Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Rich Farmbrough

Proposed principles

It is legitimate, in certain circumstances, to have two accounts

Per WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses an editor may have a separate account for privacy purposes (among other reasons).

Comment by Arbitrators:

The subheading is far too sweeping, and would be prone to being misinterpreted. Otherwise, I could agree to something similar to this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, but I don't see the relevance here. The issue is surely rather the circumstances in which the editor abandoned one account and took up another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: heading changed per PhilKnight's comment. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Posting personal information is harassment

Per WP:OUTING

• "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, ... whether any such information is accurate or not."
• "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy"
• "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found."

Comment by Arbitrators:

The last item relates to connecting a new account to one which had been abandoned because it had become associated with personal information. This can be OUTING - although I have seen quite a bit of community disagreement. I don't believe that is what happened in this case anyway, hence the first two items, although correctly quoted, would seem not to apply. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The ellipses in the first point above are highly tendentious and fundamentally change the actual meaning of the sub-policy cited. The full sentence should be: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." A second, subordinate sentence is then truncated into it: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." Carrite (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block

Per WP:OUTING - Direct quote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think we need some form of caveat to say that posting personal information which depend solely on public information is a slightly different situation, which should be discouraged but probably not by an outright block. Deryck C. 00:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempted outing should not be rewarded with confirmation or denial

Per WP:OUTING

• "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information.
• "Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts"
• "When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information."
• "Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar,"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. The RfC was not contrary to policy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposer seems not to have understood the chain of events or which policy to apply. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Rich. WP:OUTING is very narrow, mostly about disclosure of personally identifying information (specifically, legal name, street address etc). Connecting two accounts rarely does this. I suppose the other issue is whether the concerns raised at the RFC trump anything in the WP:OUTING policy (the WMF privacy policy, from which it derives, contains exceptions in the event of misconduct).  Roger Davies ^talk 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thoughtful consideration of the situation showed that the underlying principle (deeper than the procedural principles which made the RFC merely invalid) was one of privacy. There is no substantive contention that the two accounts were linked by editing in the same area, and one account edited in an area where WP:SOCK legitimate accounts is a perfectly reasonable policy to apply. Given this attempting to link the two accounts without a compelling reason constitutes WP:OUTing. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. He was not well advised. SirFozzie (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

It is not clear to me who advised Fæ, what their advice was, or what their advice was based on (although I presume it was what Fæ told them). It is not clear when Fæ was given this advice. Contrary to Fæ's own statements, they did interact with me after the start of the RFC/U, both on the talk page of the RFC/U and on their own talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

He refused to participate but not did not keep away. In fact, he seems to say anyone involved with legitimate concerns about on wiki behavior was somehow entangled with some pretty crappy off-wiki events. [1] Nobody Ent 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It has now been disclosed by Fae that he was advised by security professionals - including the police - not to engage with his harassers. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to substitute its judgement for that of security professionals. Prioryman (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Um -- what was the literal advice? I suspect it was more on the order of avoiding Wikipedia if that is where all the harassers are. Like telling people to stay away from New Smyrna Beach if they do not want to risk a shark bite. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Isarra

Proposed findings of fact

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wnt: Like I was saying below, I think the problem is that when the Ash account retired, they left questions unsanswered in the RfC/U, like his non-participation in the the Fae RfC/U left questions that still were unanswered. Using information that is self-disclosed in the two cases is neither outing nor harassment. If he said "I am this person in real life" and then on his WMUK said, "I'm This person, and this account is my WP account, the fact that it's self disclosure means that linking A (old account)=B (real Life name, disclosed on A)=C (New account, disclosed by B) is neither outing nor harassment... or at the very least has a VERY high bar to clear. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Looking at the history, I see that the text of WP:CLEANSTART was extensively changed in February of this year by two editors User:WereSpielChequers and User:Thatcher, who specifically discussed the Fae RfC/U at the article's talk page (Wikipedia talk:Clean start#RFC). The text you cite is not present in the pre-RfC version ([2]) Thatcher explained his changes as being in response to that by saying "Policy is made by watching what actually happens, then writing it down so the next poor sucker has some warning". Whatever one thinks of these changes (I think a revert or two is in order, as the new text does encourage outing) they certainly do not apply to Fae. Note that the old version specifically advises to use the {{retired}} template on the old user page, and that contacting ArbCom before an RfA is sufficient. The old version carelessly used the word "recognized" once, in the statement "Editors who make a clean start and then resume editing in the same topic areas may be recognized by other editors in that area." This was clearly not a call for outing users based on WHOIS data. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ was outed without the WHOIS information. The WHOIS information simply reaffirmed what the Wikipedia Review already knew. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Ash – Ash (Ashleyvh at the time) outed himself with his very first upload, and Fæ = Ashley Van Haeften isn't a secret that Fæ is trying hard to keep. Ash and Fæ outed themselves. Common sense says that even the old version of WP:CLEANSTART isn't an entitlement to do a poor job of keeping a secret. Where in the old version of WP:CLEANSTART does it say that users must keep their heads in the sand and act as if they were clueless whenever a CLEANSTART user is around? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look into the outing issue further before arguing it; I assumed it was pretty important or why was it brought up at all? But aside from that, you're missing the forest for the trees. A clean start is supposed to be a clean start. At least the old version made clear that you could reveal the old account to ArbCom or whoever you wished - there was no obligation to keep it a secret at all. A clean start was supposed to be a clean start period, unless you were "evading scrutiny" with the new account, which is a link to WP:SOCK and refers only to direct evasion of sanctions. Nowhere did it say you don't get a chance to start over unless you conceal every possible trace of identifiable information. Whereas WP:OUTING seems rather unambiguously opposed to posting the personal name of an editor to cause them grief. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Ash didn't have a right to make a clean start, but Fæ broke the clean start when he run for Wikimedia UK's Board of Directors by publicly revealing his name, which happened to also be Ash's name. Users and donors also ought to have the right to investigate who's running the charity and who's taking care of the money. The old version of the clean start policy is inadequate when it comes to explaining what happens after a clean start user is recognized. Does the clean start user (who happens to be a member of WMUK's Board of Directors) have the right to distance himself from the old account even after "linkage between the two accounts [has] become public knowledge"? Once something has "become public knowledge", there isn't any point in censoring or denying it. The changes by WereSpielChequers and Thatcher were meant to settle the inadequacies of the older policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the old policy - the policy at the time for Fae - was that a clean start is a genuine fresh chance. He didn't list his accomplishments as Ash in support of his RfA, so why should the account's alleged problems count against him? I presume the rationale of the (original) policy is that someone who has contributed to Wikipedia in the past, not under active sanctions, should turn out to be at least as good an editor as one who joins for the first time. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie: the text I mentioned in the following principle, and have proposed as a principle in itself, appears to allow an editor to look up and mention the real name, which is not secret, but not to use the name to pull up other stuff on the Web, or indeed, it mentions, even on Wikipedia, in an irrelevant context. The actions of the account from before a cleanstart are not relevant to the actions of the new account, unless there is a continuing pattern of wrongdoing that brings prohibited uses of an alternate account from WP:SOCK into play. Wnt (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by The Devil's Advocate

Proposed principles

Outing and CLEANSTART

According to the policy on outing, when someone voluntarily provides links to identifying information on Wikipedia it does not constitute outing to bring said information to light. Per WP:CLEANSTART an editor is only entitled to avoid recognition. Should they leave sufficient clues to link them with an old account it is on them and not outing, even if that prior account contains personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The following text has remained unchanged in that policy for the past year: The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I am not talking about dredging up someone's off-line opinions. I am talking about linking two Wikipedia accounts based on information freely provided on Wikipedia by the user.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the policy speaks both of offline edits and past edits to Wikipedia, past edits by another account should be treated the same way. Whether you call them "off line" in the sense that the cleanstarted account was not online at the time, or "past edits" in the sense that they were past Wikipedia edits which should not be relevant due to the cleanstart, the conclusion is the same. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Off line opinions" probably refers to off-line activities such as such as off-line participation in the Tea Party or in OWS. Wnt, I don't believe that "off line" is meant to be interpreted the way that you're interpreting it. WP:OUTING (where the "off line opinions" phrase appears) doesn't mention anything about CLEANSTART accounts, so I don't believe that your interpretation is the correct one. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin Accountability

Administrators are expected to behave in a manner consistent with the responsibility afforded to their position. Failure to accept accountability for one's actions as an editor and attempts to evade scrutiny are inconsistent with proper administrative conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Seems there is an issue of WP:ADMINACCT in here that hasn't been mentioned yet.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Fæ's attempts to evade scrutiny

Fæ has misled editors and administrators about his prior and recent conduct to avoid tougher scrutiny in a manner inconsistent with his position as an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

His conduct in the recent incidents as well as the RfC speak for themselves and this has been what I find the most disconcerting about the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Fæ's prior accounts

Fæ must publicly disclose on his user page any prior accounts he has operated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that the evasiveness exhibited regarding his prior accounts has served to create some of the enmity on this issue and as he has freely linked on his user page to the Wikimedia UK and acknowledges that he is a member of the foundation, where he is chair and listed on the site by name, there is little compelling reason for him continuing to be evasive about the link to prior accounts that used his actual name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of clarification: he is not the chair of the Foundation; he is the chair of Wikimedia UK, an independent but affiliated local entity. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "not evading your past" and "brandishing your past in public". I think this proposed remedy has crossed the line into the field of unnecessary pedantry. Deryck C. 00:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this. I'm aware that in the past people with a history of sockpuppetry have been restricted to one account, but this seems to be going far further with rather less reason. Since Fae has refocussed his editing onto other areas than the previous accounts I fail to see any benefit to the pedia of insisting he publicly link to them. ϢereSpielChequers 21:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Civility restriction

Fæ is put on a six-month civility restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Two problems. One) Defining civility is like defining obscenity (it varies from person to person, and usually the test to call something a civility violation is "I know it when I see it".. but not everyone sees it the esame way. And secondly, aren't we all under a civility restriction, in that we are required to work with each other in a civil manner when necessary? 03:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Comment by parties:

Given the general failure of such restrictions in prior high profile cases, I don't see this as a good remedy. Also, given the controversy in the other threads on this page relative to how to weigh and sanction different kinds of poor conduct, I think this is a recipe for disaster. MBisanz ^talk 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Allowing that Fæ has simply been under stress from the situation and the incivility merely being him lashing out I think a restriction is most respectful of the situation and gives the most room for observable improvement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What does "civility restriction" mean? Nobody Ent 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Fae has already been placed under the most relevant penalty, namely, being barred from User talk:Jimbo Wales. That's a brutal forum to participate in, with constant put-downs against whole groups of WMF contributors, and it's not going to get any better. Fae was "formally invited to permanently stay off my talk page"^[3] by Jimbo Wales, whereas several opposing users were not criticized for pretty harsh statements. To quote the newest continuation of this discussion, reputedly made more civil by Fae's departure, we were getting comments over the course of a few days from some of the same users like "planet Insane ... Wnt, just shut up... your opinion really has no place in intelligent discourse... bat shit crazy stuff ... held hostage to nutzoids like you ... try to be coherent ... trolling-tinged hysterics ... rich, white, first-world exhibitionists and perverts ... the, er, "gifted" editors on Wikinews ... arguing with a Commons admin or regular user over there is a waste of time because they live in their own fantasy world and cannot be reasoned with in the first place... conspiracy to circumvent laws against showing pornography to kids..." (from the present version) I asked Tarc one of SirFozzie's questions in the midst of that, and the answer I obtained was remarkable.^[4] Now, I understand that ArbCom isn't able to control how Jimbo chooses to run his own page, but let's at least recognize that this is the sort of atmosphere that Fae had to deal with which led up to his snarky (and arguably factual) retort about the bestiality video, and would have to deal with on that particular page in the foreseeable future. I'd like to think that the rest of Wikipedia is at least nicer than that. So I'd say that for him to be off that page should be sufficient "civility restriction" to address the problem going forward. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, there's nothing really remarkable about being opposed to the Commons' no-holds-barred culture regarding a) excess pornography and b) unwillingness to deal with the Beta M situation. Both areas are colossal failures of the Commons administrators (obviously not all of them are corrupt, but the ones that aren't are quite outnumbered). That is the type of thing that my comment was directed at, as the person to who (to whom?) it was directed is one of the problem users there. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my response I gave you then.^[5] And Niabot is not required to agree with the majority. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

conspiracy to circumvent laws against showing pornography to kids is a statement of fact. John lilburne (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like an "extraordinary claim", considerably stronger than "promoting a bestiality video", which I maintain was not an allegation of criminal activity, at least in the U.S., where the historic video involved would be protected by the Miller Test. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fozzie I was trying to avoid being overly specific as I am not sure exactly how to cover all the specific civility issues brought up in this case. Cla's suggestion regarding discretionary sanctions seems to get at the core of the conduct I was thinking about, though there are also concerns about being misleading regarding the conduct of other editors. Under the circumstances I figured some form of probation or additional scrutiny that would lead to tougher action in the event of further incivility would be better than just sanctioning Fæ for incivility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Wnt

Proposed principles

RfC/U is an informal non-binding process

1) WP:RfC/U is "an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with particular editors". No editor is required to participate. The mere existence of this discussion does not terminate any of an editor's privileges, including his right to make legitimate use of an alternate account for privacy or to make a clean start with a new account. Even if an RfC/U comes to conclusions critical of the user, these are not formal sanctions and do not in any way restrict the editor unless made official by administrative action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While RfC's are not binding, administrators are expected to answer legitimate concerns about their behavior. I personally think it stretches credulity to try to claim that ALL, or even a majority of the people who posted that they had concerns were somehow illegitimate. In fact, I would say that to try to use such a tactic to avoid answering those with legitimate concerns could be seen a stonewalling or WikiLawyering. SirFozzie (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I disagree. While no editor is required to participate, failure to participate, particularly when done by administrators, is an indicator of poor behavior and can be taken into account in reviewing their conduct. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed they can decline to participate, but a refusal to do so can and will be seen as a bad-faith rejection of legitimate community concerns, and may be validly cited as a reason to escalate the dispute resolution process. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a sign that the two sides aren't speaking to one another, but who is acting in bad faith remains to be determined. Wnt (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no "sides", and an RfC is not a 1-to-1 discussion. Bad faith lies solely with the named person not showing up. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Sometimes editors prefer not to participate in RfCs they consider unwarranted, as they feel they would be legitimsing witchunters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The point raised by SirFozzie and others is that Fae as an administrator must be willing to explain his actions. This is an important principle, expressed in WP:Admin, which prohibits "Failure to communicate^[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)" Nevertheless, I don't really see the Fae RfC/U asking for much to be explained. Citation 6 above is a principle from the Betacommand case, which focuses specifically on "administrative actions". Maybe someone could read the first sentence of that principle to mean that anyone must respond to an RfC/U, but my impression is that this is not general policy - I didn't notice any such statement on the RfC/U page. I should emphasize that my opposition to the RfC/U was solidified by the failure of anyone to raise any objection at all to Fae's administrative actions [6][7]. I agree that if Fae's administrative actions had been criticized in any way that he would be obligated to respond to the RfC/U. In any case, I know of no obligation for him to respond to the Ash RfC/U. Wnt (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make a general observation that applies here, as well as at a couple of other proposed principles on this page. I'd encourage the Arbitrators to consider how to draw the boundaries between: (a) the responsibility of administrators to respond to questions, and (b) the appropriateness of administrators "dropping the stick" when users hostile to that administrator ask unreasonable questions, in which event those hostile users then game the system by claiming that the administrator was unresponsive. Please understand that I am not claiming that (b) is the case here; rather, I think that this case lies in a gray area between (a) and (b), perhaps closer to (a), but not purely (a). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's declination to participate in the voluntary RFC/U process was perfectly fine in accordance with current policy. However, when an editor continues to violate policy (disruption) following an RFC/U it's logical they be bought to non-voluntary dispute resolution and that the concerns expressed in the RFC/U be reviewed. Nobody Ent 13:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U is the responsibility of participating editors

