any mercy for you received none.

416: 396: 279: 1552:

I'm not aware of any procedural rule about when or where evidence in the PD should come from. As a general principle, ArbCom is

1079: 6025:

I'm commenting here since Xeno has referenced my suggestions on the RHaworth case in proposing the "suspended desysop" remedy.

4532: 2563:, and how the community was left to deal with a problem that festered for years after the arbs did not act. On cue, Kudpung's 421: 334: 315: 3539: 3372: 3165:

A fair point, but at the time of the conversation the draft PD was naught but a shell. Hence, the speaking in hypotheticals. –

384: 5680: 1990: 1944: 455: 346: 5688: 5302:

I don’t think engaging in the conversation affected my neutrality, but I’ve sought advice from my non-recused colleagues. –

2751:

or contact the committee privately to request the remedy be enacted and Kudpung's administrative user rights be removed."

1727: 1372:

an opportunity to discuss on the same. This is a bad use of your position, to be honest. In my view, your move contravenes

1160:

Real Life really interfered this time and then a few sequences we needed consensus on. Apologies for delay and posted now.

1102: 595:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

379: 4322:

exists and a "final warning". In the end, you will be asked to do the bare minimum and keep your nose clean for a year. --

1198:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

871:

Ya'll got the PD page on your watchlist, so don't sweat it. It will be known immediately, when arbitrators begin posting.

710:, I'm not sure I'd want the arbs to rush this one. Nor am I surprised in any way that the PD wasn't delivered on time, as 6056: 5917:

it allows Kudpung to continue to contribute to the project, without any further restrictions on what he may or may not do

5532: 4482: 4225:

GorillaWarfare and Missvain? You all have to be kidding me. Do your dam job and stop treating AGF like a suicide pact. --

305: 234: 21: 3861:

When "the prisoner in the dock" (not my expression) states clearly in their limited contribution to the main case page

3257: 565:

Now that the PD has been posted, please post in your own sections rather than continue the discussion here. Thank you!

1122:

do not assume arrogance on my part, but it would be good to expect something soon. Thank you for your consideration.

5980: 5905:

it accurately reflects that Kudpung has not modeled "appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors"

5444: 4201: 2551: 2025:'s conduct hardly went beyond being rather silly and stubborn on one occasion and warranted at most an admonishment. 1271:, I believe all those links were mentioned at the case request, but they're also readily available with a search at 1155: 5920:

it does not limit the community's ability to resysop him or grant other advanced permissions at an appropriate time

5914:

it avoids the need for civility restrictions, which tend to be vague, easily wikilawyered, and difficult to enforce

5701: 5417: 5382: 5356: 5290: 5254: 5208: 5075: 3884: 2442:

Thanks for the response. Personally I would consider that remedy to be less stringent than the one proposed here -

612: 54:

Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and

3780:

I see nothing wrong with Kudpungs comment and actually I would go as far as to say he was rather nice and polite!,

2508: 5179: 5138: 4494:

I am trying to understand your recent batch of edits to this page in the context of your previous statement that

371: 211: 5847:

prevented from commenting and providing feedback on the proposed remedy that was developed in consultation with

5481: 5464: 4249:

that he has learned nothing from this case. Why would a discussion on his talk page have a different outcome? --

1886: 5851:

members of this community (not just Kudpung) in many places other than the referenced thread on my talk page.

5766: 5061: 5026: 4464: 4396: 3529: 3440:

Correct, it’s a concern about how it is drafted (the claim needs to be supported by diffs proving the claim). –

2534:

who had made three serious mistakes in three months with the bit vs. one that had made three over ten years. –

2522: 2479: 2364:

after interaction with Kudpung which you initiated out of sight of these ArbCom threads while the case was open

1676: 1659: 1634: 1171: 357: 300: 5477:

it seemed very unlikely that the subjects of these accusations did have any vendetta against admins generally

1614:: With no fixed approaches to problems, all actions, conduct, and relevant evidence may be taken into account. 5731: 5664: 5630: 4434: 4246: 3375: 2895: 2743: 2593: 689:

cases stall out for over a month at this stage. If something gets posted by the 18th, I will be impressed. --

292: 5197: 4311: 3785: 3778: 3770: 3754: 2768: 2330:

between Xeno and Kudpung, initiated by Xeno. It casts doubt on the impartiality of the arbitration process.

2327: 1541:), and that I too can introduce some more links for analysis here, then why don't we merge Arbcom with ANI? 5926: 5869:

I think this addresses most of the concerns raised. Please feel free to request additional clarification. –

2401: 1202: 530: 342: 240: 5966:

and elsewhere and believe that if offered the chance to address the stated concerns, Kudpung will do so.--

4776:

avoid the conversation focusing on those creations instead of the bigger picture. To use another example:

4612:

If he truly did not wish to single out MissVain, why did he repeatedly do so in the ensuing conversation?

557: 6020: 5426:

I appreciate your feedback, and understand your view of the optics - I will take it into consideration. –

3865:

That's all I have to say and if the committee votes to take the case, so be it and it can take its course

352: 270: 5050:

That's a fair point/agreed - I hadn't meant it to come out like that. Just thinking on how to refactor.

3602:

One of the concerns is about Kudpung's lack of participation here. And yet, in this prominent thread on

3114: 3950: 3456:

Many examples, circa 20, of rm trolling from his TP. Of course, they might all be perfectly legitimate

2856: 391: 17: 4417:

Desysopping is not the only possible outcome of a review of an admin's actions though, is it? Regards

3863:"it is midnight here where I live and I will not be at the beck and call of a pitchfork-wielding mob. 6099:

Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung closed

2972: 2240:

It's worth noting that there were also sanctions between an admonishment and desysop proposed in the

1986: 1940: 1862: 1847: 1814: 1780: 1745: 1090: 2199:

I expect that arbitrators will consider the behavior of participants during the arbitration process.

6087: 5960: 5783: 5692: 5660: 5626: 5585: 5542: 5041: 5000: 4967: 4940: 4906: 4877: 4862: 4840: 4682: 4663: 4571: 4522: 4503: 4099: 3772:

I think that Kudpung's recommendation that you chill was not only spot on but very patient as well.

3418:

That bit in quotes comes from the PD drafters, as you know. They have provided various links under

1470:

on the case page, never discussed on the evidence page by the community, and then suddenly re-used

1211: 937: 4206:

I have seen the case and I will post a longer statement in the morning once more votes come in. --

5746:

for any offence that I may have caused", would we even be here? That's the crux of the issue. --

3919: 3898: 3875: 3825: 3741: 3670: 3621: 3567: 3502: 3464: 3431: 3392: 3333: 3306: 3286: 2666: 2186: 2052: 1049: 1024: 770: 600:

What's happening with this? I'm glad I'm not in Kudpung's shoes right now as I wouldn't want the

523: 2447:

might have persuaded some Arbs not to desysop BHG on the spot, but it seems possible. Cheers —

953:: I’ll ask the clerks to consider changing it from “due” to “expected” or something like that - 662:

The PD deadline has always been loose while the others has been firm. This isn't anything new --

5858:, Kudpung does not even agree with the proposed middle ground solution as appropriate, anyway: 5855: 5811:

community will still have trouble addressing the situation beyond the conclusion of this case.

5799: 4918: 3580: 2828: 2781: 2685: 2652: 2632: 2607: 2578: 2296: 2010: 1963: 2115: 6097:

The community can get in a huddle and devise new options. Some discussion is taking place at

5126: 5109: 4372: 3324:. It isn't clear what point you are making in highlighting one part of my evidence by saying 1185: 891: 714:

mentions above. Please be patient, the PD will be posted when the arbs are ready to post it.

230: 3366:

The single diff you have provided doesn't, no. The whole piece of evidence with diffs does.

2736:

from personalizing disputes or making vague or critical references about unnamed editors".

914:

say so here, with a non-binding guesstimate as to when the decision might actually come. —

5414: 5379: 5353: 5287: 5251: 5205: 5149: 4276: 4256: 4232: 4213: 3870:

influential friends out of immediate public scrutiny. Shocking that that can be advocated.

