Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence: Difference between revisions
m Bot updating evidence length information (toolserver) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
==Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough== |
== Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough == |
||
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=110|diff=0|link=0}} |
|||
===RFC on Fae was contrary to policy=== |
===RFC on Fae was contrary to policy=== |
||
The RFC on Fae was predicated on linking two accounts. If the two accounts were operated by the same person they were protected under the provisions of [[WP:SOCK]] (legitimate accounts:Privacy). The outing policy further makes it clear that we should never give credence to attempts to link legitimate socks, absent an overriding need. No such need has been shown, therefore no linkage should be made on-Wiki. |
The RFC on Fae was predicated on linking two accounts. If the two accounts were operated by the same person they were protected under the provisions of [[WP:SOCK]] (legitimate accounts:Privacy). The outing policy further makes it clear that we should never give credence to attempts to link legitimate socks, absent an overriding need. No such need has been shown, therefore no linkage should be made on-Wiki. |
||
Revision as of 02:00, 29 May 2012
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
 | → Important notes for all contributors to this case
This case is highly contentious, and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads up on the procedures we will be using. A) First off, we will be running under a "single warning" system. The clerks, myself and other arbitrators will be monitoring this case. Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight. Clerks have been given authority to remove such comments and give the commenter a single warning. If such issues happen again after a participant has been warned, the participant will either be barred from further participation in this arbitration case, or the person will be blocked for a period of time at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone. That includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether it is truly random or not). B) There will be NO speculations allowed. This includes the following:
If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand. Don't think it's "better to ask for forgiveness then it is permission". It's not. These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages. We will be using the just-ratified limits on evidence (to wit, 1000 words/100 diffs for direct parties, 500/50 for non-parties to this case). If you're going to exceed either, ask myself or another arbitrator (on the /Evidence talk page) before you do so. To prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, we are taking additional measures to limit disruption. The case pages will be semi-protected and there will be additional scrutiny paid to accounts who haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. In other words, don't expect to try to avoid scrutiny with an IP address or an alternate, undeclared account. It will be counterproductive. If a new editor or an IP editor truly has something that needs to be said, they can ask a clerk to post for them. Finally, after I take the first few days to review the initial evidence and workshop postings, I will be posting a series of questions on the workshop page that I would like the parties to answer. I am primarily interested in what the parties have to say in response. This should be aimed solely at answering my questions and not going back and forth with other people's answers. Thank you for your attention, and hopefully, your compliance with these directives. For the Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence within the limits. Evidence longer than the limits will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Any editor is entitled to add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. Named parties are granted a maximum word limit of 1,000 words and 100 diffs; all other users are limited to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence should contact the Arbitration Committee by email and ask for an extension.. Over-long evidence may be trimmed to size or simply removed by the Clerk without warning. Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which show the nature of the dispute.
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.
General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough
Current word length: 110; diff count: 0.
RFC on Fae was contrary to policy
The RFC on Fae was predicated on linking two accounts. If the two accounts were operated by the same person they were protected under the provisions of WP:SOCK (legitimate accounts:Privacy). The outing policy further makes it clear that we should never give credence to attempts to link legitimate socks, absent an overriding need. No such need has been shown, therefore no linkage should be made on-Wiki.
Fae well advised not to be involved in RFC
Given the above assertion, Fae was well advised and to be congratulated for keeping away from the three ring circus that the RFC became. The Wikipedia community, especially admins (including myself) should be reprimanded for not closing this unproductive and divisive muck-fest much earlier.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.