2) It is the responsibility of those who voluntarily choose to participate in an RfC/U to achieve a consensus if one can be had. Failure to achieve a consensus result cannot be blamed on the person it concerns, even if he chooses not to participate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, administrators are required to respond to good faith concerns about their use of tools or behavior. Despite perhaps not getting consensus, there wasn't any consensus that there was NO problem, either. SirFozzie (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The problem I have with these principles is that RFC/U is intended as a step in the dispute resolution process; where multiple editors have long term (i.e. non-urgent) issues to resolve with one individual. If the RFC/U doesn't resolve those concerns (either by non-participation by the user, or by third parties not addressing the concerns, or by community consensus showing a non-existent problem) then clearly the next step is to move on to a different form of dispute resolution. I agree, in principle, that not engaging with RFC/U is legitimate (although it might reflect badly it is not an end-game move in my book - and indeed that particular RFC was a disaster worth avoiding), just as I believe that those bringing the RFC/U can rightfully move to the next step of DR if they still hold concerns. RFC/U consistently fails to reach "consensus" and are widely held to be non-enforceable by the community, it is system designed to require voluntary participation by the subject, and in their absence it is mostly just an echo chamber to express issues. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It does however serve as a useful collating point for everyone's issues. Rather than have them spread out all over the place. As a reference point for future dispute resolution it can be very informative.Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors are innocent until proven guilty

3) No editor should be treated as "under a cloud" or a "problem user" in the absence of a clear consensus that he has violated policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, but failing to respond to good-faith concerns about an administrator CAN be considered under a cloud. SirFozzie (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A "problem user" I would take as someone for whom there is "clear consensus that he has violated policy", while "under a cloud" I would take as someone for whom there is a reasonable and active enquiry into their conduct which has not yet been resolved one way or another. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Worth indicating that "under a cloud" means "suspicion of misbehaviour". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'under a cloud' terminology was, as I recall, introduced specifically to deal with situations where an editor/admin/functionary retires from editing part way through a process which focuses on their alleged problematic behaviour. The community wished to ensure that it was clear in such cases that the editor could not dispose of the allegations merely by time elapsed since last edit, and return to take up activity without addressing them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd term it "clear evidence" - consensus is a fickle beast, and in RFC/U's you get a full crop of partisan editors. It's easy to obtain a "consensus" (or to claim one). This principle opens the gates to people vote stacking RFC/U's to put an individual under a cloud. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you determine if it is clear evidence? Note that this principle does not say the converse that if there is a clear consensus that the editor should be treated as "under a cloud", though that may often be true. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The RFC/U had a strong consensus for the "problem user" term - consisting of 45 who felt he was "under a cloud" (57% of those holding one of the two dominant opinions - other opinions seem to hold a lot of "repeat customers" making summary difficult for them), 6 more (AFAICT) in Hobit's list stated similarly that there had been a "troubled past" or the like -- making 2/3 consensus that either the user left under a cloud or at least had a troubled past or has been a problem in the past. And I specifically oppse any admin being so foolish as to ignore vote-stacking (WP:False consensus), but frankly I saw no evidence thereof, and I think one editor stated that all of those who had voted on the RfA (which had a very large majority in favour) were notified, so if any vote-stacking occurred, it was undoubtedly not to Fae's disadvantage in the RFC/U. Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've disputed your numbers before, at your original summary and above, so we'll have to let the Arbitrators decide who is right. Wnt (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I know you "disputed" the figures which are verifiable as fact, also that I answered all your concerns, and that others concurred with my derived statistics. This is not a matter of "who is right" - I think you have posted at least three comments on this case, but a matter of "is it reasonable to say a large number of those at the RfC/U, sufficient to be considered a consensus, did, in fact, concur that the user at issue had had problems sufficient to be identified as a 'problem user' or not". I also trust you did not make this post as a personal aside, as that would be entirely non-utile in this process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to go over this again: I'm citing the 34 editors signing Hobit's opinion, plus the 14 (TCO, ReaperEternal, Wnt, PaoloNapolitano, Herostratus, StaniStani, MtD, Sam Blacketer, Bidgee, Victuallers, Ϫ, Exok, Nanobear, Nick-D) who made statements supportive of Fae. You cite 46 editors plus 6 more; it would help if you listed those usernames for verification. That leaves some additional miscellaneous opinions which someone should count up and assess. My feeling is that if those opinions are truly neutral, they should still weigh a bit in Fae's favor here because they aren't clearly supportive of wrongdoing. I hope you understand that when you state a number like 57%, and my position is not counted in that, I don't think it's a very good count. The only reason why I didn't sign the 34-member opinion is that I didn't agree that Ash was a "problem user" before the cleanstart. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: StaniStani since pointed out that his vote (#4) was not actually supportive; this is now withdrawn. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? OK -- let's list all those who saw any problem with Fae: 57 of them. (commented out at the start as I do not really see why anyone would really want to list them -- I trust Wnt has notified all the ones he listed above that they are mentioned here.) Collect (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I sorted those names on the spreadsheet, and there are the 46 from Themfromspace's opinion, plus six more I will acknowledge. However, User:Waiting for connection doesn't exist, and I don't find it in a search of the RfC/U. John Vandenberg, Nobody Ent, Mark Arsten, and Milowent look supportive of Fae to me. Additionally, from among the 46, AlexiusHoratius strike his initial endorsement and opposes a new RfA, and Tryptofish's vote says the community evaluated the RfA fairly. So I recognize 5051 of your votes, while claiming 4847 for Fae so far. I should also mention that DracoEssentialis and JN466 are husband and wife; I don't know if both votes are counted the way we do things. As for notifying these users, since only their vote is noted and not their actions, I don't think it is necessary, but I don't actually mind notifying 18 pro-Fae voters of this proceeding if I'm required to. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WFC is the one you think does not exist - he does - I may have added a space - but saying he does not exist is silly. The others whom you think supported Fae - I read their posts quite carefully, and with support like theirs, Fae would be out in a flash - so try to accept my list. I trust you have notified each and every person you mention overtly however. As for your clear implication that JN466 and Draco are somehow operating as meatpuppets or a tagteam -- try posting that charge at AN/I and not here. I would recall the message at the very head of this page, and urge you to abide by it. There will be NO speculations allowed seems to apply to your post, cher Wnt. Collect (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I was counting votes, not calling for punishments. WP:FAMILY says "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives."; its disclosure requirement is met, so I don't think that's any kind of offense, but it does reduce the vote count by one, which is what we're talking about here. If the clerk or any Arb suggests I notify these people, I'll notify them without complaint. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

this is supportive? Nobody Ent 22:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right - looks like I fouled up on your vote somehow. Acknowledged. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Wnt, I am perfectly fine with you discounting my vote in User:Fæ's latest Rfc/U in the interest of upholding the WP patriarchy so long as you also strike the votes of all the people with whom Fæ works with/is friendly with in real life, especially certain members of WMUK, to avoid making your list of Fae's supporters look too, how shall we say, meaty. Draco^E 23:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen evidence about who is Fae's coworker. My feeling is that two people working together at Wikipedia doesn't trigger this vote reduction, or else every vote might end up at 1 to 1. I recall reading that Fae has a husband, and if he voted in the same process, of course, his vote and Fae's should be counted as one by the same principle. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:COWORKER: [8], [9]. Draco^E 04:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-gay bias are no worse than other allegations

Repeated unfounded allegations of harassment may constitute harassment themselves. But individual good faith allegations of homophobia raised when relevant to discussion or policy enforcement do not violate policy, even if the consensus of ensuing discussion weighs against them. An editor should not be more subject to sanction when accusing another of anti-gay bias than he would be for accusing an editor of any other form of harassment, incivility, or other violation of Wikipedia policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In that none of them should be done, yes. However, accusations of Homophobia tend to significantly restrict any chance of a discussion remaining good faith and collegial. Editors must strive to not make undue accusations of this nature. If we use the phrase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would say that this definitely falls under the term extraordinary claims. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

They're no better and no worse than other accusations, such as those of anti-antisemitism, islamophobia, or racism and so on. When making such allegations, editors should have clear evidence to support these assertions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Allegations relating to an individual's thoughts or beliefs are always going to be more problematic than allegations relating to breaching Wikipedia-specific policies. Without sound, unambiguous evidence, such allegations are very likely to be perceived as falling into the category of personal attacks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to line up which forms of allegations are worse than others, nor get into real world political/social discussions such as the implications and impact of homophobic allegations. A comment which is made with the intention of unsettling another user is an unwelcome personal attack, be it in the form of suggesting they lack the knowledge to edit Wikipedia or that they are making homophobic allegations; however, it would be appropriate for someone to raise reasonable concerns in appropriate forums based on evidence. If someone makes an allegation without evidence then it is a personal attack: "What is considered to be a personal attack?" - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." We cannot judge which attacks are more unsettling - some people put a lot of their personal values and identity into the work they do on Wikipedia, and accusing them of being unfit to edit Wikipedia could be quite distressing. Let's not get into judging who is hurt more - let's just clamp down on personal attacks of any form. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Totally disagree with this. There are accusations that relate directly to a persons character. Accusing someone of violating 3RR or even ordinary incivility are in a totally different category than accusing someone of being a Homophobe, Racist, Anti-semite, or similar allegations that say that someone didn't just break some community rule, but that they are evil to the core.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If accusations of anti-gay bias are more serious than accusations of incivility, are editors punished more severely when they make anti-gay or racist statements than when they make other uncivil statements of equal fervor? Can you link to a policy which says that anti-gay remarks are an especially serious breach of Wikipedia policy? Can you link to a policy that warns gay Wikipedians that they must be extra careful when making allegations of this type as opposed to, say, BLP violation or copyvios? Wnt (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're proposing a principle codifying in case law that there's no difference between saying "You made a 4th revert" and "You're a homophobe" or I suppose the reverse "You're a <insert slur of choice>". I oppose that. If Common sense isn't reflected in current policy then it's policy that needs to be adjusted. Not signing off on a precedent that there's no issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with not accepting this principle is that it appears to set a different precedent, that homosexuals (or perhaps any minority group) are not entitled to seek policy enforcement unless the accuser is placed at countervailing risk. For example, I entered a discussion of whether the WR thread contained anti-gay bias, gave my opinion, and now the diff is listed twice in the Evidence section. Are you saying that when the question is asked whether a comment or discussion is homophobic, that those who look at it and say "no, nothing to worry about" should post in perfect safety, while those who answer "looks like there's a problem" are making an "extraordinary claim" that could put them at risk of administrative punishment? That would not be not a fair discussion, and it would work against the goal of protecting gay Wikipedians from harassment. Wnt (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're proposing a principle that impacts far more than this specific situation. If you want to propose a finding of fact that the acusations there were justified and appropriate, then make the arguement. Don't try to open the door for these sort of accusations to be greenlit encyclopedia wide.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree per the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ideal. If you're going to claim that Person A is opposing or combating or arguing with Person B because of A's orientation, then there damn well better be some supporting facts to go along with that accusation. I faced something similar in the recently closed Muhammad Arbcom case, where a certain user or two were quite cavalier about lobbing accusations of "you're anti-Islamic" with nothing to support that. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'cavalier' part is key there. As I said in the text above, repeated unfounded accusations can become a form of harassment. The policy speaks of allegations of harassment but I would think it should be true of any sort of allegation. Merely saying the word "anti-Islamic" should not expose your detractor to sanctions, but if he follows you around saying you're a bigot over and over without evidence, that is something different. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On consideration, I think another basic issue underlying this is the question of how broad the "anti-X" view is defined to be, and thus how widespread anti-minority opinions and perspectives may be. For example, consider a hypothetical person editing Wikipedia in 1990, who substituted in "brave" and "squaw" to an article about a Native American tribe, saying "everyone knows those are the terms you use". And someone reverts him, pointing out that he's using an objectionable term. Does he follow the historically common usage, or hear the objection? Is he being "insensitive" to the minority, or hostile to it? It's not that easy to answer. Tolerance is not something people take in with their mother's milk, which is lost only if they fall prey to bigoted propaganda. People have to work at learning how to be sensitive to a minority, and often they do not, even should not, do every thing that they could to be perfectly favorable to it. For this reason, I don't see a claim of bias as being extraordinary, but a matter of course. Consider: how many gay editors have, in their heart, perfect tolerance and understanding for Muslims? (And indeed, is even asking that question an anti-gay expression?) To make good, balanced articles, editors need to put the collection of information from every point of view before all their prejudices, conscious and unconscious, acknowledged and unacknowledged. To facilitate that goal, editors must be able to ask candidly whether their colleagues are truly unbiased, and if so ... how unbiased. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the way to promote sensitivity is not to accuse people of 'seeking to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood' without having solid evidence that this is true.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I missed the diff for that. Who did this? Wnt (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. That was Coretta Scott King speaking about Homophobia as quoted in the lede of that article. That however is what someone is saying about another when they label them a homophobe.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That is what one person, a noted activist, said when making a comparison. The article begins by saying that homophobia is "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality", which sounds much more general. Obviously, like anything else, there are stronger and weaker versions. To take a parallel case to avoid any specific claims of favoritism, consider that two-thirds of the American public polled opposed the "Ground Zero Mosque" (Park51 controversy), a position which CNN calls "Islamophobic" [10] Now that's another one of those "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof", about a group which I don't think is subject to much more hatred and discrimination than gays. Yet in truth the "extraordinary claim" is more likely to be true than not! (Unless the European editors are a lot less Islamophobic, which somehow I doubt). Of course, not all those people are out there with baseball bats looking for Muslims to beat up, but they merit the word anyway. Wnt (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is drifting rather farther than it needs to be. Just to restate what I feel is relevant. The accusation of homophobia is serious, well above an accusation of ordinary technical policy violations. Arbcom should not by case law deem the two to be equivalent. With regards to specifics in this case they can be examined as to weather accusations made were justified, or mitigated by context or circumstances. This should be done through findings of facts, and not by unleashing a principle that would allow people to toss out similar allegations the same way one would throw out a 3rr accusation.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm hearing when you say that is that gay Wikipedians should not feel as free as other victims of harassment to seek administrative recourse, and do so at their own risk. Do you think that wouldn't be the consequence? Wnt (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Wnt, that's not what he is saying. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow Wnt, I'm not sure how you turned what I said into that.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie and PhilKnight are right on the mark. Accusing people you disagree with of disagreeing with you because of their homophobic (or racist, or antisemitic) agenda simply ratchets up the drama level and dampens down constructive discourse. This is pretty much just a common-sense extension of Godwin's Law. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Fae appears to agree that accusations of homophobia are on par with accusations of misogyny or racism and all are unnacceptable [11]. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of Fae's phrasing was unfortunate, but it was clear that he was seeking to steer a civil but awkward discussion between two editors about one's own homophobic feelings, or lack of them, back toward a discussion of whether the article text made a BLP sound more (or less) homophobic than she was. Discussing that point, of whether the BLP was homophobic, was clearly permissible in that case. Likewise, in an arbitration case, RfC/U, AN/I, or other conduct based matter, it is appropriate to discuss whether a comment by an editor sounds homophobic, and it can even be appropriate to discuss, with suitable evidence, whether an editor's pattern of contributions is indicative of a homophobic bias. Such allegations may indeed "ratchet up the drama level", but the same is true of any other allegation. Whether or not one agrees that the first to mention Godwin's Law, when Hitler has not been mentioned, traditionally loses a Usenet argument, for having mentioned him by implication, one thing should be clear: unlike Hitler, homophobia is still very much alive and very much a threat in this world, and we cannot deem it irrelevant to our decision-making. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an even sterner message is desirable, such as: "Allegations of anti-gay bias, as with other ad hominem allegations, constitute personal attack and detract editors from good-faith discussions to improve Wikipedia." - such as Cla68's proposal #Allegations of homophobia, racism, or bigotry. Deryck C. 00:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Opposition research" can be a form of harassment