2371: 2335: 2306: 2204: 2163: 2122: 2074: 2063: 2034: 2022: 1977: 1931: 1901: 1882: 1858: 1843: 1810: 1776: 1741: 1086: 610: 3182:. But even so, with a proposed decision not yet posted, all the more reason to first make 8: 6083: 5774: 5751: 5721: 5581: 5554: 5538: 5037: 4996: 4963: 4936: 4902: 4873: 4858: 4836: 4678: 4659: 4583: 4567: 4518: 4499: 4407: 3180:

I don’t think there were any illusions as the potential applicability to the ongoing case

2497: 1737: 1561:

finding of fact ("there had been no community-wide dispute resolution attempts") that we

933: 164: 3660:. In what way is doing literally nothing - other than offering an unenforceable threat, 1930:

I hope that the bad decision in my case is not used to justify any other desysopping. --

5450:

I was hoping to stay out of this, but seeing as I'm now being named directly in the PD…

5227:

Note that I did flag the conversation to my colleagues on the secondary mailing list. –

5121:

What goes for "parole" goes even more strongly for the suspended sentence method (1.1)

5055: 5020: 4673: 4460: 3871: 3821: 3764:

no allegation of either serious administrative misconduct or of a pattern of misconduct

3737: 3666: 3617: 3603: 3563: 3523: 3513: 3498: 3460: 3427: 3388: 3347: 3329: 3302: 3282: 2945: 2909: 2662: 2589: 2516: 2282: 1670: 1653: 1628: 1165: 1045: 1020: 950: 765: 579: 189: 6078:

really are in trouble, and perhaps that is why are losing more admins than we create.

4648: 4318:

worse. Then, the whole case can be cast as some sort of learning experience about how

6047: 4014: 3263: 3026: 3020:, there were multiple proposals for sanctions between an admonishment and desysop. – 2819: 2772: 2676: 2643: 2623: 2598: 2569: 2540: 2452: 2412: 2250: 2229: 2140: 2007: 1960: 1687: 1571: 1542: 1494: 1422: 1377: 1315: 1255: 1240: 1221: 1127: 1058:

No objection here (as long as it's annotated as such). Look forward to the decision.

1034: 982: 919: 876: 732:

date. It’s better to reach the right decision late than the wrong decision on time. –

601: 178: 2114:

Another matter that ArbCom may be bearing in mind is the venue of the 2020 Wikimania

6106: 5911:

it allows any further behavioural problems to be handled entirely by administrators

5122: 5105: 4472: 4368: 3912: 3891: 3248: 3224: 3191: 3156: 3140: 3125: 2722: 2179: 2045: 1553: 1232: 1182: 888: 753: 5161:: Both prior cases had lesser options on the table. There was discussion about it 1914:

WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Proposed decision#Comments_by_BrownHairedGirl

1912:

The desysopping of BHG was justified by findings of "fact" which were untrue: see

5971: 5949: 5788:(This reply is meant to respond to various questions and concerns posted above.) 5570: 5524: 5508: 5496: 5485: 5411: 5376: 5350: 5337: 5325: 5284: 5248: 5218: 5202: 5158: 4790: 4747: 4721: 4595: 4540: 4423: 4319: 4270: 4250: 4226: 4207: 4191: 4168: 4150: 4136: 4122: 4108: 4086: 4046: 4024: 3999: 3964: 3841: 3802: 2885: 2868: 2798: 2367: 2346: 2331: 2302: 2200: 2159: 2132: 2118: 2070: 2030: 1897: 1832: 1590: 1399: 1344: 1286: 1063: 999: 904: 844: 711: 679: 653: 637: 622: 605: 200: 3736:

you understand that that the community has "expressed tolerance" for ten years.

1888:

one month ago for behavior over a rather minor matter (portals) and male editor

1306:

links that an arbitrator has said do not prove community participation? Pinging

6009: 5875: 5770: 5747: 5718: 5432: 5402: 5308: 5270: 5233: 5171: 4955: 4927: 4823:

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

4700: 4561:

specifics of the incident make it unarguable that he was referring to removing

4468: 4403: 4388: 4351: 4292: 4081:

YES! I TOTALLY meant Principle #6! Must have been...uh...autocorrect? Thanks. `

4064: 3987: 3978: 3940: 3706: 3689: 3641: 3589: 3446: 3411: 3356: 3207: 3171: 3102: 3089: 3049: 2994: 2960: 2926: 2848: 2810: 2493: 2467: 2435: 2394: 2355: 2103: 1801: 1719: 1517: 1456: 1145: 963: 738: 159: 4830:

is unacceptable even if he did use my name. Doing so behind my back, and then

4452:

we're at the voting stage, it's too late for us to be convinced a FoF is wrong

495: 5936:

the greatest chance of providing a lasting solution to the underlying concern

5051: 5016: 5011: 4985: 4777: 4456: 3817: 3574: 3519: 3494: 3063:

respects, I believe there are overwhelming grounds for desysop in both cases.

2941: 2905: 2901: 2718: 2512: 2486: 2269: 2093: 1973: 1955: 1666: 1649: 1624: 1530: 1410: 1311: 1236: 1161: 812: 724: 715: 566: 184: 2880:

stated at the Super Mario Café, a well-deserved coconut would be too harsh.

499: 51:

This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion.

6043: 5708: 5472: 4935:

this seems to weaken the remedy by making the desysop discussion optional.

4489: 4441: 4323: 3956: 3038: 3021: 2535: 2448: 2422: 2408: 2322: 2261: 2245: 2225: 2175: 2136: 2026: 1889: 1618: 1566: 1504: 1447: 1414: 1325: 1272: 1268: 1136: 1123: 978: 946: 915: 872: 707: 702: 690: 663: 173: 5482:

adminship was handed out to anyone who asked unless there was an objection

4677:

to extend AGF beyond all reason if such an issue is brought back to ARCA.

3610: 1644:

I should add that the proposed decision was written on the arbwiki, which

4831: 1539:"there is no stipulation that must been presented on the evidence page" 83:

To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see

78:

This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched

5908:

it reduces the impact of any further instances of discourteous behaviour

5458:, normally I wouldn't make a fuss about being quoted out of context but 5192:

Also - I am made really uncomfortable by the thread between Kudpung and

4715:

sense but it's also not impossible that this has happened here. Regards

4566:

and then gaslighting them when they take issue with the renewed attack.

4131:

I think you're seeing what you want to see to manufacture your outrage.

2444:"she is warned that further behavior of this kind can result in desysop" 2029:'s behavior to other editors has been deeply nasty over a wide compass. 5967: 5939: 5565: 5520: 5503: 5468:

Kudpung's intent and motivations rather than Kudpung's actual actions.

5455: 4852: 4811: 4785: 4731: 4716: 4607: 4590: 4555: 4535: 4418: 4187: 4164: 4146: 4132: 4118: 4104: 4082: 4042: 4020: 4019:

it was clearly a simple typo. Thanks to whomever put it in my section.

3995: 3974: 3960: 3836: 3812: 3797: 3724: 3683:

I mean to provide much more substantive responses in maybe 4-6 hours. –

3546: 2881: 2864: 2793: 2714: 2710: 2617: 1827: 1766: 1534: 1389: 1354: 1334: 1307: 1296: 1276: 1251: 1059: 995: 900: 839: 802:

I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.

675: 649: 632: 195: 5537:

Can someone show me where I bear responsibility for what went down? -

3403:

He often reacts to criticism by dismissing it as "trolling" or similar

6003: 5987: 5883: 5870: 5427: 5397: 5303: 5265: 5228: 5193: 5166: 4950: 4922: 4891: 4819: 4695: 4383: 4346: 4301: 4287: 4073: 4059: 4035: 3982: 3935: 3701: 3684: 3677: 3654: 3636: 3584: 3551: 3453: 3441: 3406: 3363: 3351: 3321: 3297: 3202: 3166: 3098: 3083: 3045: 3006: 2990: 2955: 2935: 2921: 2843: 2771:, and that it might be wise considering that for Xeno to now recuse. 2706: 2675:

Interesting. Change your password on both Knowledge and email then!

