Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kudpung

Among the possible names for the case, "Kudpung" has to be one of the worse ones, since it leads to anchoring. Banedon (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|Banedon}}, I have passed your feedback on to the mailing list. SQL^{Query me!} 04:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:{{u|Banedon}}, administrator conduct cases are conventionally named after the administrator in question. In the past 2 years we have had 7, all named in this fashion. If we want to change this convention we would have to have a conversation at a slightly broader venue. – bradv🍁 04:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:As I previously discussed, following the last discussion on case naming, I updated the {{tl|ArbCase}} template to support an alias in the form of year-number. Anyone should feel free to refer to this case as case {{ArbCase|2020-1}} (using the {{tlx|ArbCase|2020-1}} syntax to get a link to the case page). isaacl (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::I simply do not accept the case for anonymous case naming based on the notion of "anchoring". To me, a simple fellow living in the real world, we need to be honest enough to call a spade a spade. A case is usually about a person's behavior and we do not need to hide that. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:::In addition, if the case were to be renamed, surely RHaworth would deserve the same courtesy? The case that concerns him was recently opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth... –FlyingAce^✈hello 14:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::::It should, yes. Banedon (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

:::I'm not opinionated on the matter of anchoring. I only enabled a way to refer to cases by a sequence number (currently supported back to 2015), for anyone who wants to. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:::If the case name isn't changed I predict it'll end with some kind of sanction for Kudpung. Granted that might happen anyway even if the case name is changed, but if it isn't, I think the chances of sanctions are well above 50%. Banedon (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

DGG, are you planning to recuse? Your name is mentioned as an active arb but I note that you had not commented any uptill now. As a long-term colloborator with K, I don't think that you are suff. unbiased. There are other much more credible off-wiki stuff, but I think this issue can be amicably dealt with w/o going into all those areas. ∯WBG^converse 05:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:Since no ping was sent above, {{yo|DGG}}. SQL^{Query me!} 05:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks! ∯WBG^converse 05:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:::I have not yet decided, and I hope it will not be necessary to decide. . DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::::Wot?! ∯WBG^converse 05:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::I want to echo Winged Blades of Godric here. Your talk page {{U|DGG}} goes beyond the {{xt|routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions}} that ARBPOL speaks of. Would you please recuse? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::::If (as a purely hypothetical example) I thought he was being railroaded and therefore wanted to help him keep admin regardless of anything else, I would have recused, because I would have been able to make a much stronger argument about that while recused , than anything I would have been able to do as one among 11 judges on the committee, where I have to act judiciously rather than as an advocate.

:::::::But in this situation, even though I know it would not affect me, to avoid any appearance of doubt , I have notified the committee that I am recusing. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::::::::Thank you, DGG --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking for a couple of days now on what evidence I want to submit, and I don't think I'll submit any. The case is relatively clear; what's less clear is what this case will do to resolve any trends of negative behaviour. The main issue is how Kudpung reacts to criticism or opinions that differ from his own, and his reaction to this case (making a case statement implying that once they review the whole evidence ArbCom will find no wrongdoing and refusing to further engage or show any self-reflection on his previous actions) shows how futile this entire process is. I don't see this case ending with a desysop, because I don't think that would be warranted or justified. But anything less will just be dismissed as a meaningless sanction brought on by people holding grudges.

This also isn't something that particularly concerns me. I've received far more direct threats and insults from other people here, not even including death threats by email from various banned users. Kudpung vaguely threatening to oppose my confirmation, or calling legitimate and founded criticism a personal attack, is something that I roll my eyes at but doesn't affect me in any other way. It would just be nice for administrators to take constructive criticism seriously. I certainly try to when it is directed toward me. But I have no answers for how to make it a more widespread practice. The battleground mentality is very deeply entrenched. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have sent an email to ArbCom, but not received a response. Can someone confirm the email address? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

:The email address for this case is {{email|arbcom-en-b|wikimedia.org}}. Possibly the email has not been processed yet. Regards SoWhy 10:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

::Thanks! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Guerillero|Kudpung}} We are almost finished drafting the proposed decision for this case and expect to post it for discussion and voting in the next couple of days. Apologies for the delay. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)