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28815&st=0&p=225600&mode=linear#entry225600 – "tarantino" outed Ash. Since the thread was about COI's and not an individual editor, it doesn't appear to be "opposition research". tarantino even revealed an undisclosed COI in the process. Also, it was memory, not "opposition research", that resulted in Delicious carbuncle recognizing Fæ as Ash. Delicious carbuncle didn't forget about the name "Ashley van Haeften". In November 2011, Peter Damian mentioned a "Ashley van H" in a WR thread. Delicious carbuncle saw it, remembered the name, and connected the dots (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679 – "I has the misfortune to look at the list of trustees for Wikimedia UK that was posted in the WR thread about Wikimedia UK's charity status. One name is particular jumped out at me - Ashley Van Haeften.") --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not searching for their opinions that is described as a form of harassment, but dredging them up and using them. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So Fæ shouldn't be "dredging up and using" my connections to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Garrett E. Moore? [12], [13]. Commons' "offsite discussions" discussion wasn't even about ED, yet he brought it up anyway. He also attack my affiliation to a website instead of addressing the point that I had made (the point being that Commons doesn't treat newcomers well). Dcoetzee later re-argued my point: [14], [15]. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but there is a difference between "continually" dredging up edits as opposed to bringing them up in limited circumstances when they are relevant. My understanding is that at the time the Ash RfC/U was brought up, Fae (as an account) had no issues that would make it relevant to bring up these edits. It is possible, however, that in the context of discussing relations between you and Fae, that bringing up offsite activity there would be more relevant to the specific question. But I don't have the specifics of all of these interactions at hand; my purpose in pointing out this aspect of policy as a formal "principle" is to provide a starting point for evaluating these questions. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Fae's initial action in response to the arbitration request (where he attempted to show that it was part of some sort of plot drawn up in collaboration with Gregory Kohs) could certainly be characterized as "opposition research". --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy does not absolutely prohibit dredging data from these sources, in limited contexts where it is relevant. It is possible that Fae had a reason to bring up these particular offline edits, e.g. WP:Proxy editing or WP:CANVASS. It is true that in this edit he came close enough to what is prohibited by the policy for it to be worth thinking about, but I would say he did not break it. By contrast, a clean start should be a clean start, and what happened before it should not be relevant, unless the editor has evaded an actual block, topic ban or the like. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_1#Proposal_for_.22Posting_of_personal_information.22_section – Only three users were involved in the discussion that led to the addition of "opposition research" to WP:Harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This does seem a similar point to the one I made about WP:CLEANSTART; however, in this article there are over more than a year approximately 90 revisions that have been made subsequent to those contested, including some which are substantive, and a number of reverts to that version. The difference is only a matter of degree, but it's a pretty large degree. Wnt (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Right to respond to offsite activities

Dredging up an editor's irrelevant offsite edits is generally discouraged. Editors are not prohibited from criticizing and making light of one another's activity offsite. However, when they do so, their edits may become relevant to Wikipedia processes pertaining to their interaction with these editors on-site, where they can be cited and used as evidence in support of allegations of on-site violations of Wikipedia policy such as improper canvassing, proxy editing for banned users, harassing a user, raising complaints in bad faith, or disruptive editing based on ethnic or sexual bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

(This is in response to the conversation above and as an alternative to Prioryman's principles Wnt (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Proposed remedies

RfC to develop a jury system for user conduct issues

User conduct issues can become highly polarized. When RfC/U discussions are held between self-selected, highly involved parties in opposing camps, they are unlikely to bring satisfactory resolution to a situation. The Wikipedia community is strongly advised to begin an RfC at the close of this proceeding, to develop a demonstrably random and fair means of selecting groups of editors who can decide among themselves what action to advise in an RfC/U, and perhaps other proceedings, based on the evidence provided by the involved parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Funny, I thought that arbitration was the preferred means to deal with user conduct that could not be dealt with effectively by an RfC/U. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inherently unworkable and contrary to WP:5P. Apart from certain limited situations (e.g. anon IP users barred from RfAs) the project's processes and bureaucracy function on an anyone-can-edit ideal. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd hoped I'd made it clear that anyone could edit the evidence and principles surrounding the RfC/U; the jury would simply come up with the decision, just as here, many editors are commenting, but ArbCom in the end makes the decision. You can't have the current ArbCom decide (or if not, redo) every RfC/U. (And I'm picturing the jury model could be extended to RfA or AN, for example) We could do it if we voted lots and lots more Arbitrators in "circuits of appeals courts" in a political process which would be poorly understood and probably lead to some big problems of its own, but I'm suggesting instead, simply allow a pool of random editors to get involved on a case by case basis in making a final consensus. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if I'm following the bouncing ball here. As RfCs currently operate, everyone gets to comment and submit evidence and such, then the RfC is closed by an uninvolved admin. You are taking issue with the commenting/evidence part, suggesting that the "self-selected, highly involved parties in opposing camps" is problematic, yes? Yet you propose to leave that aspect of the RfC intact, but take away the decision-making part from an admin and give it to a random jury. In essence, ignoring what is broken, and fixing what isn't. Can you clarify just what sort of improvement that would bring? Tarc (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Anthonyhcole

Proposed findings of fact: Anthonyhcole

At Fæ's RfA the community was misled as to his standing at the time he took a clean start

1) Comments by Fæ at his RfA implied that he had taken a clean start when his previous account was in good standing, but, in fact, he was in the middle of an RfC/U when he took the clean start. The result of the RfA may have been different if the community had not been misled on this point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would say there would be "There are legitimate concerns that Fae would not have passed RfAdmin had his previous account activity been fully disclosed at the time of his RfA", and I think that question isn't fully answered because Fae has not responded to the RfC. That has left the situation unresolved, which led to the battleground mentality which led to this case SirFozzie (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I have no doubt at all that Fæ's RfA would have been unsuccessful had their previous account been disclosed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As I've stated in principles above, the mere existence of the RfC/U does not put a person in 'bad standing'. It is not Fae's responsibility that the RfC/U was dropped without result. Note that the RfC/U was dropped for inactivity, not merely because Ash chose to retire his account - that inactivity was the choice of the participants. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When the subject of the RfC quits (though we found out later, simply switched to a new account) then inactivity is to be expected. A user RfC is intended to bring about change in a user's conduct, or arrive at a finding that there wasn't a problem to begin with. If a user retires from the project, that process becomes moot. If "User:Ash" had not retired, I have little doubt that that RfC would've been closed with an actual summation. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was reasonably foreseeable that a true problem user could create more problems with a different account - after all, it seems like admins spend a great amount of their time with such situations. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At least 34 editors disagree with you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but last I checked, 46 > 34. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A 23:17 ratio generally results in "no consensus". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No Suarez, it doesn't. Unless it is literally 50/50 or very, very close to it, "no consensus" findings are a cop-out to be avoided. When a dozen more editors agree with Option A than for Option B, then A should be affirmed as the majority POV. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

These numbers come from the summary by Collect, who was not a neutral party. I responded to Collect's summary by listing 14 editors who had signed opinions favorable to Fae, but were not among the 34 voters in the second-most-popular opinion. [16] I don't think that an RfC/U should work like an American primary election, where you have to back a popular candidate in order for your vote to matter. I would say that 34 + 14 > 46, though it is possible you might find other miscellaneous votes critical of Fae to tip the 'consensus' back in your favor. Wnt (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this was fully discussed at the RFC/U - and those who did not opine on the two most agreed with position are not just the 14 you cite - thus adding miscellaneous positions !votes is not utile, and totally irrelevant here. Nor can anyone surmise that people "supporting" (whatever that means in this context) Fae would automatically oppose positions they took no position on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

People, the actual percentages in terms of opinion at the most recent RFC doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this particular proposed findings of fact. What the RfC/U numbers may provides is an indication as to whether the result of Fæ's RFA would have been different or not had the community been fully aware of the exact circumstances surrounding the clean start. Arguing over exactly which numbers is right is just argument for the sake of argument. -- KTC (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@SirFossie, are you saying clean starters have to undo their clean start if they want adminship? It would be very difficult for some busy editors to fully disclose previous account activity without also making their previous account name obvious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that SirFozzie is likely referring to Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship. NW (Talk) 19:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fæ's first edit was March 28, 2010,^[17] and his RfA was concluded March 21, 2011,^[18] so either the 2010 version of WP:SOCK,^[19] before WP:CLEANSTART was created), or the 2011 version of WP:CLEANSTART^[20] would apply. I've registered my opposition to recent changes to this section of the policy made in response to the Fae RfC/U.^[21] Wnt (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies: Anthonyhcole

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Fæ desysopped

1) Fæ is desysopped and encouraged to resit RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Collect. Do you know if ArbCom has ever ordered a confirmation RFA in the past? And if so, for whom?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. The proposal didn't pass on that occasion but thanks for the link. It's certainly food for thought.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This has now been mooted, as I understand it. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Roger. The only instance I know of such a remedy is Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo#Remedies. Wikipedia:Standing reconfirmations indicates this might have been the only use of such a remedy. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Although this is a harsh measure, I think it is clear from the RFC/U that there is significant concern about the circumstances of Fæ's RfA, and this proceeding so far suggests that Fæ has lost the confidence of the community. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It sounds like you're asking ArbCom to impose a serious sanction on Fae, not for any violation of policy as Fae, not even for any violation of policy as Ash, but solely because you feel he "misled" the voters at RfA. I don't follow the proceedings much, but I imagine pretty near every successful RfA has some points where someone could go back and argue that one word was misleading. Should ArbCom desysop them all and put them through a new RfA? Wnt (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You attempt to link "one word" being wrong with the intentionally deception of the Wikipedia community. Apples and oranges. If there is any current admin who once edited under a different name and left the the project in the manner that Ash did, they should be compelled to run again, yes. Tarc (talk)

I have been going through Fae's entire contribution history since 1 January 2012 gathering his edits where he disparaged his critics. One thing I notice is that he is extremely active in page and vandal patrolling. He appears to me to be doing a good job at it. I, however, have hardly any experience with admin-type work, because I just don't do that kind of stuff in Wikipedia. I recommend that some experienced admins look over his history to confirm what I am seeing. I agree that Fae's RfA was under false pretenses. If, however, he is doing a good job as an admin, it doesn't seem to me that it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to desysopp him, because I think, based on his behavior in unfairly disparaging his critics, that he would not pass a subsequent RfA. If Fae would admit that he messed up his clean start, made some mistakes with his BLP edits, has unfairly disparaged his critics, and falsely claimed homophobia and harassment, and promised never to do any of it again, then I would suggest that he be allowed to keep the tools. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't this project long turned the corner on the "good contributions outweigh bad behavior" model, though? ScienceApologist, Will Beback, Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand have all been sanctioned in one form or another within the last year, from blocks to topic bans and whatnot. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Did any of those editors/admins admit they were wrong, apologize, and promise never to do any of it again? Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for more gentle result: One week after closure of this case, a new RfA shall be initiated for Fæ. Thus removing a "formal desysop" from the result, while instituting something which has been suggestd by a large number of editors. Collect (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fair suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally unaccepable. And you're wrong about it being more gentle. It would heap cruelty on injustice, by subjecting Fæ to an additional ordeal - with WR accounts able to canvass offsite, it would be impossible for Fæ to achieve concensus to regain the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The "WR canvassing" thing is becoming almost a bad meme here. Any editor in good standing may cast a vote in an RfA (and half of the WR/'ocracy would be ineligible on that threshold alone), regardless of what other website they may be a member of. You act like it is some sort of secret base from which a monolithic army is just waiting to pounce. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Roger: The purpose is to reduce the drama level inherent in any ArbCom decision. ArbCom has frequently ruled that people who are desysopped must go to an RfA in the past - the only difference here is that the "formal desysop" and occurrence of an RfA are specifically linked - without the terminology of "formal desysop" being applied. The effect is the same as ArbCom has effectively ruled in the past. This sort of action is implicit in the boilerplace previously adopted by ArbCom:

Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgment may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship[22] Collect (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If desysopping were ordered, I see no reason for ArbCom to order Fae to undergo an RfA on some arbitrary schedule. It sounds like it would be simply another sanction meant to minimize his chances of success. If he had to undergo another RfA, he should at least have the right any ordinary user enjoys to make an application at the time of his own choosing. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And I would point out that my suggestion does not include a formal desysopping - and I suggest your feeling that an RfA would fail is precisely one of the problems here in the first place. Would you prefer that the "formal desysop" take place? I think that would be a worse place to start an RfA from than essentially a "continuation" RfA without the black mark of having the sysop tools first be actually removed. Collect (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't actually answer this because it is up to Fae and I cannot speculate what he might prefer, but I'll note that if I had suffered 1% of what Fae has gone through and were facing a second RfA vote anyway, a "black mark" on a log file would not seem like a big deal. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What standard are you suggesting the bureaucrats use for pass/fail? 60%—Fae looses adminship; 80%—Fae retains adminship; 60-80%—bureaucrats' decision? Or something different? NW (Talk) 19:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the norms are for an RfA makes sense. Would you prefer than (say) 40% "approval" be a passing grade? 50%? IIRC, any attempts to reduce the figures have not met with success - and I doubt ArbCom would establish "special rules" here. Collect (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, as it would remove the "clouds" that many feel are still looming over his RfA. Considering the good work he does on behalf of WP in his work with WMUK, I don't see why he wouldn't pass if he can steer clear of the accusatory behaviors and disengage from the battle with the WR/WY groups for a while.