2462: 2430: 2389: 2350: 2318: 2097: 1796: 1757: 1733: 1713: 1512: 1463: 1451: 1140: 991: 972: 958: 747: 733: 219: 5642: 5330: 4825: 4760: 4740: 2158:. A clearer demonstration of recalcitrance could not be asked for. 1976:. But even so, it's not helpful to continue down the same path. -- 1583: 1418: 719: 497: 4781: 4643:

he decided to discuss this other editor, not me, in response to a

3377:. Within a few hours my message was removed with the edit summary 3368:

In August 2018 I was surprised to receive a Barnstar from Kudpung

4496:

No, I would not wish to ask the Committee to review your actions.

1918:

User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Statement_by_BHG_on_the_ArbCom_decision

994:

I appreciate the change in verbiage. It makes things more clear!

764:

needs to be reworded because it isn't a deadline. Thanks anyway,

5036:

obviously only as a comment on a remedy, not as a part of one).

3383:. I asked about this and the curt, dismissive response is here: 3151:

first seeking the subject's point of view on the circumstances.

2298:

Relinquishing the tools (which he does not use very often anyway

2244:

case, and the vote for the desysop over those was very close. –

1790:

And to place one on Kudpung while not taking the opportunity to

3518:

I did have a long hard think and look at this situation again.

500: 2769:

Xeno to hold a discussion with Kudpung about possible remedies

2597:... this is looking more and more like an entitlement issue. 501: 4515:

these links were introduced by an arbitrator on the case page

2556:

People, the top of the page says to post in your own section.

4949:

Pulled it as it does seem to be a rather material change. –

2620:, please see the instructions to post in your own section. 85:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

4498:

What is it you are trying to achieve here, if not that?

2731:

was proposed on 25 Feb, stating that Kudpung had made a

97:

To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see

4078:

no, I meant finding of fact...uh...hmm...dag nabbit...

3374:

and added a message requesting an editor to ease off.

3184:

a good faith attempt to understand their point of view

2425:: A lesser option was considered in the Portals case: 2362:

My view of the suspended remedy (1.1) proposed by you

90:

To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see

4654:. You sincerely believe that those two scenarios are 3959:

any necessary appeals. I look forward to the result.

1474:

on the PD page. Is there integrity in this procedure?

3350:: The claim attached is not supported by the diff. – 5835:evidence that those remedies will be unsuccessful. 5279:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal_of_arbitrators

3598:

Strange behavior - effective collusion and lobbying

3081:speaks to Kudpung's non-participation in the case. 1765:it appears you view desysop as punishment, perhaps 1374:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Policy#Conduct of arbitrators

