Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:24, 30 May 2012

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

→ 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:

1) No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it." That falls under a finding that we have endorsed less then three months ago: In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, (user) has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?")

2) No speculation of off-wiki lifestyle, behavior, orientation and/or private life will be allowed. We are not a gossip site, and making such comments during the case has no purpose. We are an encyclopedia, and our editors should be treated accordingly. If users here are violating that principle elsewhere, that information should be noted briefly, factually, and directly in evidence.

3) If your evidence is being posted against one or more editors, you must fully back up your comments with explicit diffs and/or links. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've said above, unsupported attacks on other editors will be removed and warnings/sanctions will be issued.

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)[reply]

Any editor may 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. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

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.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

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 Anthonyhcole

Current word length: 86; diff count: 3.

Fæ misled the community at his RfA

Fæ took a clean start [1] in the middle of an RfC/U that was seeking sanctions due to his use of sources. The RfC/U was closed with "User has stopped editing Wikipedia. Delisted due to inactivity." [2] In his subsequent RfA as User:Fæ he said he'd taken a clean start after an RfC/U rather than "during" [3] and that he'd never been blocked or banned under the earlier name. [4] This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that a completed RfC/U had found nothing worthy of a topic ban.

Evidence presented by Isarra

Current word length: 62; diff count: 0.

Claims that linking accounts is outing ignore CLEANSTART policy

While there may have been genuine outing involved elsewhere, tying accounts together after a failed cleanstart is not outing. That folks can do that is precisely why it is a failed cleanstart; WP:CLEANSTART specifically says 'If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts.'

Fae was recognised.

Evidence presented by ErrantX

Current word length: 463; diff count: 7.

I want to preface this evidence with the note that I have only been involved in this “dispute” recently - I have no specific knowledge of historical events, events involving Wikipedia Review, etc. However I do intend to present evidence that a) Fae monitors external sites, and has brought that dispute (back?) on-wiki (compounding the issue) and b) Fae has trouble collaborating in the LGBT topic area, is very quick to construe homophobia, and attacks/bullies participants as a form of chilling effect.

Fae has been maligned off-wiki on Wikipediocracy[5], but he appears to consistently monitors this site. On 17 May, at 13:35, I posted a comment about a situation where Fae attacked me [6]. At 13:50 I received an email from Fae about the post (n.b. I am sure Fae will be happy to confirm this email was sent). In his statement at the request for Arbitration he mentioned using Wikipediocracy search function [7] - a feature only available to logged in members.

Fae has brought these off-wiki disputes on-wiki, feeding ammunition to his opposers. For example this AN attempt, aimed at users of Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review, to force disclosure of off-site participation (as noted; Fae is a passive participant of one of these forums).

My negative interaction with Fae stemmed from this discussion in Jimbo's talk page. He construed my view of portions of LGBT activism, that I find problematic, as being a general attack on LBGT people (“I read this as a direct statement that the LGBT are annoying and objectionable.”, essentially accusing me of homophobia). He posted an aggressive response. Salvio warned him about that comment anmd his general behaviour of accusing people of homophobia, Fae construed that post as being directed to raise the matter at AN where he posted much the same comment, implying homophobia. Fae commented "I have stated it is Salvio that is forcing my hand here by threatening Arcom cases."; arguing that Salvio had threatened such a case if he didn't raise the issue higher, it appears he misconstrued Salvio's point.See later discussion. The interaction left me feeling bullied and harassed.

There was some exchange on Fae's talk page following this incident, involving Elen and Salvio, where they tried to explain some of the issues and recommended Fae tone down his accusations. [8] & [9]

Over the intervening weeks I have noted a similar pattern of mistaking, misconstruing or misrepresenting situations. For example he made a vague comment about Jayen466, who was not involved in that discussion, that only through good faith cannot be considered disparaging. In submitting his statements at RFAR he made two mistakes; first, apparently through hurried research, saying MBisanz had met Eric Barbour [10] (which, as noted, he then corrected) and later making a broad accusation against Delicious Carbuncle which the clerks later removed.

Evidence presented by Collect

Current word length: 398; diff count: 4.

The RFC/U had a consensus that the user was a "problem user"

[11] shows that 45 editors felt Ash left "under a cloud", and that a full disclosure would likely have affected the RfA. A larger number agreed that the user was a "problem user." Clearly ArbCom is able to count those holding opinions on the RFC/U, but I suggest the summary was founded in facts concerning the numbers holding such opinions, and is sufficient to state "consensus" thereon.