OTOH, starting one for him immediately isn't a good idea either, because arbcom cases don't necessarily clear the air immediately. Let him decide when the air seems clear enough, and when he feels ready. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case his history would show a desysop for the "interregnum" so to speak. Do you think he would prefer the formal desysop on his record rather than relying on the general goodwill of the main corps of Wikipedia editors at an RfA? I suppose he could be offered the choice, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a distinction without a difference—if Fae fails the RfA that ArbCom mandates that he run at a specific time, he will no longer be an administrator. Am I missing something with regards to your proposal? NW (Talk) 19:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

See the title of the section. It used the word "desysopped." The distinction is that in one case the desysopping would be logged and noted. In the other case, the initial and immediate desysopping would be avoided. Unless, of course, you would postulate that a person who fails an RfA has an immortal right to adminship? I daresay that would not be a majority opinion in the community. Collect (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae could at any time retire his tools voluntarily, rather than bringing it to the brink. He could have done that during or after the RfC, and he could have been forthcoming about his previous account (and it's cloud). He could also promise to try to do better (that would suffice for me, tbh). He could also just continue on as he has, and assume that those who disapprove of it are doing so out of bad faith.

If he's going to iron-hand this, defend his actions to the bitter end, and force Arbcom to decide for him, then Arbcom shouldn't have to make up a whole new system for his particular case. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose No evidence has been presented that in the year+ since Fae has had the bit there has been any misuse of admin privileges. The issues involve his contributions as an editor; therefore remedies should be in relation to his role as an editor. A desysop would clearly a be punitive reaction to past behavior, not a solution intended to minimize disruption going forward. Nobody Ent 13:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, nobody alleged any misuse of admin tools in this case either. Desysop was carried out without a finding of abuse of tools, only for broader non-adherence to editing policies (i.e. precisely "his contributions as an editor"). In that case as in this one, the desysop is a "conduct unbecoming" one, which (if my limited readings and very rudimentary understanding of how these things work are correct), is still kind of a hazy area of WP policy/custom/"law". If punitive desysopping is a slippery slope, we're already on our way down it as we see from the Cirt example; otherwise, it's a reasonable remedy legitimately on the table. Either way, the Committee should cite an explicit principle as to whether or not they will remove admin privileges punitively rather than proactively, that is where no misuse of tools has occurred and none can be expected. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also as precedent, I would like to enter the case of Jayjg at the West Bank - Judea and Samaria Arbitration. Jayjg was stripped of all checkuser and functionary roles due to, quote, "behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust", not for any specified abuse of those tools. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would point at the Rodhullandemu motion, start of case, and shuttering of case. The majority of the case's pages are under seal, so Arbitrators should refer to the private archives. While not 100% exact, it does match the "Go re-sit for RfAdmin" request. Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a minimum that would satisfy and correct the good faith issues surrounding the users WP:RFA and undisclosed and poorly represented issues related to the request - such as the users misrepresentation of unresolved dispute mediation and his failure to declare multiple previous accounts and their contribution history - Youreallycan 05:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm starting to believe that the first part of this remedy (desysop, as opposed to reconfirmation) is very probably justified by the evidence. However, it is very important that the reasons for it – the principles and the findings of fact – be the right ones. Ambiguities over the RfA are the wrong reasons. We just don't know how things would have been different without John V's endorsement, and we do know that Fae did make an attempt to consult with ArbCom before starting the RfA. On the other hand, there is other evidence – of personal attacks, of editing patterns – that might justify other remedies against Fae, such as editing restrictions or topic bans. If any such other remedies are enacted in the final decision, I would urge the Committee to adhere to the principle that administrators must have the Community's trust, and they cannot retain that trust under editing restrictions and so should be desysopped. I think the community cares very much about ArbCom's role in evaluating desysoppings, and it's important to get the rationale right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Roger Davies, Collect: The ArbCom has ordered a reconfirmation RfA twice: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo. The community response to the second of those RfAs is probably why they've never done it again. --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:FeydHuxtable

Proposed remedies

MBisanz warned

MBisanz is warned against initiating RFCs and Arbcom cases against editors without first making significant attempts to resolve issues using low key DR venues. He is also requested to limit the number of diffs and accusations he makes to a manageable level, allowing the counter party a fair chance to fully address all concerns raised. Failure for MBsisanz to comply with this request may result in a desysop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We give parties a certain amount of words and diffs for a reason to fully explain an issue. If we thought low level DR was required, we would not have accepted the case. I do not see anything that I would consider in this proposal. SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that the case was taken rather militates against this position.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbcom's acceptance of a case implies that "low key DR venues" have been tried and failed to resolve the problem. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is process for the sake of process. Arbcom can and has taken cases before where prior steps in DR haven't been taken. Alexandria (chew out) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the Arbcom acceptance and the wording of the arbitrators' opinions in doing so case clearly signify that it does not find the filing of this RFARB problematic, right? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom to discuss WP:NOTCENSORED

Arbitrators will review whether it might be advantageous to deprecate Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Even if we wanted to, making or deprecating policy is not within our purview. When policies clash, or need clarification, but something like this... I think the community (and only the communiy) can make a change of this nature.SirFozzie (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SirFozzie, the role of ArbCom may at times be to clarify existing policy and practice, but we aren't empowered to depreciate a policy. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think not - would fall outside of scope. At most, if the proposer could demonstrate that it lay at the heart of the matter, the Committee could suggest an RfC. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree - that's bizarre. I don't even know what you want to censor, but in any case I'm against it. ;) Wnt (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ive gone into more detail on the talk page. Several editors have suggested that some of the ill will towards Fæ results from him editing topics related to porn. Better to change polcies rather than allow some to witchhunt those who comply with Policy in ways many dont like. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with participating in porn-related subjects. The users mentioning Ash's involvement in porn-related subjects claim that there are BLP concerns. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note here y'all. AC can't change policy. So a principle that says "remove/reconsider X policy" is likely a non-starter. Lord Roem (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC) SirFozzie beat me to it. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the remit of this case was to examine Fae's behaviour on-wiki; I don't see any evidence which links the existence of NOTCENSORED to Fae's behaviour. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:ReverendWayne

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Fæ can stand for reconfirmation RfA

1) Fæ can open a binding reconfirmation RfA within the next 30 days without loss of admin privileges. If the 30-day period passes without his taking this action, or resigning adminship, he will be desysopped and may reapply for adminship at any time through the normal RfA process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To be candid, I'm not really very keen on this or the preceding very similar proposal. For starters, it's a complicated remedy without recent precedent. If it happened immediately, it's likely to be a horrid drama-fest. If it were put off for a month or two, the need cannot be that pressing.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is an alternative to the proposal by Anthonyhcole, based on the discussion there. The idea is to grant a limited time period during which the administrator would be able to stand for reconfirmation without first losing admin privileges. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Though this proposal is slightly more moderate, it still forces Fae to undergo the process at a low point in his time at Wikipedia. So far I haven't seen any allegations that he is misusing the administrative powers he holds. This proposal acknowledges that by acknowledging there is no need to desysop immediately, but if not, why set a 30-day deadline? Why not make it a year, and get more good work done? But I don't want to see such a requirement enacted at all, even if it were in five years, because I see no way to guarantee that his election will not be defeated by voters with a political agenda being brought in by discussions at external sites. It would be like trying to hold a jury trial in an area where a case had received extensive pretrial publicity - when your jury is made up of whoever comes down to the courthouse that day. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per myself in prior desyop proposal. Nobody Ent 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no chance whatsoever that a forcible reconfirmation RFA would be untainted by purely political considerations or external activism, particularly as this case is right now the subject of ongoing agitation on Wikipediocracy. Roger's statement that it would be a drama-fest is an understatement; it would be a hugely controversial, confrontational and divisive endeavour. If the aim of this case is to resolve controversies and end disputes, forcing a reconfirmation RFA would be utterly counter-productive. Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Nobody Ent

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Fæ topic banned from conduct dispute resolution boards

1) Fæ is banned from contributing on WP:WQA,WP:AN,WP:ANI and WP:RFC/U. Contributions in reply to threads initiated by others in which is he a named party are exempt. Fae may contact a third party editor of his choice if he feels initiating a thread on these boards is appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Ent: I suppose this wording protects against gaming, but I'm not sure it addresses his failure to communicate about his behavior. There isn't a workable negative remedy that addresses a failure to perform a behavior ("X is required to comment. . . ." for example). MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Prioryman: I meant to highlight Feyd's comment that he was planning to email Fae to ask him how he would like him to participate in this Arbcase. If this restriction was worded to merely prohibit Fae from starting threads, he could email sympathetic friends and ask them to start a thread, which he could then participate in. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ent: I haven't finished researching for my evidence section, real life has intervened, but I'm not sure this proposed remedy or my comments in this section implicate the administrator/editor distinction or the desysop for general misconduct/desysop misuse of tools distinction. Am I wrong? MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ent: This is more relevant to your comments in other sections, but Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Cirt_desysopped establishes the principle that a person can be desysopped for violations of policy that do not include misuse of the administrative toolset. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Adresses 80 to 90% of the current alleged problematic behavior.Nobody Ent 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he shouldn't reply unless he is specifically mentioned, or that he just can't start threads, but can contribute to them otherwise? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

He shouldn't reply unless the discussion is about his edits (specifically mentioned). Nobody Ent 18:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, the diff you give links to a message of sympathy from User:FeydHuxtable about the recent death of Fae's niece. Is this what you meant to highlight? If it isn't, please provide us with something that shows "gaming". If it is, then I suggest you reconsider, because it would be utterly inappropriate and deeply unpleasant to cite the death of a relative as somehow constituting "gaming". Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The diff contains multiple sentences: from context (and good faith) I'd interpret MBisanz's concern as regarding the statement Dear Fæ, was just coming to your page to email you about whether and in what way you'd me to participate in the Arb case", not the more personal condolences which follow. Nobody Ent 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Ive never emailed or had any other form of off wiki contact with Fæ, either directly or indirectly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@MBisanz I'm not aware of concerns regarding Fae's administration actions -- are there particular examples you could point out? Nobody Ent 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Which comments by Fae is this based upon? I mostly see diffs cited by Errant and Cla68 from Jimbo Wales' talk page, his own talk page, the discussion of this case. Granted, this one cited by Cla68 is on AN/I - but could it really be ArbCom's ruling that the proper response to this polite and understandable objection, asking for people not to repost personal information about him to AN/I, should result in Fae being banned from requesting assistance from that mechanism except by intermediary, even while comments from other editors that Fae "actually pursues such [a gay] agenda"^[23] or describing a position that Fae's ability to act as treasurer could be questioned because his sexual activities indicate he accepts "an increased risk to health and safety"^[24] go unopposed? I hope that ArbCom will see just how unfair any such outcome would be. Wnt (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Prioryman

Proposed principles

Posting another editor's personal information without consent is harassment

1) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's a big difference between what is discoverable off-wiki, and what is permissible to place on-wiki. Yes, OUTING, as it currently stands, appears to sanction the on-wiki posting of much info easily available on the Internet and presumably posted there with the consent of the targeted user. It is not the committee's place to change this, however, as the community retains control of such user conduct policies, and our job is simply to ensure they're applied consistently in contentious circumstances where the community is not effective at discerning whether they have been violated or not. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

WHOIS information is public information. Fæ voluntarily disclosed this information when registering a domain. The information I posted could be found with a simple Google search on Fæ's real name, so the idea that I aided anyone out to harm or harass Fæ is somewhat far-fetched. Nonetheless, I should not have posted the telephone and address information. It was an oversight on my part, as I have already admitted. If ArbCom wishes to sanction me for my actions, I will accept whatever sanctions are deemed appropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standing policy from Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. The wording is taken unchanged from that policy page. The policy explicitly sets two criteria: that personal information must be disclosed voluntarily and on Wikipedia. If the information is posted without consent in any circumstances, harassment has occurred. If it's available off-wiki but is not public knowledge on Wikipedia, posting it is also harassment. Editors have the right to expect their privacy to be respected. The availability of information about editors off-wiki is not and never has been accepted as a justification for obtaining off-wiki records about editors and posting them without their consent. Note that WP:OUTING does not speak of private information but of personal information. Personal information may be publicly available (e.g. in phone directories) but it is off-limits unless the subject has disclosed it voluntarily and on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that the "on Wikipedia" condition applies when posting information outside of Wikimedia. Off-wiki is off-wiki. Off-wiki discussions should be able to reference other off-wiki discussions and information. Talking about off-wiki information on an off-wiki forum means that that off-wiki information remains off-wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is flatly incorrect. Re-read WP:OUTING and note that it specifically prohibits editors to engage in off-wiki posting of undisclosed personal information. Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The section of the policy that WP:OUTING redirects to isn't referring to off-site discussion; hence why Oversight is mentioned and why "off-wiki harassment" is in a separate section. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Read that section again - it refers specifically to off-wiki privacy violations and holds them to be more serious ("shall be dealt with particularly seriously"). As SirFozzie has said below, "Don't think you can act one way here, do your dirty work off site and claim that your hands are clear here." Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Particularly severely" is in Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, not Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment doesn't mention anything about only being permitted to discuss information revealed on Wikipedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=20392&mode=linear#entry20392 – An off-wiki discussion about off-wiki information (a Wikia userpage) is what caused Essjay's web of lies to collapse. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If a Wikimedian has disclosed their real name, it is a step too far to say that anyone who, away from Wikipedia, refers to public WHOIS data related to that Wikimedian is automatically guilty of harassment. Perhaps if there had been a discernible intent that others should use that WHOIS information in inappropriate ways – but I am convinced that no one involved in this case who has made such references to public WHOIS information away from Wikipedia has done so for such an improper reason, and that it's quite absurd to imply otherwise. --JN466 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If that information had been posted on Wikipedia, it would have been revdel'd or oversighted and Delicious carbuncle would have received a very substantial block. There's a good reason why he posted it on Wikipedia Review rather than on Wikipedia, even though - by his own admission - he was trying to influence events on WP. Editors shouldn't have any expectation that they have impunity to carry out a privacy violation off-wiki to advance their cause in an on-wiki dispute. Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw a Wikimedian – one who is a party to these proceedings, no less – post a link to WHOIS information on another editor, on-wiki, just a few weeks ago. (The diff is on the evidence page, in the "WHOIS information is public" section.) This too included an address and telephone number. Nothing happened to that Wikimedian. Do you advocate different standards for different people? --JN466 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't, so I think it is imperative that the Arbcom should clarify exactly what is permissible when it comes to using WHOIS for "opposition research". Personally I don't think anyone should do it. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