5806:removing administrative user rights and referring 5655:is a problem, you should only be addressing their 3612:that seems to have led to Xeno's suggested remedy 2904:; we should have alternatives to desysop as well. 2559:I had my say elsewhere in these discussions about 674:actually is, only that it gives that impression). 1483:Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Voting 1376:. Please reconsider and don't go down this path. 1362:Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Voting 4995:veiled threats etc.) compatible with adminship? 3401:What I would expect to see next to a claim that 3274:desysop, it should correctly reflect the facts." 1581:To add another arb's response: agreed with Joe. 1556:or adversarial process. Our job is to establish 5761:On workshopping sanctions with the case parties 5396:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 4345:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 3934:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 3700:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 3635:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 3609:, he is guiding readers to the very discussion 2842:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 2388:below and pose follow-up questions as needed. – 1877:Statement by Xxanthippe about proposed decision 1481:In such a case, I would suggest arbcom updates 5561:Perhaps on my end I could have elaborated more 1740:, or anyone really. It is beyond the pale. -- 957:does seem to carry a heightened implication. – 2767:I also agree that it was quite irregular for 531: 4513:Also, who are you referring to when you say 2940:It could be done as an appeal through ARCA? 2729:"Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy), 1.1" 5831:to the enactment of formal remedies is not 5681:"the trust and confidence of the community" 5649:We have concluded that Kudpung is a problem 3662:"much more than just removal of a toolset?" 1954:Any more that is. It's my observation that 756:) does say the date that the PD is (qoute) 99:Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks 3215:appreciate your saying it is a fair point. 538: 524: 92:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 5185:community should have admonished Kudpung 3562:and the generalised abuse will continue. 4921:. Does it read improperly/confusingly? – 716:I'm sure it is probably for good reasons 3296:In response to the valid point made by 2509:Knowledge:Administrators#Accountability 1466:, for one, these links were introduced 14: 5145: 930:in the final stages of drafting the PD 5683:and, at the same time, be subject to 5393: 4649:comment from Kudpung in which he was 4342: 3931: 3697: 3632: 3614:Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy) 3555:Kudpung desysopped (suspended remedy) 2839: 2385: 703:Lourdes 23:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 4782:"due to the Daniel Brandt situation" 2954:It would have to start there, yes. – 1044:Thanks Lourdes, appreciated. ;) 795: 591:The following discussion is closed. 311:Clarification and Amendment requests 65: 37: 5651:". You should not be saying that a 5559:In the Case request, you commented 5348:Thank you for the clarification. -- 5264:your suggestion for me to recuse. – 35: 4857:Wow, speaking of cruel remarks... 4448:you had to point out it was wrong 3262:In agreeing with the statement by 2326:. I am disturbed by the off-field 2154:you need to consider stepping back 1612:Arbitration is not a legal process 36: 6122: 5475:, in the context of the same FoF 56:comment only in their own section 5198:User talk:Xeno/Archive 33#Thanks 3604:Successful_RfAs_following_clouds 3489:Unresponded question to Casliber 2561:how well probation usually works 2260: 1194:The discussion above is closed. 218: 69: 41: 5675:Comment from the peanut gallery 5598:Comments by Boing! said Zebedee 4897:be blocked for up to one month 4362:Semantic comment by Newyorkbrad 3426:case please accept my apology. 1662:) 10:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1214:from "Reminding the community". 5767:alternative dispute resolution 5685:onerous, detailed restrictions 5614:evidence of misbehaviour here. 4647:that directly wikilinked to a 3729:for years expressed tolerance? 1235:, this is exactly what I told 977:OK, thanks for the update. — 13: 1: 6052:21:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 6016:14:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5976:06:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5955:17:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5878:05:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5779:14:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5756:02:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5727:02:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5697:20:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5669:12:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5635:16:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5590:12:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5576:12:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5547:11:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5528:21:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5514:10:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5489:10:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5435:21:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 5422:19:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 5405:05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 5387:20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5361:20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5344:09:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5311:07:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5295:07:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5273:06:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5259:06:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5236:06:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5213:06:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5174:02:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5153:12:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 5131:16:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 5114:10:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 5066:02:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 5046:02:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 5031:00:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 5005:21:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4972:22:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4958:21:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4945:21:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4930:21:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4911:21:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4882:21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4867:20:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4845:20:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4796:11:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4754:10:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4727:09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4703:05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4687:18:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4668:17:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4601:10:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4576:21:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 4546:08:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 4527:01:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 4508:01:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 4478:19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 4429:19:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 4412:18:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 4391:20:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 4377:15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 4354:05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4329:18:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4295:06:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4282:06:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4262:04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4238:04:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4219:06:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 4196:21:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4173:04:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 4155:20:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4141:20:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4127:20:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4113:17:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4091:17:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4067:00:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 4051:22:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 4029:16:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 4004:16:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3994:Words are hard...thanks, yes 3990:15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3969:05:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3943:05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3926:13:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3905:18:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 3880:21:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3847:19:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3830:17:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3808:14:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3746:13:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3709:05:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3692:22:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3675:20:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3644:05:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3626:17:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3592:05:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3572:12:10, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3534:13:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3507:19:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 3469:22:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3449:00:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 