The RFC/U had a consensus that some information was not provided to the community concerning the user's prior account during the RfA

Same diff - basically ended up being almost a "given." The problem was the timeline - a new account was started while (not after) an RFC/U was occurring on the prior account. No one actually claims at this point that the two accounts are unrelated.

About 57% of those holding one of the two primary "opposing views" at the RFC/U were of the opinion that the RfA would likely not have passed had full disclosure been made

Same diff - further discussed and accepted by others as being mathematically accurate as to numbers. ArbCom is able to assert that such did represent, or did not represent, a sign of consensus thereon. I would ask, however, that ArbCom note that since RfAs require strong sonsensus, that 57% finding that the RfA might not have succeeded is a significant majority.

No sign of editors appearing as a result of off-wiki CANVASSing was given

I found no sign of editors appearing who were not regulars on such pages appearing, thus no reason to assert that any appeared due to CANVASS violations. ArbCom, of course, is free to examine evidence that SPA accounts appeared, that single edit accounts appeared or the like, but almost everyone is a well-known editor on Wikipedia, making the CANVASS (WP:False consensus) possibility exceedingly remote.

No sign of homophobic editors attacking the user on the RFC/U

Again - as such did not occur, I suggest this is a default conclusion barring clear and compelling evidence that Fae was attacked at the RFC/U by any homophobic editors.

[12] is presented as evidence that such claims were inserted by Fae, and not by "homophobic editors."

[13] shows one of Fae's supporters making a short-lived but quite telling claim " I am persuaded that anti-gay attitudes were involved, no matter how carefully certain people might claim that they steered just shy of the mark. More to the point, harassment and smearing Ash/Fae with outrageously false allegations were definitely part of this process." The claims about homophobia were not based ion any editor posting improper claims at the RFC/U in any way whatsoever, thus ArbCom should so note that this is, at best, a "straw issue."

Fae directed me to [14]. I commend ArbCom to read it.

Some editors acted in a grossly uncivil manner on the RFC/U, making name-calling attacks

I ask the Committee to review the RFC/U, paying attention to such edits as [15] etc.

Collect (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Michaeldsuarez

Current word length: 191; diff count: 11.

Censoring rebuttals and the perpetuation of Wnt's faulty accusations

I didn't indent to present evidence so early, but Collect's statement above provides a link to this diff by Wnt, so I feel that the whole stories needs to be given. Wnt misunderstood Delicious carbuncle's WR post completely, and I attempted to state what Delicious carbuncle really meant: [16]. Unfortunately, Fred Bauder suppressed that diff, but I hope that ArbCom can view that diff and see what DC really meant.

The suppression had the effect of perpetuating Wnt's faulty accusations, since no one can view the rebuttal. Fæ also played a part in allowing the inaccuracies to live on. Fæ repeated Wnt's accusations ([17], [18]) and recommended the diff containing Wnt's allegations to Collect: [19]. Fæ also recently censored my defense of DC ([20], [21], [22]), so we once again find ourselves in a situation where users can't view the rebuttal.

Fæ recently requested ([23]) the suppression of an ANI discussion where DC refutes ([24], [25]) Wnt's accusation, so now we're at risk of having yet another rebuttal censored. How long is Wnt's misinformation about DC going to live on? Due to the constant censorship of rebuttals and spread of the misinformation by Fæ, Wnt's accusations will probably live on forever.

Evidence presented by ReverendWayne

Current word length: 102; diff count: 0.

Fæ failed to respond to a proper query about his conduct

When it had become clear that Fæ's participation in the RFC/U was unlikely, I posted to his talk page [26] to ask about his statement at RfA. He did not respond, nor did he offer any reason for not responding. I have no history with Fæ and have not participated in any off-wiki discussions concerning him. My question did not require him to identify any old account(s). In my query I referred to Wikipedia's policy on administrator accountability, so I must conclude that he was not ignorant of that policy, but rather did not consider himself bound to follow it. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 178; diff count: 14.

Fae

The following diffs list the instances in which Fae has directed general or specific allegations of homophobia, harassment, or other pejorative motivations at other editors. Some of the diffs refer to WR/WPC participants, many of whom are editors and/or admins in good standing here, as a "traveling circus":

[27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] (partially retracted) (more to come)

The following diffs show Fae refusing to engage in dispute resolution or respond to questions: [37] [38] [39]

(more to come)

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.