People are free to post in the public domain what is discoverable in the public domain. Or is Wikipedia trying to impose a code of silence, like the Chinese government? Or are we some sort of secret society like the Freemasons now? For God's sake, Fæ is a public person. There has been an article in The Sun just now that mentioned him, by name. [25] And more to the point, even on-wiki people have in the recent past been given considerable latitude to post or link to WHOIS data, complete with addresses and phone numbers. Fæ himself did it in Commons, and another editor did it here, on Jimbo's talk page, in both cases just weeks ago. --JN466 20:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No, JN, your first sentence is a flat-out falsehood. People are not "free to post in the public domain what is discoverable in the public domain". WP:HARASS specifically does not make a distinction between "public" and "private" information. It regulates what may be done with personal information. It draws a bright line about what personal information may be posted by Wikipedians about other Wikipedians: only that which the subject has voluntarily posted or linked to information on Wikipedia. That is what the policy says in black and white! You might disagree with it, but you have no grounds at all to deny that is what the policy says. Claiming otherwise is simply untrue. Prioryman (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae posted WHOIS information on Commons? Where did he do that? Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

By your reasoning (and for argument's sake: these examples are made up) if I read in The Daily Mail that Jimbo has moved into a notable Canary Wharf penthouse, then everyone in the UK may discuss this on Facebook, except us Wikipedians, because if we do it, it is "harassment". Or if The Register writes that a particular, highly prolific Wikipedia sockpuppeteer is an astrophysicist called John Smith, who works at the Royal Observatory, then the entire nation is free to discuss this on Twitter, except us Wikipedians, who must pretend that we have not seen this information. --JN466 02:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I looked at the link that Fae posted on Commons, and it included a person's home address and phone number. The link is still there in that discussion. It has been hatted, but not been deleted. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking past and present accounts does not constitute outing

2) Wikipedia:Clean start does not prohibit editors from linking other editors' past and present accounts, even where such linkages have not been made public in conjunction with a "clean start". In addition, information about which accounts have previously been used by Wikipedia editors does not constitute "personal information" as defined by Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

IMO, one of the biggest weaknesses of WP:CLEANSTART is that nothing is done to discourage other editors from trying to find out what your previous account name was. This has proved disruptive in practice, as it's encouraged amateur sleuthing and provoked unnecessary controversies. However, we are where we are. Under the present policy sleuthing isn't prohibited, and account information isn't "personal information" anyway, as this proposal recognises. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A "clean start" implies that one is returning and not planning to do what one did that necessitated vacating the original account. If discovered, IMO that tends to implay the start wasn't so clean after all. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a rather selective view. As the very first line of WP:CLEANSTART says, "The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment." Clearly, if you have to vacate an account because you are being harassed, it was not your actions that necessitated vacating it. The problem is that there are entire websites - Wikipedia Review and now Wikipediocracy - which are effectively dedicated to ferreting out confidential information about editors and have repeatedly been the venues for deliberate outing (see User:Silver seren/WR Outing for a partial list). In practice, what this means is that if an editor has to perform a clean start because of harassment from WR users, those users have a strong incentive - and no practical bars in Wikipedia policy - to try to uncover the editor's current account and breach their clean start, even if the editor is completely blameless. I do think there needs to be something in WP:CLEANSTART to discourage attempts by others to disrupt clean starts, but that's a debate for another day (and not one for this discussion). Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal is intended to address the question of whether linking Fae to the old Ash account constituted outing. Under the current terms of WP:CLEANSTART and WP:OUTING, it clearly did not. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week since I stated my opposition to changes made by two users in response to the Fae RfC, or using them in order to decide this case. No one has responded to me there, and as this is the third time I've seen this current version raised here (which did not exist at that time) I'm going to go ahead and revert it. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Now see WP:CONSENSUS and follow it for your bold revert of that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, there I see "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." I don't think that two editors, with a third briefly commenting, meet that higher standard, especially when the change inserts +3,781 characters of policy! Where does WP:consensus say that you have to spot the change within a month? It may be that an RfC is needed here, but in the meanwhile - the +3,781 version is not established policy. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And 4 months is a considerable period of time in Wikipedia. For your revert to stand, it is clear that it is your position which needs to show it is "consensus" and I suggest you try to get it - even run an RfC if you desire, but that is how the Wikipedia system works. Until then, the version which stood for four months or more is policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the Arbitrators may need to rule on this, as accepting this as a consensus and accepting its application to this case would be tantamount to allowing those three editors to make much of their decision for them. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting comment as "community consensus" is the only factor in establishing policy - it is absolutely not in the stated purview of ArbCom to establish policy as such. If you wish to suggest that ArbCom specify that a policy should be altered in any specific manner, do so. I suggest that the odds of such occurring are minimal. Collect (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Who does decide when a policy change has consensus behind it or not? Wnt (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The editors on the article talk page. Historically, edits lasting more than 3 months were presumed not to have been objected to - so I suggest you post now at the article talk page with an RfC to get more eyes, and see if a month of discussion backs your position or not. That is "Wikipedia procedure 101". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks made elsewhere

3) Personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's concerns about confirming that the two accounts are linked, as I said below, joe jobs would be horribly effective in such issues.. but where confirmed that they are the same, if they're meant to have an on-wiki effect, we're going to treat it like it is on wiki. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

[26] Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, a basic principle (from Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks) which is worth reiterating for the record, as it's a central issue in this case. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to comments Fae has made in Wikimedia Commons? I don't think any of those comments have been introduced into evidence in this case, because of the case instructions. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not; I'm referring to personal attacks made on websites not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. (So in this context read "off-Wikipedia" in the quote above as "off WMF websites".) Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So, you don't feel that personal attacks Fae or anyone else may have made at Commons falls under this proposed principle? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because Commons is a WMF project with its own rules and its own dispute resolution processes under the aegis of the WMF. As far as I'm aware, the mandate of the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee doesn't encompass activities on Commons. It's certainly been the case for as long as I can remember (and I've been an editor for longer than almost all of the current arbitrators) that the Arbcom has been reluctant to get involved in matters that are the proper responsibility of equivalent bodies on other WMF projects. Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia ensure authors who claim offsite to be particular Wikipedia editors are, in fact, the same individual? Nobody Ent 23:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't "ensure" that. However, perhaps you might consider simply asking them? Most use their Wikipedia usernames off-wiki and many disclose their Wikipedia accounts in their off-wiki posts. I don't think there's any great secret about which editors are posting off-site. Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a banal truism not to believe everything (anything?) you read on the internet. Sanctioning editors for offsite behavior is easily subject to gaming. Someone could (or already has, AFAIK), create accounts named Nobody Ent on WR or WM and easily extrapolate my stylistic Wikipedia approach beyond the limits of civility I maintain here. Should I then be held responsible for offsite posts I didn't write? It's counterproductive to make findings/policies that you can't reasonably enforce. Nobody Ent 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, someone could create a fake Blogspot account in your name. However, in practice this is most relevant to what people are posting on Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. I think it would be difficult to fake someone's posts on either site. MBisanz, for instance, is user 5693 on WR. Unless he shares his password with someone else, anything that comes from user 5693 will be from MBisanz. Further, there's nothing to stop us asking MBisanz to confirm that he posted a particular comment on a particular day. (Note that I'm just using MBisanz as a random example here and not in relation to anything he's actually posted.) Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, if you mean this proposal to be directed at Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, then why not be more clear about it? How about, "Personal attacks made on Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation on those two sites is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy." Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because that excludes attacks on other websites. I said it was most relevant to those two sites, not that it is exclusively relevant to them. It's a general principle, not an attempt to call out users of any particular site. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Isnt this just BADSITES via the back door? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what BADSITES says, but I agree it's going too far and would be improper ArbCom policy. I've submitted an alternative above. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It can't possibly be "improper Arbcom policy" when it's taken, word for word, from existing policy - Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks. This has been an established principle since June 2006, when it was first introduced into WP:NPA. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're right - and I'd just read that policy... That second sentence sounds more striking on its own; the third seems to lessen or limit it. Whether it does is another question. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a whole 'nother level of "linkage" and "outing" here... How is one to know which Wikipedian says what on BADSITES? You are aware that a person could pretend to be another person in another venue, yes? The rule of the road at WP is to Assume Good Faith and that it's not the editor that matters at WP, it's the content of the edits. That works. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack pages

4) Maintaining off-site attack pages concerning other editors is not compatible with Wikipedia's requirement for editors to behave with civility and treat each other with consideration and respect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll put it plainly. Don't think you can act one way here, do your dirty work off site and claim that your hands are clear here. We do have the problem where it's hard to link the accounts, joe jobs and the like are a possibility here, but for example, if someone maintains a page designed to harass a Wikipedia user on another site, and comes here and says "Yes, I maintain that page, but there's nothing you can do about it".. they're going to find out they are wrong. SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would hope this is self-evident, but you never know. Based on Wikipedia:Civility. Prioryman (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#.22Attack_article.22_.28reply_to_Prioryman.29 – What if the creator of the article contends that it isn't an attack article? Your proposal will also create a chilling effect. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/04#My_ED_page – "ED has a page about me, for some reason. And while of course it's not favorable, and ED is not the NYT, its still a valid data point and contains information that would help another editor in forming a picture of who I am." At least one Wikipedian appreciates the article that I wrote on him or her. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that ED is in the spam blacklist and links to it aren't permitted from Wikipedia. There's a reason for that. As for whether it's an attack page, Hobit has posted a good test on the evidence page: would it survive a CSD nomination under category G10, "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"? Clearly it would not. Going forward, I think you need to make a choice between your role on ED and your role on Wikipedia, as they are not compatible. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Michael's specific role on ED is not compatible, or are you asserting that it is incompatible for any WP participant to also participate at ED? Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO it is well beyond the scope of Arbcom, and especially a simple user, to dictate to another user what other internet venues they may or may not participate in. I have an account at ED as well as editing here. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You, ArbCom, and the WMF don't have the right to say which websites I can or can't contribute to. The only reason we're having this discussion is become I'm transparent. I entered this case with a disclosure statement. You're proposing that ArbCom punishes me for being open, when so many people create articles on ED anonymously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand if the community decides that what is hosted off-site is an attack page I think it is within our right to block or ban the maintainers of that page to avoid chilling effects etc. Which I think is the point of this finding. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

While seconding Tarc's and Michaeldsuarez's comments I'd like to point out the parallel between this and issues regarding WP:CLEANSTART. Some people here have argued that you can "break" a clean start if you can sleuth out a connection between a new account and an old one - that an editor's right to a clean start exists only if he maintains an entirely secret identity. This principle merely extends the same flawed position to an account on a different site. If you make it legitimate to raise processes against a person based on anything he has ever done under any account on any site, you are creating substantial incentives for anyone in the future who can effectively use private-eye tactics against other editors. We should not always ignore off-site harassment, but we should act on it only when an editor involved in it comes back to Wikipedia and makes it an issue via some problematic interaction with his victim here. (I speak of such interactions broadly, recognizing that users on the harassing site can collaborate) Wnt (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem informing people about those photographs, especially when they portray a board member of a charity. The public has the right to know about who runs the charities collecting their money. ED isn't all about attacks. It also informs, often satirically. There's information about subcultures, histories of websites, Usenet (e.g. alt.tasteless, Meow Wars), rms and other persons important to the Internet, shock sites, and memes. Unpleasant information is still information. Just as you can't stop newspapers from publishing unpleasant facts; you shouldn't be trying to stop ED from revealing unpleasant facts, especially when Fæ's role in WMUK is both public and significant. Not forbidden to create an article on Fæ is nearly the same as being forbidden from creating an article on Jimbo Wales. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Untrue on every count. Fae is not a public figure. And we're not talking about "publishing unpleasant facts". You seem to think of ED as a great outlet for investigative journalism. The truth is that we're talking about you maintaining a virulently homophobic attack page that its contributors have categorised under "Faggotry" and "Homosexual deviants". You can't get much more attack-y than that. Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Paramountcy of personal safety and wellbeing of editors

5) The personal safety and wellbeing of individual editors is of paramount concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The phrase "paramount concern" implies that this supersedes other concerns, such as building an encyclopedia or following the fundamental policies here. While the personal safety and well-being of individual editors should be a concern to other editors, it really is up to each editor to take responsibility for their own safety and well-being. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This should be self-evident. There is no issue on Wikipedia that's so important that it's worth putting someone's personal safety or physical wellbeing at risk to pursue it. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are to take this responsibility upon ourselves, than we have to accept the only way we can carry it out. The only way we can protect those who's safety is at risk due to their wiki participation it to indef block them for their own protection. Anything else and we're kidding ourselves.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're misinterpreting the point of this principle. See the principle immediately below which follows on from it. The bottom line is that while we might like people to jump through all the hoops we give them, sometimes there are good reasons for them not to do so. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Words have meaning and principles exist on their own after the case is past. Paramount means it's our chief number 1 concern. What you're sugesting when you look at the principle below is more like this. "Concern for personal safety and wellbeing of individual editors should be considered as a mitigating factor or extenuating circumstance."--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's implicit really, isn't it? (Actually, I will be making the argument you suggest in findings of fact due to be posted shortly). What I'm getting at is that there is no policy or editorial convention that should be considered more important than preserving the personal safety and wellbeing of individual editors. Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My concerns are more general, not specific to this case. No good faith editor wants bad things to happen to other editors. Reasonable accomodations should be made. However those at risk also need to understand that reasonable accomodations can do so much and in the end if they truly are in danger, they alone need to weigh the risk vs. their continued participation.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I note that according to Fae he was indeed advised to consider withdrawing completely from Wikipedia. Though I have to say that in this case I doubt that would have worked, as his opponents would certainly have pursued him again if he had resurfaced a few weeks or months down the line. Fae is quite obviously a passionate advocate for Wikipedia and has done a huge amount in promoting it in the UK, so I can appreciate why he wouldn't want to be harassed off the project - nor should we let people achieve such a thing. Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as it's a mistake for non-lawyer to act as if they were lawyers, it's a mistake for non-counselors to act as if they were professional counselors. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. This means that editors have to find some way to interact with each other, especially since Wikipedia's active, core admin/editor base currently appears to number only several hundred people. If an editor has really been advised not to interact with a significant portion of Wikipedia's editor base, the reason being that those editors have criticized the editor in question, then that editor needs to seriously consider taking a leave of absence from Wikipedia altogether. Also, alleging harassment does no allow someone to abstain from taking part in the dispute resolution process, especially an admin. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"The reason being that those editors have criticized the editor in question" is not the basis being asserted here; the evidence demonstrates conclusively that Fae was actively being harassed through threats, privacy violations and homophobic personal abuse on and off-wiki. That goes far beyond mere criticism. I agree that criticism is not a reason for abstention, but harassment and potential real-world endangerment are. Prioryman (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Declining to participate in community discussions

6) If an editor declines to participate in community discussion in a way that may ordinarily be expected of them, either because they have a good-faith belief that they will suffer harm if they do so, or because they have received professional advice against participation, that should not be held against them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Editors and administrators need to respond to good faith concerns about their editing. As seen elsewhere, this would allow folks to attempt to avoid such participation by claiming that it would "only enable others." That's not how it works. SirFozzie (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As my evidence shows, Fæ has a long history of avoiding dispute resolution. As Ash, Fæ pretended to leave Wikipedia to avoid possible sanctions resulting from the RFC/U filed about his editing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