3436:23:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3414:23:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3397:22:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3359:22:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3338:22:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3311:21:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 3291:18:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 3253:17:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3229:17:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3210:14:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3196:06:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3174:06:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3161:05:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 3145:08:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 3130:17:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 3107:08:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 3092:21:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 3054:19:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 3032:19:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2999:15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2963:16:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2950:15:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2929:13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2914:15:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2890:17:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 2873:15:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2851:05:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2833:03:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2804:08:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2786:22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 2700:Proposed suspended remedy 1.1 2690:23:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 2671:18:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 2657:17:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 2637:17:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2612:18:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2583:15:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2565:latest post here, minutes ago 2546:19:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2527:19:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2502:12:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2470:05:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2457:23:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2438:01:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2417:12:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2397:05:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2376:02:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2358:17:18, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 2340:09:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 2311:23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2287:00:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2256:19:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2234:14:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2209:02:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 2193:16:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2168:23:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2145:14:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2127:08:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2110:06:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2079:23:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2059:16:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2039:08:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 2015:04:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1996:04:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1968:03:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1950:03:29, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1906:03:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1867:14:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1852:14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1838:13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1819:14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1804:13:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1785:12:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 1750:02:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1722:18:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1693:12:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1681:11:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1639:10:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1597:12:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1577:09:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1548:01:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1520:02:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 1500:00:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 1459:20:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 1428:15:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 1405:03:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 1383:03:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 1350:18:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1321:17:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1292:15:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1261:09:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1246:15:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 1227:02:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1189:01:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1176:01:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 1148:19:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC) 1132:19:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC) 1111:18:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC) 1095:00:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC) 1068:16:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 1054:11:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 1040:10:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 1029:08:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 1004:04:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 987:00:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 966:00:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC) 942:18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC) 928:They've already said they're 924:17:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC) 909:16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC) 895:15:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC) 881:00:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 850:07:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC) 773:03:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC) 741:00:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 727:00:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 696:21:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 684:21:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 669:18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 658:18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 643:15:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 615:14:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC) 584:00:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 5687:? That's just not possible. 3650:Unresponded question to Xeno 1972:You're probably right about 1927:, and subsequent discussion. 1728:Statement by Alanscottwalker 627:As Joe Roe indicated on the 442:Conflict of interest reports 7: 6057:Statement by Britishfinance 5533:Statement by Chris.sherlock 4816:Making cruel remarks about 4639:described as a misandrist. 4483:Statement by GorillaWarfare 3560:"not covered by the remedy" 1738:unbecoming an administrator 271:Search archived proceedings 10: 6127: 5713:our Arbitration procedures 5099:I personally think that a 4531:That would probably be me 3258:Statement by Leaky Caldron 2492:relevant to the decision) 1364:, which clearly mentions: 316:Arbitrator motion requests 18:Knowledge talk:Arbitration 6111:16:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 6092:16:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 5981:Various mumblings by Reyk 5737:On self-defence at ArbCom 5445:Statement from Iridescent 4314:with arbs about the case. 4202:Statement from Guerillero 2552:Statement by SandyGeorgia 1732:Kudpung's talking about ' 1648:is a Private Discussion. 809: 5702:Statement from Wugapodes 5076:Statement by Nosebagbear 3885:Statement by Lepricavark 3266:, I also wonder whether 2902:alternatives to deletion 1609:, in big bold letters - 1196:Please do not modify it. 593:Please do not modify it. 5925:I'm fully aware of the 5802:under remedy 1: I feel 5180:Statement by Rschen7754 5139:Statement by Black Kite 4651:directly replying to me 3857:Re: Comments by Martinp 2594:this is not a good sign 551:Behaviour on this page: 5146:this statement by Nick 4919:Special:Diff/942618900 4397:Statement by George Ho 3977:: I believe you meant 3715:Expressed tolerance!!! 3317:RM Trolling - evidence 2754:Two questions/issues: 2480:Statement by Thryduulf 604:hanging over my head. 5732:Comments by Ajraddatz 5679:How can a user enjoy 4435:Statement by Headbomb 4041:it has a place here. 2896:Statement by Levivich 1472:by another arbitrator 512:Track related changes 372:Arbitration Committee 212:Knowledge Arbitration 4325:In actu (Guerillero) 3178:As you said before, 2763:case I linked above? 2402:Statement by Amakuru 1203:Statement by Lourdes 692:In actu (Guerillero) 665:In actu (Guerillero) 321:Enforcement requests 249:Guide to arbitration 170:Drafting arbitrators 6021:Comments by Martinp 5661:Boing! said Zebedee 5627:Boing! said Zebedee 4100:Boing! said Zebedee 3731:No, never. They've 2317:Discussion between 1736:women' is entirely 1080:Timing of decisions 5927:Super Mario effect 4658:? That is absurd. 3951:Statement by Buffs 2857:Statement by pldx1 2759:on board feedback? 1330:arbitration policy 594: 343:Contentious topics 241:Arbitration policy 6042: 5465:that diff in full 5394:#Comments by Xeno 5150:Black Kite (talk) 5044: 5003: 4970: 4943: 4909: 4880: 4865: 4843: 4685: 4666: 4574: 4525: 4506: 4343:#Comments by Xeno 3932:#Comments by Xeno 3922: 3916: 3901: 3895: 3698:#Comments by Xeno 3633:#Comments by Xeno 3070:Arthur Rubin case 3030: 2973:Statement by Nick 2840:#Comments by Xeno 2544: 2386:#Comments by Xeno 2254: 2189: 2183: 2055: 2049: 1994: 1948: 1926: 1881:If female editor 1699:Arthur Rubin case 1697:In contrast, the 1575: 1220:opinion. Warmly, 1215: 940: 819: 818: 602:sword of Damocles 592: 558:What's happening? 548: 547: 515: 483: 353:General sanctions 301:All open requests 231:About arbitration 204: 193: 182: 168: 151: 143:Proposed decision 140: 129: 118: 107: 106: 64: 63: 6118: 6040: 6002:to act on them. 5991: 5961:Comment by MONGO 5952: 5947: 5784:Comments by Xeno 5725: 5709:internal affairs 5646: 5573: 5568: 5562: 5558: 5511: 5506: 5500: 5342: 5340: 5335: 5040: 4999: 4989: 4966: 4939: 4905: 4895: 4876: 4861: 4856: 4839: 4815: 4793: 4788: 4764: 4752: 4750: 4745: 4724: 4719: 4713: 4681: 4662: 4656:equally possible 4611: 4598: 4593: 4587: 4570: 4559: 4543: 4538: 4521: 4502: 4493: 4476: 4445: 4426: 4421: 4326: 4305: 4279: 4273: 4259: 4253: 4245:page, but it is 4235: 4229: 4216: 4210: 4077: 4039: 4018: 3920: 3914: 3899: 3893: 3844: 3839: 3805: 3800: 3789: 3781: 3773: 3765: 3757: 3540:Regarding remedy 3517: 3115:isaacl's section 3086: 3042: 3024: 3010: 2939: 2825: 2801: 2796: 2778: 2726: 2682: 2649: 2629: 2604: 2575: 2538: 2490: 2445: 2277: 2275: 2264: 2248: 2187: 2181: 2069:there are none. 2053: 2047: 1985: 1983: 1981: 1939: 1937: 1935: 1920: 1835: 1830: 1761: 1716: 1690: 1622: 1615: 1595: 1593: 1588: 1569: 1558:findings of fact 1545: 1497: 1468:by an arbitrator 1425: 1402: 1397: 1380: 1347: 1342: 1318: 1289: 1284: 1258: 1243: 1224: 1210: 1037: 976: 936: 847: 842: 815: 796: 768: 751: 722: 693: 666: 640: 635: 626: 574: 572: 540: 533: 526: 514: 509: 502: 481: 437:Clerk procedures 429: 387: 358:Editor sanctions 335:Active sanctions 293:Open proceedings 263: 222: 208: 207: 198: 187: 176: 162: 145: 134: 123: 112: 73: 72: 66: 45: 44: 38: 6126: 6125: 6121: 6120: 6119: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6059: 6023: 6014: 5985: 5983: 5963: 5950: 5940: 5786: 5763: 5739: 5734: 5716: 5704: 5677: 5640: 5600: 5571: 5566: 5560: 5552: 5535: 5509: 5504: 5494: 5447: 5338: 5331: 5329: 5182: 5141: 5078: 4983: 4889: 4850: 4809: 4791: 4786: 4758: 4748: 4741: 4739: 4722: 4717: 4711: 4605: 4596: 4591: 4581: 4553: 4541: 4536: 4487: 4485: 4455: 4439: 4437: 4424: 4419: 4399: 4364: 4324: 4299: 4277: 4271: 4257: 4251: 4233: 4227: 4214: 4208: 4204: 4071: 4033: 4012: 3953: 3887: 3859: 3842: 3837: 3803: 3798: 3788:just drop this. 3786: 3779: 3771: 3763: 3755: 3717: 3652: 3600: 3542: 3511: 3491: 3319: 3260: 3117: 3084: 3036: 3004: 2975: 2933: 2898: 2859: 2823: 2799: 2794: 2776: 2704: 2702: 2680: 2647: 2627: 2602: 2573: 2554: 2484: 2482: 2443: 2404: 2293:General comment 2273: 2272: 2137:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2108: 2064:BrownHairedGirl 2023:BrownHairedGirl 1979: 1978: 1933: 1932: 1883:Brownhairedgirl 1879: 1859:Alanscottwalker 1844:Alanscottwalker 1833: 1828: 1811:Alanscottwalker 1777:Alanscottwalker 1755: 1742:Alanscottwalker 1730: 1714: 1688: 1616: 1610: 1591: 1584: 1582: 1565:isn't true. – 1543: 1495: 1423: 1400: 1390: 1378: 1345: 1335: 1316: 1287: 1277: 1256: 1241: 1222: 1212:Thread retitled 1205: 1200: 1199: 1158: 1124:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1087:Robert McClenon 1082: 1035: 970: 845: 840: 810: 766: 745: 720: 691: 664: 638: 633: 620: 597: 588: 587: 586: 570: 569: 560: 544: 510: 504: 503: 498: 488: 487: 486: 475: 458: 448: 447: 446: 433: 425: 413: 388: 383: 374: 364: 363: 362: 337: 327: 326: 325: 295: 285: 282: 267: 259: 237: 206: 80: 70: 60: 59: 42: 34: 33: 32: 12: 11: 5: 6124: 6114: 6113: 6084:Britishfinance 6058: 6055: 6022: 6019: 6008: 5982: 5979: 5962: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5931: 5923: 5922: 5921: 5918: 5915: 5912: 5909: 5906: 5899: 5895: 5887: 5856:read carefully 5785: 5782: 5762: 5759: 5738: 5735: 5733: 5730: 5703: 5700: 5689:216.93.141.203 5676: 5673: 5672: 5671: 5622: 5621: 5616: 5615: 5610: 5609: 5599: 5596: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5582:Chris.sherlock 5555:Chris.sherlock 5539:Chris.sherlock 5534: 5531: 5517: 5516: 5446: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5438: 5437: 5368: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5300: 5181: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5140: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5097: 5096: 5085: 5084: 5077: 5074: 5073: 5072: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5038:GorillaWarfare 4997:GorillaWarfare 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4975: 4974: 4964:GorillaWarfare 4937:GorillaWarfare 4903:GorillaWarfare 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4874:GorillaWarfare 4859:GorillaWarfare 4837:GorillaWarfare 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4679:GorillaWarfare 4660:GorillaWarfare 4636: 4635: 4634: 4629: 4624: 4618: 4584:GorillaWarfare 4568:GorillaWarfare 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4519:GorillaWarfare 4500:GorillaWarfare 4484: 4481: 4436: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4398: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4363: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4316: 4315: 4265: 4264: 4241: 4240: 4203: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4176: 4175: 4115: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4079: 4054: 4053: 4031: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4006: 3952: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3886: 3883: 3858: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3783: 3776: 3768: 3760: 3716: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3694: 3651: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3599: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3541: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3509: 3490: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3423: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3278:"words matter" 3259: 3256: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3216: 3116: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3074:Enigmaman case 3065: 3064: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 2974: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2897: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2876: 2875: 2858: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2811:User:Ajraddatz 2807: 2806: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2615: 2614: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2530: 2529: 2481: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2403: 2400: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2290: 2289: 2258: 2237: 2236: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2102: 2094:Hanging judges 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1928: 1885:was desysopped 1878: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1854: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1695: 1683: 1641: 1605:BTW, from the 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1550: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1479: 1475: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1369: 1358: 1303: 1249: 1248: 1217: 1216: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1157: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1114: 1113: 1103:84.189.235.124 1081: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 944: 934:GorillaWarfare 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 857: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 817: 816: 807: 806: 803: 800: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 729: 629:main Case page 598: 589: 564: 563: 562: 561: 559: 556: 546: 545: 543: 542: 535: 528: 520: 517: 516: 506: 505: 496: 494: 493: 490: 489: 485: 484: 476: 471: 466: 460: 459: 454: 453: 450: 449: 445: 444: 439: 434: 424: 419: 414: 409: 404: 399: 394: 389: 382: 376: 375: 370: 369: 366: 365: 361: 360: 355: 350: 339: 338: 333: 332: 329: 328: 324: 323: 318: 313: 308: 303: 297: 296: 291: 290: 287: 286: 284: 283: 278: 273: 268: 258: 251: 246: 238: 233: 227: 224: 223: 215: 214: 110:Main case page 108: 105: 104: 103: 102: 95: 88: 76: 74: 62: 61: 52: 49: 48: 46: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6123: 6112: 6108: 6104: 6100: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6089: 6085: 6079: 6075: 6072: 6067: 6063: 6054: 6053: 6049: 6045: 6038: 6034: 6030: 6026: 6018: 6017: 6013: 6012: 6007: 6006: 6000: 5995: 5989: 5978: 5977: 5973: 5969: 5956: 5953: 5948: 5946: 5945: 5937: 5932: 5928: 5924: 5919: 5916: 5913: 5910: 5907: 5904: 5903: 5900: 5896: 5894:organization. 5892: 5888: 5885: 5882: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5876: 5874: 5873: 5867: 5863: 5861: 5857: 5852: 5850: 5844: 5840: 5836: 5834: 5830: 5824: 5820: 5816: 5812: 5809: 5805: 5801: 5796: 5792: 5789: 5781: 5780: 5776: 5772: 5768: 5758: 5757: 5753: 5749: 5743: 5729: 5728: 5723: 5720: 5714: 5710: 5699: 5698: 5694: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5670: 5666: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5650: 5644: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5632: 5628: 5618: 5617: 5612: 5611: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5591: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5574: 5569: 5556: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5544: 5540: 5530: 5529: 5526: 5522: 5515: 5512: 5507: 5498: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5487: 5483: 5478: 5474: 5469: 5466: 5461: 5457: 5452: 5451: 5436: 5433: 5431: 5430: 5425: 5424: 5423: 5420: 5419: 5416: 5413: 5408: 5407: 5406: 5403: 5401: 5400: 5395: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5385: 5384: 5381: 5378: 5373: 5362: 5359: 5358: 5355: 5352: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5341: 5336: 5334: 5327: 5324: 5323: 5312: 5309: 5307: 5306: 5301: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5293: 5292: 5289: 5286: 5280: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5271: 5269: 5268: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5257: 5256: 5253: 5250: 5244: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5234: 5232: 5231: 5225: 5220: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5211: 5210: 5207: 5204: 5199: 5195: 5190: 5188: 5175: 5172: 5170: 5169: 5164: 5160: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5151: 5147: 5132: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5111: 5107: 5102: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5091: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5067: 5063: 5060: 5057: 5053: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5028: 5025: 5022: 5018: 5013: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5002: 4998: 4993: 4987: 4973: 4969: 4965: 4961: 4960: 4959: 4956: 4954: 4953: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4928: 