We should never put editors in a position where they potentially have to chose between being sanctioned for non-participation in community affairs or potentially risking real-world harm through participation. This is particularly the case where they have been advised by competent authorities, such as the police, other organisations involved with personal security or the WMF, that they should avoid interactions that could put their personal safety or wellbeing at risk or could have other harmful real-world consequences for them. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The gist of this is just plain wrong. If the community judges someone's transgressions to be serious enough to justify holding an RfC, in essence a public hearing, then that person's standing within the community is being called into question. Personally I cannot envision participation in such bringing about real-life, off-wiki harm, but if a person really feels that to be the case, then they should simply withdraw themselves ("self" being the real-life person, not just an editor account) from the community entirely. One cannot expect to be a functional member of a community while refusing to accede to its basic norms. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree but in this particular case extraordinary circumstances of threats, personal abuse, harassment and outing were involved in the prelude to the RFC/U and while it was actually ongoing. We now also know that Fae had been advised by off-wiki authorities not to engage with his harassers, one of whom initiated the RFC/U. I think we have to recognise that in some exceptional situations, non-engagement is a permissible course of action. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As an admin or editor, you need to be responsive to constructive criticism and feedback. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think such a thing has to or should be recognized. If one has a choice between what they perceive as real-life harm vs. continued engagement in a website, the choice to withdraw should be clear. At this point I'd also have to ask why participation in an RfC is not ok, but then participation in this Arbcom case is a-ok. Seems a little...fishy. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense. The RFC/U was back in December/January and ever since the editor, that you say has been advised not to interact with those that you say are responsible for harassment, has indeed been interacting with those very same people in multiple venues across enwp (Wales talk page, ANI, AN) and commons (AN, ANI, various sub pages, and talk pages). Either the people, that you have labelled as the harassers, aren't the harassers the editor was advised not to interact with, or the editor has singularly failed to heed the advice. John lilburne (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Users with advanced permissions have a duty to respond to issues/dispute resolution in regards to issues surrounding those advanced permissions - if they don't/won't/refuse to join in such discussion then they should relinquish those advanced permissions as by their refusal to join in discussions related to their advanced permissions they have forfeited the right/community support to continue to hold them - Youreallycan 06:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal information about editors available off-wiki may not be disclosed by other editors without consent

7) Personal information about editors may be available through a number of sources, such as social networking websites, telephone directories, WHOIS databases etc. However, unless that information has been voluntarily posted or linked to on Wikipedia by the editor concerned, it is harassment and a violation of privacy for another editor to disclose that information without consent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An argument has been advanced by Delicious carbuncle and others that because personal information on editors may be available off-wiki, such information is "fair game" and can be used against editors in the course of disputes.[27] This is categorically wrong; WP:OUTING specifically prohibits the disclosure of any kind of personal information without the consent of the subject. If DC's viewpoint is accepted, nobody can have any expectation of privacy on Wikipedia. There would be a free-for-all, with everything from drivers' licences, birth and marriage certificates, electoral rolls, WHOIS databases and company records open to being exploited in order to undermine editors' privacy on Wikipedia. I urge the Committee to endorse this principle, which reflects the long-established principles set out in WP:OUTING. Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. According to this definition, Wikimedians would not have been allowed to mention the newspaper-reported pedophilia conviction which, among other reasons, recently led the arbitration committee to ban an editor from the English Wikipedia. The same goes for cases like Bell Pottinger employees' surreptitious editing: unless they had disclosed what they were doing on-wiki, your proposed rule would turn it into "harassment" for a Wikimedian to talk about it, not just here, but even in the comments section of a newspaper article in the Telegraph. An investigative reporter writing an article in the New York Times about political staffers' conflict-of-interest edits, using WHOIS information to establish that they were editing from a political campaign office, would become a "harasser". Your rule would make it a sanctionable offence for a Wikipedian to discuss any of these cases in writing: not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere in the world. In fact, you and everyone else would not be allowed to comment in the way we have seen on what people have said on Wikipediocracy, or any other venue online, and to whom they have said it. For example, it has been discussed here that MBisanz is planning to meet up with Gregory Kohs, based on something he had said away from Wikipedia. According to your rule, anyone who mentioned this here would be guilty of harassing MBisanz and violating his privacy. And they would be guilty of that, and punishable in Wikipedia, even if they mentioned it in any other forum anywhere on the Internet. Ultra vires. JN466 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mbisanz's future meeting plans, whatever they may be, are not "personal information" as defined by Wikipedia:Harassment and certainly aren't in the same category as a person's home address and telephone number. I don't know the circumstances of the alleged meeting plans but I would guess that they were voluntarily disclosed on WR or Wikipediocracy by one of the two parties. Bell Pottinger is also not directly relevant as we already take into account personal affiliations such as employment to determine whether a COI exists. Now, I'm not claiming that I've drawn the line in the right place and I'm sure my wording could be improved, but the point of my proposal is to ensure that using personal information as a tool for "opposition research" should not be tolerated. In this particular case, the domain name data had nothing to do with Wikipedia, there was no suggestion of any COI, and it was not disclosed by Fae on Wikipedia. It was used by DC to determine the real-world identity of Fae, and in the process of doing so, DC also revealed Fae's home address and phone number at the same time that Fae was under threat of real-world harassment. That kind of personal exposure is simply not on. Wherever the line is drawn, what DC did must be on the impermissible side of it. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, and repeated here for completeness' sake, I saw a Wikimedian – one who is a party to these proceedings, no less – post a link to WHOIS information on another editor, on another Wiki, just a few weeks ago. (The diff is on the evidence page, in the "WHOIS information is public" section.) This too included a private address and telephone number. Nothing happened to that Wikimedian. Do you advocate different standards for different people? --JN466 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments section of #Posting_another_editor.27s_personal_information_without_consent_is_harassment already contains what I would say against this. The section of WP:Harassment that WP:OUTING redirects doesn't refer to posting information off-site. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the section on off-wiki harassment specifically deals with off-wiki privacy violations and treats them as being in a higher category of seriousness. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but you're attempting to redefine the meaning of privacy violations by claiming that discussing public off-wiki information off-wiki is a privacy violation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And inasmuch as it does that, this proposal is odious and oppressive. --JN466 17:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=20392&mode=linear#entry20392 – It was information outside of Wikimedia (a Wikia userpage) that exposed Essjay. According to Prioryman's proposal, talking about that Wikia userpage on a forum would've been against policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I made this point earlier: WP:HARASS does not talk about public information, it talks about personal information. Personal information may indeed be in a public record, and almost certainly will be - for instance, a phone directory, a registry office, a company record. But the criteria that WP:HARASS sets is two-pronged: has the information been voluntarily disclosed by the subject on Wikipedia? If one or both prong is not met then the disclosure of the information by a third party is impermissible. Editors should have a reasonable expectation that if they contribute to Wikipedia, other editors will not trawl unrelated public records to find personal information that they can use against them in the course of disputes. That's why this proposed principle, however it might be worded, is so important. WP:HARASS clearly makes it off-limits to use personal information not voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia. Arbcom needs to affirm that principle, otherwise editors will have a free rein to use personal information from off-wiki sources to attack each other and we might as well forget about privacy. Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

One additional point: the terms of use for WMF projects explicitly forbid "Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation". [28] Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Information wasn't solicited. Delicious carbuncle wasn't phishing. Ash wasn't tricked or manipulated into sending the "Speculation" Email. I hope that you know know what solicitation is. The "on Wikipedia" portion of the policy doesn't apply to discussing information off-wiki. You took one sentence from one section of the policy and moved it into a completely different section. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decorum

8) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Decorum, and noting that this applies to all sides. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Perceived harassment

9) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Wikipedia:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Perceived harassment. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I call shenanigans on this one, as it would give anyone free reign to play the Victim Card(tm) to deflect criticism. It isn't enough to feel harassed; you gotta prove it. If ever there was a prior Arbcom finding that the current crew should vacate, this is it. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The arbcomm disagrees with you. Anyway, this doesn't say that people should be sanctioned for a comment that makes another feel harassed, it says that if your actions make someone feel harassed, you should stop, apologise, and not do so again. Which is eminently reasonable (and pretty much the basis for civil interaction between people). Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"The arbcomm disagrees" ? Well no kidding, I kinda addressed that aspect of it above. If someone says "I feel harassed", it isn't enough to simply say it, there has to be actual proof. Criticism, even blunt criticism, is not harassment, for example, even though undoubtedly the receiver may feel harassed. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that if someone feels harassed by something we say, we need to stop. We need to find other ways to say it. We need to find ways to express opinions that are, if not kind and just, then at least not so personal that they result in someone feeling harassed. Now if, say, someone feels harassed because you keep "picking on" their editing style when, in fact, their editing style involved adding illiterate uncited prose to featured articles, then yes, you are saying something that's valid. But the question still is whether you are saying it in a way that is likely to bring about improvement in their behaviour. It's not going to make them feel welcome and it's unlikely to change their behaviour. Reasonable people can find a way forward that doesn't have to involve either tolerating substandard editing or making the editor in question feel unwelcome.

Now in this specific context, the issue here is entirely different. Here we have people like DC and Michael saying that their aim was not to harass Fae. And the point is that in many cases it's not about intent, it's about effect. There's a reasonable way to apply that ruling that protects editors without hamstringing the mission of Wikipedia. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree fundamentally, as I generally do when people try to carve out exceptions and soft landing pads for the thin-skinned. Again, this is a Get Out of Criticism Free card as far as I am concerned. That's all I have to say on the matter really, just registering a disagreement with this general principle, not just as it relates to Fae. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If we had no retention problem, if we had no civility problem, if new editors were banging down the doors to get in...then we'd still have to try to be decent people and protect editors from harassment or perceived harassment. I can think of dozens of good editors we have lost because they felt harassed. Are there examples of editors who used the claim that they were being harassed to exempt their editing from all scrutiny? I'm honestly not aware that this is a big problem.

Fundamentally, Wikipedia should not be "an project to write an encyclopaedia that only the thick-skinned can edit". It's a project to write an encyclopaedia, and that means that we need to value editor retention over freedom to say "fuck" in any conversation. You know, the whole "not a social experiment" thing? Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree, particularly as to the broad sweep given the language. "Reasonable" people are often incorrect, and editors with imperfect, sometimes grossly deficient understanding of more complex Wikipedia policies are often ready to see harassment where none is intended. In this matter, rational observers might conclude both that Fae is not unreasonable in perceiving elements of homophobic harassment in the responses to his uploads of sexualized images, and Fae's critics are not unreasonable in perceiving harassment in the broad and sweeping allegations of homophobia and bias in comments by Fae and his partisans. Silencing both sides is not a constructive step. The limits of discussion on important Wikipedia issues should not be determined by those with the thinnest skins. The most imperfect language in the Racepacket findings needs to be re-examined rather than applied mechanically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a principle that was written with good intentions, but could definitely use tightening. There's a fine line between telling people they shouldn't behave like asses, and giving people liberty to avoid criticism because they "felt harassed".--Cube lurker (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Conduct outside Wikipedia

10) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails, or commenting on Wikipedia and its users in other forums. However, a user who engages in off-wiki conduct which is damaging to the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's employment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have stated my willingness to accept sanctions if ArbCom wishes to sanction me for my off-wiki actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Conduct outside Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

11) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Sanctions and circumstances. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Fae's previous account was not a major issue in his RFA

1) Fae disclosed the existence of his previous account (but not its name) at the start of his RFA. The great majority of editors, including a majority of those opposing his RFA, did not mention the issue in the RFA discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A review of the RFA (in which I wasn't involved) posted here shows that 87.9% of those who participated, including 56% of those who opposed, did not comment on the previous account issue. This demonstrates that the issue was simply not treated as a major concern at the time. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I did participate in the RfA as well as in the RfC/U. I would strongly urge the Arbitrators to look carefully at what the RfC/U discussed about the role of the previous account in the RfA. My personal take is that the community did, indeed, not assign much importance to the previous account when the RfA took place, but the community was also strongly influenced by an Arbitrator vouching for the past account not being something that should have been of concern in the RfA. We simply do not know what would have happened if that "stamp of approval" had not taken place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had been known at the time that the previous account had been brought through DR because of BLP issues, and that he had switched accounts while that process was ongoing, it certainly would have been an issue for those who have concerns about BLP. Regardless of whether this would have affected the opinions of those who weighed in on the RFA, it would have also attracted the attention of those that are hawkish when it comes to that issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that disclosure has significantly changed minds among supporters

2) All of those who participated in Fae's RFA were notified of his RFC/U, in which the link between Fae's current and previous accounts was publicised. Most of those who had participated in both the RFC/U and in the RFA as supporters of Fae's nomination indicated that they did not feel that they had been misled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A review of the RFC/U (in which I wasn't involved) posted here shows that by a margin of more than 2:1, supporters of Fae supported the view that they had not been misled in the RFA. Only a very small minority of former supporters (8 out of 128) took the opposite view. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

True but limited to the precise wording. With only a fraction commenting at the RFC/U as well as the fact that we can't turn back the clock and find out how a full disclosure RFA would have progressed, it's also true that there's no evidence that the RFA would have passed had more info been provided.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There can't be evidence of that either way since it's based on a speculative proposition. The problem with saying that Fae "misled the community" over his RFA is that 99.9% of the community didn't participate in it. What we can say with certainty, though, is that of those editors who did participate in it and supported Fae - the actual people who were prospectively "misled" - considerably more have said that they weren't misled than have said they were. That's a significant finding. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to identify in what way people are claiming Fae misled the community. The overlap in editing of the two accounts was made clear at the RfA. Was there something else? Hobit (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole on the evidence page and here at the workshop has identified his claim as to how he feels Fae misled the community. (I don't believe I've taken a position on it one way or the other, just pointing you in the right direction.)--Cube lurker (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer. I'd read it, but had misunderstood what issue was being raised. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that at least one opposer (me) would have likely supported if he'd known of the details of the previous account. Can't honestly say if I'd have supported or abstained otherwise, but I'd certainly not have opposed. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hobit, I don't understand what you have written above. It seems you are saying that you did oppose ("opposer (me)"), but would likely have voted to support if you had known about the open RfC at the time. Then you say you certainly would not have opposed. I thought you did oppose. Sorry, but I am hopelessly confused. Bielle (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, I wasn't referring to the RfC/U. If I'd have known what the previous account was I'd likely have supported (and certainly not opposed) given the improvement in the Fae account. I just wasn't comfortable taking someone else's word for how I'd feel if I did know the details of the account. There was also a CSD issue that worried me with the Fae account, but it wouldn't have been enough for me to oppose on. Does that clear my comment up? Hobit (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, if it had been known at the time that the previous account had been brought through DR because of BLP issues, and that he had switched accounts while that process was ongoing, the RFA would have attracted more contributors, including some of those who participated in either of the RFCs, but not the RFA. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had been stated up-front that this person was once Teahot, I would have done an "Oh, that guy? and strongly opposed. I rarely vote in any RfAs, but this is one vote I'd certainly like to have back. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention

3) Fae has been the subject of 11 threads posted to Wikipedia Review (WR) and Wikipediocracy (WI) between November 2011 – May 2012, 8 initiated by User:Delicious carbuncle and 3 by the indefinitely blocked User:Vigilant. The tenor of these threads has been predominately hostile.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Discussion of a Wikpedia editor (or that editor's contributions) is not in itself harassment. The characterization as "predominantly hostile" is subjective. I refuse to be held responsible for the comments of others. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As set out in evidence. It's worth noting that User:Vigilant is under an indefinite block for harassing another editor. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the block log says. It says, "Sole purpose to harass banned user, Jeff Merkey". Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At least some of that attention was brought about because of the rather hostile "on-wiki" attention Fae has directed at the members of the forums in question. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting, I believe, that much of the discussion on these pages has come from the same small number of Wikipedia Review / Wikipediocracy users who were or are still involved in the anti-Fae threads posted there: you, Mbisanz, Michaeldsuarez, Delicious carbuncle, Tarc, Cla68, John lilburne, Bali ultimate and Jayen466. It's unsurprising that you should all be rushing to the defence of your fellow WR users but it does rather emphasize the way that this dispute has been aggressively driven by an off-wiki faction. Arbcom has previously addressed the harm that can be caused by the collective behaviour of blocs of editors. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I should point out that the above (though I think we can agree that it's true) is the sort of statement that normally ought to be supported by citations to facilitate closer examination, but my question and Michaeldsuarez's related question about that weren't formally answered. Should citations be given, or not given? Wnt (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have given citations to Arbcom by email - as it involves linking to threads that are essentially attack pages and contain personally identifying details concerning Fae, it's not appropriate to post those links on-wiki (else I'd be guilty of the same violations I've cited against others). Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This dispute has been "driven" by Fae's admitted on ANI and on AN behavior et. al. following the RFC/U. There is no policy against discussing WP off wiki. If Prioryman has specific information the above named editors are violating policy I encourage him to present evidence in the appropriate way (Not sure what that is? Email arbcom?) I've observed that in Prioryman's (currently) 17 findings of fact the theme Delicious Carbuncle has done bad things is repeated with slight variations. However, it takes two to both tango and certify an RFC/U. The other certifier was myself and I don't participate in factions on or off-wiki. This is supposed to be about Fae's behavior, not an end around a well-deserved interaction ban. I'll note further that during the declination of the previous request multiple arbitrators expressed concern about Fae's behavior.Nobody Ent 13:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate harassed and personally attacked Fae

5) User:Bali ultimate posted a message on Fae's user talk page that was characterised by User:Fred Bauder, a former arbitrator, as "a nasty personal attack", and by User:AGK, a current arbitrator, as "harassment". The message was subsequently revision deleted and oversighted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As set out in evidence. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this at all and chriso/prioryman should be ashamed about the games he's playing (though he's being allowed to carry on with the smearing and unsubstantiated claims).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits in question have been hidden but can be viewed by the arbitrators. Do you deny that you wrote the following, which was also revdel'd by AGK? "There is no harassment. I'm going to write a piece about governance at Wikimedia. He has received my email (identical to this except the inclusion of my email address and phone number) and he will either respond, or he won't. [Fae] is a board member of Wikimedia UK (i.e. not a garden variety editor or admin) and has disclosed his identity voluntarily, so there can be no "outing" (though as a reporter, which is how i'm approaching this now, I'm only interested in the truth). He is also welcome to delete or retain whatever he likes on his talk page. I will continue to publicly disclose all communications going forward in the interest of transparency. None of this is "harassment" (which, btw, is a claim that i'm doing something borderline illegal. You've hurt my feelings). If you'd like me to continue talking about this with you on wikipedia, simply respond, and we'll carry on a conversation about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)" Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely wrote that (and indeed, still intend to write a piece; I find all this fascinating). I had forgotten it was "oversighted" (if indeed it was). If it was, that's completely absurd. That Mr. Van Haeften="Fae" was voluntarily disclosed by Mr. Van Haeften in April 2011 [29]. How you get from all this to unsubtantiated accusations of criminal behavior on my part ("harassment") can only be explained as a form of logic-free smear tactic. Shame on you.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In referring to harassment, I'm not referring to the criminal offence but to the way the term is used on Wikipedia; see the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Harassment. Conduct sanctioned under that policy usually doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity and I'm not suggesting that anything you did was criminal. But if a sitting arbitrator describes your conduct as "harassment", in terms of Wikipedia's definition, then that's good enough for me. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence does not, in fact, appear to support this allegation. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, newspeak. This sounds like someone living in a private world, who uses words with a well defined meaning, like "harassment" and "personal attack", but claims that they don't mean what they used to mean any more. --JN466 19:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle harassed and outed Fae

6) Delicious carbuncle posted a record containing Fae's real name, home address and telephone number in a thread on Wikipedia Review. Although Fae had previously disclosed his real name, he had not publicly disclosed his address and phone number on WMF projects. The seriousness of the privacy violation was exacerbated by the misuse of private off-wiki correspondence and the fact that, as DC had acknowledged only 18 minutes prior to the violation, Fae had received an off-wiki threat earlier the same day. This was a categorical breach of WP:OUTING, as it involved the posting of personal information not voluntarily disclosed by Fae on or in connection with Wikipedia, and constitutes harassment. In addition, DC reposted to Wikipedia Review a message originally posted by Bali ultimate on Wikipedia, shortly after it had been revdel'd and oversighted on the grounds of being a personal attack and harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Please provide links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per Fae's evidence and mine. In closing a thread that I started on AN/I on this topic in January 2012, User:28bytes referred to "clear WP:OUTING violations by User:Delicious carbuncle". While DC did not violate Fae's privacy by posting his real name, which Fae had previously disclosed, there's no doubt at all that he did commit a serious privacy violation by posting the address and number, at the worst possible moment for Fae. WP:OUTING states: "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia.". No exceptions are given that would permit posting personal information which editors may have disclosed off-wiki for purposes unrelated to Wikipedia. DC's action was functionally equivalent to, for instance, obtaining Fae's birth certificate or record of parking fines and posting that online.

I refer the Committee to the comment made by another admin, User:Madman, which I feel sums up the situation well:

"This sort of harassment is something, I hope, that Wikipedia will not tolerate. I've seen absolutely nothing above which justifies what was done, and the precedent in policy for this [proposed] community ban is clear. It doesn't matter that Fæ chose at one point to allow his registrar to publish the address and telephone number it required of him to register a domain (it especially doesn't matter since you have to buy a proxy service in order to avoid doing so). Fæ did not choose to publish that address and telephone number on Wikipedia or on Wikipedia Review. For someone else to do so is inexcusable especially considering Fæ's stated he's been subject to off-line harassment. That doesn't automatically make Delicious Carbuncle an accomplice of that harassment, but it makes his judgment execrable." [30] Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it had been agreed that Fae was not outed, because his real name was clearly linked to his Wikipedia accounts? Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Red herring. Fae's real name was not the subject of outing because he had disclosed it voluntarily in connection with his Wikipedia accounts. Fae's phone number and home address were the subject of outing because he had not disclosed either on Wikipedia. Just because Fae chose to disclose his real name, that does not mean that all his other undisclosed personal information is "fair game" for anyone with an axe to grind. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So, where were his phone number and residence revealed on wiki? If that information was openly and publicly available off-wiki, then why is it outing if someone else repeated it off-wiki? Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

They were not revealed on-wiki by Fae, which is the whole point. It would not have been a privacy violation if he had voluntarily disclosed them on-wiki. He disclosed those details to a domain name registrar for a purpose completely unconnected with Wikipedia. That does not mean that he gave any Wikipedian permission to publicise those details. Prioryman (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WHOIS information is public information. By registering the domain, Fæ made the information publicly available. As someone who had made claims of harassment and threats to his "safety" when abandoning the Ash account, one might have expected that he would take steps to prevent this, such as registering the domain through a proxy service, which he did after the WHOIS information was posted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's actions were intended to influence events on Wikipedia

7) In the thread in which he posted Fae's home address and telephone number, Delicious carbuncle made it clear that he had acted to influence events on Wikipedia: "It appears that [Fae] has been doing some long overdue damage control and disappearing some things from the internet's prying eyes. This can probably go back into the publicly viewable area now. I think WR regulars are probably already convinced about the Ash/Fæ connection, but it is visitors from WP who really need to see this."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WR was, even at its peak, a forum with a small number of active participants. Given the apparent negative view of WR by the community here, why would anyone expect that statements there would have any effect on Wikipedia? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Statement of fact. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking in general terms, Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review do exist, at least in part, to influence events in Wikipedia. There are several reasons why Wikipedia editors and interested, outside observers find it useful or necessary to discuss Wikipedia and its participants in outside forums. Prioryman, have you ever obtained an account on Wikipediocracy and participated in a discussion in that forum? Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because strangely enough I don't have any desire to interact with banned editors. Prioryman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a case of mistaken identity. Tarc (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No? This account at Wikipedocracy is yours, isn't it? Tarc (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Nope. Never registered there or WR, never wanted to either. Your link doesn't work for me since I don't have an account there. What am I supposed to be seeing? Prioryman (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True. Now lets have the context which was the Commons RFA and the concerns being raised concerning Fae's prior accounts. Ottava Rima, and Peter Damian had made mention of images being deleted out of process, which had alerted Commons admin Saibo to inquire into the background of Fae's prior accounts. Bali ultimate was blocked for making the links in the Commons RFA and the linking information, which did not consist of WHOIS data, was blocked and the information deleted, and Peter Damian was banned at WMUK. Meanwhile Fae was perceived as being less than frank about the prior accounts, giving an impression that the linkage Fae->Ash->Teahot etc were "unproven allegations". It seems to be this chain of events, the dissembling and evasion of the questions being posed, that ultimately resulted in DCs comment "This latest episode has rubbed me the wrong way and I am tired of Van Haeften's lies, so for anyone who still doubted the connection between Van Haeften and Ash, this should put any doubts you have to rest." and the WHOIS posting with the address and telephone number. John lilburne (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Statement of fact"

It would appear that the statement of Delicious carbuncle's you have quoted is from a forum accessible only to registered users of Wikipedia Review. Since you are not a registered user of that site you cannot have checked the source for yourself, unless it has in fact now been returned to a publicly viewable area. If it has, could you please provide a link to it. If it hasn't could you please cite the actual source from which you obtained the quotation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Silly request. Withdrawn with apologies

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle has engaged in battleground conduct

8) Delicious carbuncle has engaged in battleground conduct, as evidenced by his engaging in a sustained off-wiki campaign against Fae, which culminated in the posting of Fae's home address and telephone number on Wikipedia Review in the course of an attempt to "expose" Fae.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Allegations of "battleground conduct" should relate to on-wiki actions, surely? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

DC has already been found to have been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, per 28bytes' comments cited by Fae in evidence: "The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by User:Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor." Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, over the last six months, you have requested an interaction ban with DC in at least two, if not more ANI threads, and you attempted to persuade User:Atama to block him. If you wanted an interaction ban with DC, why are you focusing so much of your effort here on DC? Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#My new evidence and findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has engaged in battleground conduct

9) Bali ultimate has engaged in battleground conduct, as evidenced by his posting of an intrusive personal attack on Fae's user talk page and his hostile response to administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As set out in evidence. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle has a prior history of targeting other editors off-wiki

10) Delicious carbuncle has previously used the tactic of posting intensively about other editors off-wiki as a prelude to an RFC/U, as documented in evidence in the Cirt–Jayen466 case in August 2011.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I brought this to the Committee's attention in the Cirt–Jayen466 case - my statement there is linked above. Fae has described this kind of conduct as "canvassing". I think he is mistaken in that interpretation. I think of it as a strategy of "chumming", metaphorically throwing blood into the water to elicit a reaction from an audience known to be sceptical of or hostile to Wikipedia and with a relaxed attitude to personal attacks and privacy violations. When the feeding frenzy has got underway the focus of the action moves to Wikipedia, with further chumming taking place simultaneously off-wiki. This is more sophisticated than simple canvassing and seems to me to effectively be a form of incitement. Its key indicator is the repeated posting of hostile off-wiki threads, focusing on an individual editor, posted at short intervals over a sustained period of time, followed by some kind of on-wiki action. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The RFC/U was initiated in abnormal circumstances

11) The RFC/U was preceded by a repeated series of hostile off-wiki threads by its initiator, Delicious carbuncle, culminating in a serious privacy violation which he committed against Fae. Immediately following the posting of the RFC/U, Delicious carbuncle started a Wikipedia Review thread about it. Prior to and concurrent with the posting of the RFC/U, Fae was subjected to threats of real-world harassment, personal attacks and homophobic abuse on his user talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, this seems to be an attempt to declare the RfC/U invalid to remove Fae from the "He should have responded to this issue". There was enough people with good faith concerns that I can't see this as anything more then an attempt to Wikilawyer around it. SirFozzie (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with the title, but not with the facts stated. The RFC/U had an abnormal certification after being restarted, which is why I got involved in the first place, to ensure it would not remain in existence without proper certification. MBisanz ^talk 10:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It needs to be emphasized how abnormal the circumstances of this RFC/U's initiation were. The initiators of RFC/Us do not normally carry out intensive off-wiki campaigns against the subjects of the RFC/U, nor do they commit serious privacy violations against the subjects, nor do they post off-wiki threads about the RFC/Us that they initiate. The only comparable sequence of events that I can think of is DC's campaign against Cirt, as highlighted above. Note that this does not render the RFC/U "illegitimate". As noted by others, its form was legitimate, and as such it was allowed to stand. This finding of fact relates to the impressions formed at the time as a result of these circumstances (for which see below). Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I've made it explicitly clear above that I'm not suggesting the RFC/U was invalid. This is not about the validity of the RFC/U. It's about the circumstances and atmosphere in which it was posted. Let me ask you a question: have you ever seen an RFC/U initiated by someone who had just committed a privacy violation and an off-wiki campaign against the target? I certainly haven't, and I've been an editor for quite a bit longer than you have. DC's actions didn't make the RFC/U invalid. They most certainly did give grounds for people to doubt his motives - participants explicitly referred to this. That is the point of this FoF. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle had unclean hands

12) When he initiated the RFC/U, Delicious carbuncle had very recently engaged in clear battleground conduct and privacy violations against Fae, and thus came to the RFC/U with unclean hands.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I understand it, RFC/U requires prior engagement for DR purposes, but does not require clean hands to certify a matter. See Wikipedia:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#Qualification. MBisanz ^talk 10:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a logical conclusion from the findings that DC had repeatedly targeted Fae off-wiki and had violated the privacy of Fae's personal information. DC came to the RFC/U with a substantial and very recent record of misconduct towards Fae. As with the finding of fact immediately above, this does not render the RFC/U "illegitimate" by itself. However, it serves as a basis for the following finding of fact. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, correct, but I'm not arguing that RFC/U requires clean hands. I'm addressing this finding of fact towards the perceptions that DC's conduct raised, which are the subject of my next finding of fact. Prioryman (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae and others had grounds to believe that the RFC/U was tainted