4926: 4925: 4920: 4915: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4893: 4883: 4879: 4875: 4870: 4869: 4868: 4864: 4860: 4854: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4822: 4821: 4813: 4797: 4794: 4789: 4783: 4779: 4774: 4769: 4762: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4751: 4746: 4744: 4737: 4733: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4725: 4720: 4708: 4704: 4701: 4699: 4698: 4693: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4675: 4674:Leaky caldron 4671: 4670: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4652: 4646: 4642: 4637: 4633: 4630: 4628: 4625: 4623: 4619: 4617: 4614: 4613: 4609: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4599: 4594: 4585: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4564: 4557: 4547: 4544: 4539: 4533: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4491: 4480: 4479: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4453: 4451: 4443: 4430: 4427: 4422: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4392: 4389: 4387: 4386: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4374: 4370: 4355: 4352: 4350: 4349: 4344: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4330: 4327: 4321: 4313: 4310: 4303: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4293: 4291: 4290: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4280: 4274: 4267: 4266: 4263: 4260: 4254: 4248: 4243: 4242: 4239: 4236: 4230: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4217: 4211: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4184: 4183: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4114: 4110: 4106: 4101: 4098: 4097: 4092: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4075: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4065: 4063: 4062: 4056: 4055: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4037: 4032: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4016: 4011: 4010: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3988: 3986: 3985: 3980: 3976: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3944: 3941: 3939: 3938: 3933: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3923: 3917: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3902: 3896: 3890:in the case. 3882: 3881: 3877: 3873: 3872:Leaky caldron 3868: 3866: 3848: 3845: 3840: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3822:Leaky caldron 3819: 3814: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3806: 3801: 3794: 3790: 3784: 3782: 3777: 3774: 3769: 3766: 3761: 3758: 3753: 3752: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3738:Leaky caldron 3734: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3721: 3710: 3707: 3705: 3704: 3699: 3695: 3693: 3690: 3688: 3687: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3667:Leaky caldron 3663: 3659: 3656: 3645: 3642: 3640: 3639: 3634: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3618:Leaky caldron 3615: 3611: 3608: 3605: 3593: 3590: 3588: 3587: 3582: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3564:Leaky caldron 3561: 3556: 3553: 3550: 3548: 3535: 3531: 3528: 3525: 3521: 3515: 3514:Leaky caldron 3510: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3499:Leaky caldron 3496: 3493: 3492: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3461:Leaky caldron 3458: 3455: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3444: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3428:Leaky caldron 3424: 3422: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3412: 3410: 3409: 3404: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3389:Leaky caldron 3387: 3385: 3382: 3379:“RM trolling” 3378: 3376: 3373: 3370: 3365: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3357: 3355: 3354: 3349: 3348:Leaky caldron 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3330:Leaky caldron 3327: 3323: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3303:Leaky caldron 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283:Leaky caldron 3279: 3275: 3269: 3265: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3217: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3208: 3206: 3205: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3170: 3169: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3158: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3132: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3090: 3088: 3087: 3080: 3077:some degree, 3075: 3071: 3067: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3040: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3028: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3008: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2964: 2961: 2959: 2958: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2937: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2927: 2925: 2924: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2878: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2861: 2860: 2852: 2849: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2816: 2812: 2809:I agree with 2805: 2802: 2797: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2761: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2752: 2750: 2745: 2744: 2741: 2737: 2734: 2730: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663:Leaky caldron 2660: 2659: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2619: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2595: 2591: 2590:Leaky caldron 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2488: 2471: 2468: 2466: 2465: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2436: 2434: 2433: 2428: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2393: 2392: 2387: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2354: 2353: 2348: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2320: 2314: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2257: 2252: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2190: 2184: 2177: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2155: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2101: 2100: 2095: 2091: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2056: 2050: 2043: 2042: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2021:I think that 2020: 2019: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2009: 2003: 1997: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1975: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1966: 1965: 1962: 1957: 1956:User:RHaworth 1953: 1952: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1929: 1924: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1855: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1831: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1799: 1793: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1759: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1723: 1720: 1718: 1717: 1710: 1705: 1700: 1696: 1694: 1691: 1684: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1663: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1640: 1636: 1633: 1630: 1626: 1620: 1613: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1598: 1594: 1589: 1587: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1549: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1528: 1521: 1518: 1516: 1515: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1455: 1454: 1449: 1445: 1444: 1429: 1426: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1403: 1398: 1396: 1395: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1381: 1375: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1343: 1341: 1340: 1331: 1327: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1302: 1298: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1290: 1285: 1283: 1282: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1259: 1253: 1247: 1244: 1238: 1234: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1225: 1213: 1209: 1207: 1206: 1197: 1190: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1156:Sorry folks.. 1149: 1146: 1144: 1143: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046:Leaky caldron 1043: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1021:Leaky caldron 1017: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 990: 989: 988: 984: 980: 974: 969: 968: 967: 964: 962: 961: 956: 952: 951:Puddleglum2.0 948: 945: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 912: 911: 910: 906: 902: 898: 897: 896: 893: 890: 885: 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 851: 848: 843: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 814: 813:Douglas Adams 808: 804: 801: 798: 797: 776: 775: 774: 771: 769: 763: 759: 755: 749: 744: 743: 742: 739: 737: 736: 730: 728: 725: 723: 717: 713: 709: 706: 705: 704: 699: 698: 697: 694: 687: 686: 685: 681: 677: 672: 671: 670: 667: 661: 660: 659: 655: 651: 646: 645: 644: 641: 636: 630: 624: 619: 618: 617: 616: 613: 611: 609: 608: 603: 596: 585: 581: 577: 576: 575: 555: 552: 541: 536: 534: 529: 527: 522: 521: 519: 518: 513: 508: 507: 492: 491: 480: 477: 474: 470: 467: 465: 462: 461: 457: 452: 451: 443: 440: 438: 435: 432: 428: 423: 420: 418: 415: 412: 408: 405: 403: 400: 398: 395: 393: 390: 386: 381: 378: 377: 373: 368: 367: 359: 356: 354: 351: 348: 344: 341: 340: 336: 331: 330: 322: 319: 317: 314: 312: 309: 307: 306:Case requests 304: 302: 299: 298: 294: 289: 288: 281: 277: 274: 272: 269: 266: 262: 257: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 239: 236: 232: 229: 228: 226: 225: 221: 217: 216: 213: 210: 209: 205: 202: 197: 191: 186: 180: 175: 171: 166: 161: 157: 153: 149: 144: 138: 133: 127: 122: 116: 111: 100: 96: 93: 89: 86: 82: 81: 79: 75: 68: 67: 57: 53: 47: 40: 39: 31: 27: 23: 19: 6080: 6076: 6070: 6068: 6064: 6060: 6039: 6035: 6031: 6027: 6024: 6010: 6004: 5998: 5993: 5984: 5964: 5943: 5941: 5935: 5890: 5871: 5868: 5864: 5859: 5853: 5848: 5845: 5841: 5837: 5832: 5828: 5825: 5821: 5817: 5813: 5807: 5803: 5797: 5793: 5790: 5787: 5764: 5744: 5740: 5705: 5678: 5656: 5652: 5648: 5623: 5601: 5536: 5518: 5476: 5470: 5460:in this case 5453: 5449: 5448: 5428: 5410: 5398: 5375: 5372:bad practice 5371: 5367: 5349: 5332: 5304: 5283: 5266: 5247: 5242: 5229: 5226: 5222: 5201: 5191: 5186: 5183: 5167: 5142: 5100: 5098: 5089: 5086: 5079: 5058: 5023: 4990: 4982: 4951: 4923: 4898: 4888: 4824: 4818: 4817: 4808: 4780:was created 4772: 4767: 4742: 4696: 4655: 4650: 4640: 4631: 4626: 4620: 4615: 4562: 4552: 4514: 4495: 4486: 4449: 4447: 4438: 4400: 4384: 4365: 4347: 4288: 4205: 4160: 4060: 4015:SandyGeorgia 3983: 3954: 3936: 3888: 3864: 3862: 3860: 3732: 3728: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3702: 3685: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3637: 3613: 3601: 3585: 3559: 3554: 3545: 3543: 3526: 3442: 3419: 3407: 3402: 3380: 3367: 3352: 3325: 3320: 3277: 3272: 3267: 3264:SandyGeorgia 3261: 3241: 3203: 3183: 3179: 3167: 3133: 3118: 3082: 3017: 3013: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2956: 2922: 2899: 2844: 2820: 2815:The Signpost 2814: 2808: 2773: 2766: 2753: 2746: 2738: 2703: 2677: 2661:(same here) 2644: 2624: 2616: 2599: 2570: 2558: 2555: 2519: 2483: 2463: 2431: 2405: 2390: 2383: 2363: 2351: 2328:conversation 2323:User:Kudpung 2316: 2315: 2292: 2291: 2271: 2270: 2265: 2241: 2153: 2151: 2104: 2098: 2008:Usedtobecool 2006: 1961:Usedtobecool 1959: 1893: 1880: 1797: 1791: 1771: 1731: 1712: 1708: 1673: 1656: 1646:qualifies as 1645: 1643: 1631: 1611: 1585: 1562: 1557: 1538: 1513: 1508: 1490: 1486: 1485:to mention: 1471: 1467: 1452: 1393: 1391: 1365: 1360:Please read 1338: 1336: 1300: 1280: 1278: 1250: 1218: 1195: 1168: 1159: 1141: 1119: 1083: 959: 954: 929: 870: 761: 757: 734: 606: 599: 590: 568: 567: 550: 549: 169: 155: 154: 152: 147: 77: 55: 50: 6071:more polite 5833:prima facie 5123:Nosebagbear 5106:Nosebagbear 4832:gaslighting 4454:is silly. 4369:Newyorkbrad 3727:Seriously, 3544:As drafter 2723:David Fuchs 2266:Clerk note: 1607:page itself 1554:not a court 1489:instead of 1233:Newyorkbrad 1183:Paul August 1181:Thank you. 889:Paul August 276:Ban appeals 254:Noticeboard 5525:Iridescent 5497:Iridescent 5486:Iridescent 5326:Rschen7754 5219:Rschen7754 5159:Black Kite 4736:the thread 4534:. Regards 4312:channeling 4278:Parlez Moi 4272:Guerillero 4258:Parlez Moi 4252:Guerillero 4234:Parlez Moi 4228:Guerillero 4215:Parlez Moi 4209:Guerillero 3915:EPRICAVARK 3894:EPRICAVARK 2733:commitment 2368:Xxanthippe 2347:Xxanthippe 2332:Xxanthippe 2303:Xxanthippe 2201:Xxanthippe 2182:EPRICAVARK 2160:Xxanthippe 2133:Xxanthippe 2119:Xxanthippe 2071:Xxanthippe 2048:EPRICAVARK 2031:Xxanthippe 1982:HairedGirl 1936:HairedGirl 1898:Xxanthippe 1894:admonished 1892:is merely 1314:. Thanks, 767:Puddleglum 712:Guerillero 623:Ritchie333 607:Ritchie333 482:(pre-2016) 469:Statistics 402:Procedures 156:Case clerk 5771:Ajraddatz 5748:Ajraddatz 5657:behaviour 5647:You say " 5052:Cas Liber 5017:Cas Liber 4404:George Ho 3520:Cas Liber 2749:amendment 2513:Cas Liber 2494:Thryduulf 2319:User:Xeno 1923:permalink 1734:Gay Pride 1667:Cas Liber 1650:Cas Liber 1625:Cas Liber 1509:substance 1162:Cas Liber 899:^^^ This 754:WP:ARBREQ 407:Elections 160:CodeLyoko 5849:multiple 5722:a·po·des 5502:Regards 5277:Reading 5062:contribs 5027:contribs 4986:Casliber 4826:misandry 4645:question 4457:Headbomb 4320:WP:CIVIL 3575:Casliber 3530:contribs 3495:Casliber 3018:RHaworth 2942:Levivich 2906:Levivich 2719:Casliber 2523:contribs 2487:Casliber 2427:remedy 5 1991:contribs 1974:RHaworth 1945:contribs 1677:contribs 1660:contribs 1635:contribs 1531:Headbomb 1493:Thanks, 1411:Casliber 1312:Casliber 1237:Casliber 1172:contribs 838:Regards 185:Casliber 132:Workshop 121:Evidence 28:‎ | 24:‎ | 22:Requests 20:‎ | 6044:Martinp 5891:because 5800:comment 5798:See my 5473:Joe Roe 5090:suspect 4490:Lourdes 4442:Lourdes 4247:obvious 3979:WP:ARCA 3039:Joe Roe 3014:Portals 2824:Georgia 2777:Georgia 2721:, and 2681:Georgia 2648:Georgia 2628:Georgia 2603:Georgia 2592:below, 2574:Georgia 2449:Amakuru 2423:Amakuru 2409:Amakuru 2242:Portals 2226:GoodDay 2176:Kudpung 2027:Kudpung 1890:Kudpung 1689:Lourdes 1619:Lourdes 1544:Lourdes 1505:Lourdes 1496:Lourdes 1448:Lourdes 1424:Lourdes 1379:Lourdes 1326:Lourdes 1317:Lourdes 1269:Lourdes 1257:Lourdes 1242:Lourdes 1223:Lourdes 1137:Kudpung 1036:Lourdes 979:Amakuru 947:Amakuru 916:Amakuru 873:GoodDay 708:Lourdes 479:Reports 417:History 397:Members 392:Contact 380:Discuss 244:(CU/OS) 174:Joe Roe 30:Kudpung 6103:isaacl 5999:direct 5819:case. 5804:merely 5653:person 5187:before 5042:(talk) 5001:(talk) 4968:(talk) 4941:(talk) 4907:(talk) 4878:(talk) 4863:(talk) 4841:(talk) 4778:WP:BLP 4683:(talk) 4672:I see 4664:(talk) 4572:(talk) 4523:(talk) 4504:(talk) 4450:before 3818:WP:RFA 3733:put up 3245:isaacl 3221:isaacl 3188:isaacl 3153:isaacl 3137:isaacl 3122:isaacl 2384:← See 2276:Thomas 1987:(talk) 1941:(talk) 1709:should 1328:, the 1120:please 938:(talk) 573:Thomas 422:Clerks 280:Report 194:& 183:& 5968:MONGO 5829:prior 5521:Buffs 5456:SoWhy 5101:light 4992:with. 4853:Buffs 4820:proud 4812:Buffs 4732:SoWhy 4692:Added 4608:SoWhy 4556:SoWhy 4188:Buffs 4165:Buffs 4147:Buffs 4133:Buffs 4119:Buffs 4105:Buffs 4083:Buffs 4043:Buffs 4021:Buffs 3996:Buffs 3975:Buffs 3961:Buffs 3957:WP:AE 3813:SoWhy 3725:SoWhy 3581:Added 3547:SoWhy 3079:FOF#8 2882:Pldx1 2865:Pldx1 2821:Sandy 2774:Sandy 2715:SoWhy 2711:Maxim 2678:Sandy 2645:Sandy 2625:Sandy 2618:Buffs 2600:Sandy 2571:Sandy 1980:Brown 1934:Brown 1767:SoWhy 1704:FOF#6 1535:Bradv 1355:Bradv 1308:SoWhy 1297:Bradv 1252:Bradv 1060:Buffs 996:Buffs 901:Buffs 758:"due" 676:Buffs 650:Buffs 456:Audit 196:SoWhy 16:< 6107:talk 6088:talk 6048:talk 6005:Reyk 5988:Xeno 5972:talk 5942:brad 5884:Xeno 5872:xeno 5808:only 5775:talk 5752:talk 5719:Wug· 5693:talk 5665:talk 5631:talk 5586:talk 5543:talk 5429:xeno 5418:7754 5415:chen 5399:xeno 5392:See 5383:7754 5380:chen 5374:. -- 5357:7754 5354:chen 5305:xeno 5291:7754 5288:chen 5267:xeno 5255:7754 5252:chen 5243:that 5230:xeno 5209:7754 5206:chen 5194:Xeno 5168:xeno 5163:here 5127:talk 5110:talk 5056:talk 5021:talk 4952:xeno 4924:xeno 4892:Xeno 4697:xeno 4408:talk 4385:xeno 4373:talk 4348:xeno 4341:See 4309:back 4302:Xeno 4289:xeno 4192:talk 4169:talk 4159:Re:" 4151:talk 4137:talk 4123:talk 4109:talk 4087:talk 4074:Xeno 4061:xeno 4047:talk 4036:Xeno 4025:talk 4000:talk 3984:xeno 3965:talk 3937:xeno 3930:See 3921:talk 3900:talk 3876:talk 3826:talk 3742:talk 3703:xeno 3696:See 3686:xeno 3678:Xeno 3671:talk 3655:Xeno 3638:xeno 3631:See 3622:talk 3586:xeno 3568:talk 3552:Xeno 3524:talk 3503:talk 3465:talk 3454:Xeno 3443:xeno 3432:talk 3408:xeno 3393:talk 3364:Xeno 3353:xeno 3334:talk 3322:Xeno 3307:talk 3298:Xeno 3287:talk 3249:talk 3225:talk 3204:xeno 3192:talk 3168:xeno 3157:talk 3141:talk 3126:talk 3103:talk 3099:Nick 3085:Mkdw 3072:and 3068:The 3050:talk 3046:Nick 3027:talk 3016:and 3007:Nick 2995:talk 2991:Nick 2957:xeno 2946:talk 2936:Xeno 2923:xeno 2910:lulz 2886:talk 2869:talk 2845:xeno 2838:See 2829:Talk 2782:Talk 2727:the 2707:Xeno 2686:Talk 2667:talk 2653:Talk 2633:Talk 2608:Talk 2588:Per 2579:Talk 2541:talk 2517:talk 2498:talk 2464:xeno 2453:talk 2432:xeno 2413:talk 2391:xeno 2372:talk 2352:xeno 2336:talk 2321:and 2307:talk 2283:talk 2251:talk 2230:talk 2205:talk 2188:talk 2164:talk 2141:talk 2123:talk 2099:Reyk 2075:talk 2054:talk 2035:talk 1916:and 1902:talk 1863:talk 1848:talk 1815:talk 1798:xeno 1792:also 1781:talk 1758:Xeno 1746:talk 1715:Mkdw 1671:talk 1654:talk 1629:talk 1572:talk 1563:know 1514:xeno 1464:xeno 1453:xeno 1417:and 1392:brad 1337:brad 1310:and 1279:brad 1275:. – 1166:talk 1142:xeno 1128:talk 1107:talk 1091:talk 1064:talk 1050:talk 1025:talk 1000:talk 992:xeno 983:talk 973:Xeno 960:xeno 920:talk 905:talk 877:talk 748:Xeno 735:xeno 680:talk 654:talk 580:talk 473:Talk 464:Talk 431:Talk 411:Talk 265:Talk 235:Talk 201:Talk 190:Talk 179:Talk 165:Talk 148:Talk 137:Talk 126:Talk 115:Talk 26:Case 6011:YO! 5992:--- 5643:AGK 5572:Why 5510:Why 5333:AGK 5241:Is 5196:at 5165:. – 5012:AGF 4899:and 4792:Why 4773:her 4768:her 4761:AGK 4743:AGK 4723:Why 4694:. – 4641:And 4597:Why 4563:her 4542:Why 4425:Why 3981:? – 3843:Why 3804:Why 3583:. – 3268:any 3022:Joe 2989:-- 2831:) 2800:Why 2784:) 2688:) 2655:) 2635:) 2610:) 2581:) 2536:Joe 2507:In 2246:Joe 2105:YO! 1989:• ( 1943:• ( 1834:Why 1809:-- 1772:not 1762:In 1586:AGK 1567:Joe 1419:AGK 1415:Joe 955:due 846:Why 762:due 721:SQL 639:Why 347:Log 6109:) 6101:. 6090:) 6050:) 5974:) 5951:🍁 5777:) 5754:) 5717:— 5715:. 5695:) 5667:) 5659:. 5633:) 5588:) 5567:So 5545:) 5505:So 5412:Rs 5377:Rs 5351:Rs 5285:Rs 5249:Rs 5203:Rs 5148:. 5129:) 5112:) 5064:) 5029:) 4787:So 4738:? 4718:So 4592:So 4537:So 4517:? 4471:· 4467:· 4463:· 4420:So 4410:) 4375:) 4275:| 4269:-- 4255:| 4231:| 4212:| 4194:) 4171:) 4153:) 4139:) 4125:) 4111:) 4089:) 4049:) 4027:) 4002:) 3967:) 3924:) 3903:) 3878:) 3838:So 3828:) 3820:. 3799:So 3744:) 3673:) 3624:) 3606:, 3570:) 3532:) 3505:) 3467:) 3459:. 3434:) 3395:) 3336:) 3309:) 3289:) 3251:) 3227:) 3194:) 3159:) 3143:) 3128:) 3105:) 3052:) 2997:) 2948:) 2912:) 2888:) 2871:) 2795:So 2717:, 2713:, 2709:, 2669:) 2525:) 2500:) 2455:) 2415:) 2374:) 2342:. 2338:) 2313:. 2309:) 2285:) 2232:) 2207:) 2191:) 2166:) 2143:) 2129:. 2125:) 2117:. 2077:) 2057:) 2041:. 2037:) 2011:☎️ 1964:☎️ 1908:. 1904:) 1865:) 1850:) 1829:So 1817:) 1783:) 1748:) 1679:) 1637:) 1446:← 1413:, 1401:🍁 1346:🍁 1288:🍁 1273:AN 1239:. 1174:) 1130:) 1109:) 1093:) 1066:) 1052:) 1027:) 1002:) 985:) 922:) 907:) 879:) 841:So 811:— 805:” 799:“ 718:. 682:) 656:) 634:So 582:) 172:: 158:: 141:— 130:— 119:— 6105:( 6086:( 6046:( 5990:: 5986:@ 5970:( 5944:v 5773:( 5750:( 5724: 5691:( 5663:( 5645:: 5641:@ 5629:( 5584:( 5557:: 5553:@ 5541:( 5519:@ 5499:: 5495:@ 5471:@ 5454:@ 5339:■ 5125:( 5108:( 5059:· 5054:( 5024:· 5019:( 4988:: 4984:@ 4894:: 4890:@ 4855:: 4851:@ 4814:: 4810:@ 4763:: 4759:@ 4749:■ 4610:: 4606:@ 4586:: 4582:@ 4558:: 4554:@ 4492:: 4488:@ 4475:} 4473:b 4469:p 4465:c 4461:t 4459:{ 4444:: 4440:@ 4406:( 4371:( 4304:: 4300:@ 4190:( 4167:( 4149:( 4135:( 4121:( 4107:( 4085:( 4076:: 4072:@ 4058:– 4045:( 4038:: 4034:@ 4023:( 4017:: 4013:@ 3998:( 3963:( 3918:( 3913:L 3897:( 3892:L 3874:( 3867:" 3824:( 3775:, 3767:, 3759:, 3740:( 3669:( 3620:( 3566:( 3549:, 3527:· 3522:( 3516:: 3512:@ 3501:( 3463:( 3430:( 3391:( 3386:. 3332:( 3305:( 3285:( 3247:( 3223:( 3190:( 3155:( 3139:( 3124:( 3101:( 3048:( 3041:: 3037:@ 3029:) 3025:( 3009:: 3005:@ 2993:( 2944:( 2938:: 2934:@ 2908:( 2884:( 2867:( 2827:( 2780:( 2725:: 2705:@ 2684:( 2665:( 2651:( 2631:( 2606:( 2577:( 2543:) 2539:( 2520:· 2515:( 2496:( 2489:: 2485:@ 2451:( 2411:( 2378:. 2370:( 2334:( 2305:( 2281:( 2274:C 2253:) 2249:( 2228:( 2211:. 2203:( 2185:( 2180:L 2170:. 2162:( 2156:" 2152:" 2139:( 2121:( 2081:. 2073:( 2051:( 2046:L 2033:( 1993:) 1947:) 1925:) 1921:( 1900:( 1861:( 1846:( 1813:( 1795:– 1779:( 1760:: 1756:@ 1744:( 1674:· 1669:( 1657:· 1652:( 1632:· 1627:( 1621:: 1617:@ 1592:■ 1574:) 1570:( 1394:v 1339:v 1281:v 1186:☎ 1169:· 1164:( 1126:( 1105:( 1089:( 1062:( 1048:( 1023:( 998:( 981:( 975:: 971:@ 918:( 903:( 892:☎ 875:( 750:: 746:@ 678:( 652:( 625:: 621:@ 578:( 571:C 539:e 532:t 525:v 427:+ 385:+ 349:) 345:( 261:+ 203:) 199:( 192:) 188:( 181:) 177:( 167:) 163:( 150:) 146:( 139:) 135:( 128:) 124:( 117:) 113:( 101:. 94:. 87:. 58:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung/Proposed decision - Knowledge

Index