13) Fae and others had grounds to believe that the RFC/U was tainted by the personal agenda of its initiator, who had very recently engaged in clear battleground conduct and privacy violations against Fae, and had a track record of conducting off-wiki campaigns against other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fae, and others, may have held this belief. I do not believe it was a reasonable belief on which to base non-participation once community consensus indicated the page would continue to exist beyond 48 hours. MBisanz ^talk 10:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

29 editors agreed with Russavia's admittedly harsh view of the RFC/U. To my mind, a key question is why did so many editors - including a number of experienced admins and a former arbitrator, Sam Blacketer - agree with him? Many of them referred to their impression that the RFC/U was an extension of a campaign of harassment being conducted against Fae, with specific reference to Wikipedia Review, and one stated that s/he believed "DC had some kind of agenda". In my view, DC's conduct prior to and during the RFC/U was such that they had reasonable grounds to doubt his motives. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This one definitely doesn't fly, as the majority of editors who commented in the RfC did so with good faith that there was grounds for concern and that their opinions were desired and valued. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The majority certainly did comment as you say, but that does not obviate the fact that a substantial number took the opposite view. I'm not trying to establish who was right or wrong, merely to bring to light the circumstances that led people to take that particular view of the situation. Many of the editors who supported Russavia's statement specifically referred to their impression of a harassment campaign or ulterior motives. The point of this FoF is to establish that their concerns were based on real problems that had occurred in the runup to the RFC/U. Prioryman (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that there was a rather serious battle going on at commons around the same time, in which Russavia was deeply involved. To some degree the numbers on both sides of the issue were probably bolstered by that. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae was professionally advised not to engage with his harassers

14) Fae received advice from professional security advisers (the police/Stonewall/Victim Support) not to engage with his harassers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To call all the people who had good faith concerns about his previous accounts and behavior harassers, stretches credulity well past the point that it snaps. SirFozzie (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This may have occurred, but I don't see how it's relevant to a review of his on-wiki behavior. I remember getting at least one email in my time on Wikipedia from the parent of a child I had blocked for one policy violation or another saying their child needed to edit Wikipedia for self-esteem or because of emotional issues the child had relating to others. That may have also been true, but equally irrelevant to determining if they should be unblocked when there had been a community review of the block or other on-wiki, limited due process review. Also, while it may be true in this case, it is also inapplicable because it would be far too capable of gaming in the general case to be taken into account in on-wiki transactions. The police may have advised Fae, but what about the handful of individuals over the years who have represented themselves as police and said they were here to investigate various things? I believe they were quickly blocked, with community support, despite their professional position of expertise. MBisanz ^talk 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disclosed in Fae's evidence. This is of crucial importance. DC had recently carried out an act of overt harassment by posting Fae's home address and phone number on WR. Fae had also received anonymous threats of real-world harassment. Fae states that in response he sought professional advice from law enforcement and experts on personal security, and that he was advised not to "respond in any way to certain related users [and] to never respond in forums off-wiki". The RFC/U was initiated by one of those users, Delicious carbuncle, who started a simultaneous discussion of it on WR. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no suggestion in my FoF that "all the people who had good faith concerns" were harassers. It's a simple statement of fact, that Fae received advice to not engage with those who were harassers. This FoF makes no attempt to identify who the harassers were. Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If I wished to follow the advice of security professionals that I should not engage with online harassers, what would I do when I found a hateful and malicious comment on my talk page? Remove it immediately? Choose not to respond, and let the comment be archived automatically in due course? Here's what Fæ actually did: [31] It does not appear that he was following the advice he says he was given, so this finding of fact is irrelevant. A better explanation for Fæ's non-response to the RFC/U is that it fits his established pattern of avoiding dispute resolution. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae had grounds to believe that participating in the RFC/U would be personally harmful

15) Fae had been the target of personal attacks on- and off-wiki, harassment, real-world threats, a serious privacy violation by Delicious carbuncle and ongoing hostile attention from Wikipedia Review, where editors banned for harassment and outing were contributing to Delicious carbuncle's threads. He therefore had reasonable grounds to believe that the situation would be further inflamed to his personal detriment if he participated in the RFC/U and sought to avoid this by not participating or commenting on it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

First part yes, second part, no. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with the first clause, but disagree with the second. He could have also stopped editing altogether if he believed that compliance with Wikipedia policy would be to his personal detriment. MBisanz ^talk 10:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Also of crucial importance. Fae has stated in evidence that "any reply I made [was] likely to only inflame the discussion, [to] be used as evidence of self-outing or evidence that I was failing to follow the common principle of WP:DENY." Given DC's prior conduct, the involvement of banned users in his threads, the posting of homophobic abuse on his user talk page a few days after the RFC/U and concurrent WR thread were initiated by DC and the close attention on WR - 14 pages of comments on the RFC/U alone - I believe this was a reasonable belief to hold. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither you nor Fae seem to have read WP:DENY. Unless someone can substantiate that DC's contributions wrt Fae consisted of vandalism, I fail to see the relevance of that essay, which is neither a policy nor a guideline.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's non-involvement in the RFC/U was consistent with advice from security professionals

16) Fae's non-involvement in the RFC/U was consistent with the advice that he received from security professionals to not respond in any way to his harassers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed with MBisanz SirFozzie (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this as a finding. I agree Arbcom should not attempt to override professionals acting in their own spheres of expertise. However, when an editor is confronted with a conflict between policy and real-life authority that results in a violation of policy by abiding the real-life authority, the right answer is to withdraw from the project, not gain special status on the project. It's the same logic underlying this phrase from WP:NLT: If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. We won't interfere with people exercising their legal rights in conflict with project policy, but they cannot edit while doing so. MBisanz ^talk 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stated as a reasonable conclusion from the fact, disclosed by Fae, that he was advised not to engage with his harassers. I very strongly recommend that the Arbcom should not seek to retrospectively override the advice of security professionals. With all due respect to our arbitrators, they are neither qualified nor empowered to pass judgement on matters of personal safety. It would be extremely dangerous to individuals, and it may have personal legal implications for arbitrators (duty of care etc) if they should seek to supplant professional judgements with their own. (Newyorkbrad could probably advise on this point.) I have no idea if Fae disclosed the advice to the Arbcom - I don't think I've seen him disclose it publicly before - and if he didn't, he probably should have. But that doesn't change the fact that if Fae was advised not to participate in the RFC/U, he should not be penalised for following professional advice. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm only very peripherally aware of the whole thing, but this line of reasoning seems odd. Imagine that, for instance, someone's legal counsel told him to post a legal threat on Wikipedia. Could he get exempted from the policy of "no legal threats" on this basis?

I think it's unlikely that security professionals or police would understand Wikipedia well enough to give informed professional opinions on whether a user should post. Yes, they may say to "never" engage harassers, but that kind of statement always has an implicit qualifier of "unless not doing so has really bad consequences"; for instance, no security professional would tell someone to stay away from court if sued by a harasser. Wikipedia isn't as severe as a real life court case, but it's a similar concept: the harasser is enlisting third parties with authority over him. Also, a security professional who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia might not be able to judge whether posting in a Wikipedia RFC really is engaging with the harasser, as opposed to engaging with the parties whom the harasser has drawn in. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would assume that if a person was told to stay away from "harassers" on Wikipedia, this would require the person to stay away from Wikipedia altogether. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken, your example of someone posting a legal threat wouldn't be comparable, because that would be an example of engaging with Wikipedia to achieve a particular aim. What we are talking about here is a case of someone disengaging from Wikipedia, or at least from the part of Wikipedia where his harasser was active. One is an active, assertive deed; the other is essentially conflict avoidance. A court case is also not comparable; that's a situation where an individual has an absolute obligation to attend, backed up by the full force of the law. By contrast, an RFC/U is a non-binding process in which volunteer editors get to grill other volunteer editors. As far as I know there's no obligation for anyone to participate and certainly no binding outcomes or enforcement mechanisms. Prioryman (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

An RFC/U is in the grey area between a binding and a non-binding process. It's officially nonbinding, but often on Wikipedia something's official nature is different from its true nature. Claiming that it's not binding is privileging form over substance; "The RFC/U is voluntary and cannot impose sanctions, but if you fail the RFC/U, it will probably be used against you in a proceeding that isn't voluntary and can impose sanctions" is in practice the same as "not voluntary", regardless of any technicalities about how the RFC itself has no power. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It strikes me that it has some similarities to the warning statement that UK police forces read out to someone who's been arrested: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." Again, no formal compulsion, but possible negative consequences for non-participation. Prioryman (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz misses the point. This was not about Fae exercising legal rights - he did not sue or threaten to sue anyone. The problem with the suggestion that MBisanz is advancing is that if you say, in effect, that the proper way to deal with harassment is with withdraw from the project, then you're giving harassers carte blache to drive people off the project. I don't see how this can possibly be compatible with the WMF terms of use, which say clearly that editors may not engage in "harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism".[32] That puts the onus on the harassers, stalkers and those indulging in threats, to stop their behaviour, rather than expecting everyone who complains of harassment to be banned, blocked, or withdraw for their own safety. Prioryman (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two parts to this, and there is, as far as I know, no evidence for either part. Are we taking on faith that such harassment occurred and that Fae received the legal advice as reported? Please do let me know if someone at WMF or on ArbCom has received reasonable evidence. It is a little difficult to comment on a finding for which there is no evidence. (That doesn't mean the claims are not true, but simply that they cannot be confirmed.) Perhaps the finding needs to say: Fae's non-involvement in the RFC/U was consistent with the advice that he tells us he received from security professionals to not respond in any way to his harassers. The second part has to do with identifying the "harassers". As the finding stands, everyone on WP has been indirectly deemed a "harasser". Even being involved in commenting on an editor's behaviour at an RFC/U cannot, just by definition, be termed "harassment". Could no one have been found to have received this information in private? I am sure someone will let me know where the evidence for this fact has been confirmed. Bielle (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My point above is that

• It's unlikely that a security professional is familiar enough with Wikipedia to give an informed opinion specifically about avoiding a RFC/U. (And even if he did, his opinion would depend on his non-professional judgment about Wikipedia as well as his professional judgment about security, so obeying him would not simply be "following professional advice".)
• It's not obvious that advice to avoid one's harasser applies here, even if it's stated in absolute terms such as "never engage in any way". A RFC/U is de facto an obligation, and is mainly about justifying one's actions to third parties, even the harasser starts it. If you don't like the courts analogy, imagine that a harasser reports you to your employer for some transgression. Presenting your side to your employer doesn't violate the advice about avoiding the harasser. Except here the harasser complained to the Wikipedia community instead of the employer. (And it's unlikely that a security professional would consider or understand such arguments, even just to rebut them).

Whether the harassment is actually harassment at all is a separate argument.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The posting of Fae's WHOIS data would not have been permitted on Wikipedia

17) A WHOIS record relating to Fae, including his name, home address and phone number, was posted on Wikipedia Review by Delicious carbuncle. The posting of this information would not have been permitted on Wikipedia and would have resulted in substantial penalties for the person who posted it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This needs refinement. Wikipedia:WHOIS#Tracing_IP_addresses explicitly endorses using WHOIS contact information in the context of anti-vandalism activities and there is even a template to assist in IP user talk tagging with ownership information at {{Whois}}. Moreso, linking to WHOIS records is apparently a fairly common practice in the context of articles. See [33], [34]. It is even used in the sourcing of information in BLPs. See [35], [36]. Something that notes an existing conflict between DC and Fae as the wrongful basis for DC's posting the WHOIS information would be a better fit. MBisanz ^talk 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair game? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let's get this out in the open. Some editors have argued on this page that Fae's WHOIS data was "fair game" on the grounds that it was in a publicly accessible database. If so, there would have been nothing wrong with posting it on Wikipedia. However, it was posted on Wikipedia Review instead. I contend that the posting was done there to evade Wikipedia's ban on posting personal information not disclosed by the subject on Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information). I believe that this was an instance of an editor using an off-wiki site to further an on-wiki dispute by engaging in conduct that would not have been permitted on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And what has wikipedia got to do with it. All of that was happening around Commons, which is its own fiefdom, does not abide with any enwp norms, does not have any truck with ArbCom, and even declares that the WMF are of no import there too. All of which was adequately demonstrated with the Beta M affair. Where again concerns were brought forward concerning an editor and a catch22 situation invoked where anyone expressing concerns was required to provide proof and if said proof was presented on Commons the supplier of proof blocked. It took the WMF to resolve the issue after 10 days of drama across multiple venues. None of these projects has any adequate process for dealing with issues regarding a users identity. If any one has any such concerns who's attention do they bring it too? Some admin who is most likely to be a teen or not much older? As shown here there are 1001 different policies, and none of you, after years of participation, can agree which is which. You need a one bright button which initiates a high priority communication with staff. Not something which invokes a process replete with drama creators, and a random selection of the immature, any of which are able to increase the heat with application of the block button. John lilburne (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, I'm not trying to advance a general principle here. I'm addressing the specific issue of the posting Fae's WHOIS data. Would it have been permitted on Wikipedia? Would DC have been blocked if he had posted it here? Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle didn't post it on Wikipedia, and fortunately, freedom of speech exists outside of Wikipedia. Why do you insist on discussing something that didn't happen? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In some cases (as clearly explained by the evidence of Mbisanz above), it is not true that posting WHOIS data on Wikipedia would necessarily lead to editor sanctions. Prioryman's belief ". . .that the posting was done there to evade Wikipedia's ban on posting personal information not disclosed by the subject on Wikipedia (per Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information)" needs some evidence to have any weight in this arbitration.. "I believe that this was an instance of an editor using an off-wiki site to further an on-wiki dispute by engaging in conduct that would not have been permitted on Wikipedia." is not acceptable evidence of anything except except Prioryman's personal point of view. It is speculation. Bielle (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the context at the time was Commons, not Wikipedia. Secondly, WHOIS data including an editor's address and telephone number were openly linked to by another party to this case on Commons, as diffed in the WHOIS data evidence section, just a few weeks ago, and in quite similar circumstances – and nothing happened to the editor who did. It is demonstrably untrue that publicising WHOIS information on the wiki concerned leads to any penalties, let alone "substantial penalties". JN466 04:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Complete WHOIS data of another editor who has disclosed his real name in the past was recently posted on Jimbo's talk, as shown in my wife's evidence. Jimbo expressly stated there was nothing wrong with that. The information was not oversighted, nor otherwise deleted, and the poster was not punished. No one should propose having different rules for different people. Because then we might as well just do away with rules. It would be more honest. JN466 01:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Cla68

Proposed principles

Uploader beware

1) Wikipedia participants are advised to give it careful and sober consideration before uploading public domain photographs of themselves onto Commons, especially if the photographs depict them in a sexually suggestive or partially disrobed state.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While activity at Commons is not within our remit, I would say that before self-disclosure (be it information or photos), realize A) that per Wikipedia's terms and conditions, it is VERY hard to take back and B) you are putting it out there in the public. Some people will use it for knowledge, others.. not so much SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

While I think Fæ's images were deleted out of process, I also strongly believe that all uploaders should be afforded the same courtesy of having their images deleted on request. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I know it shouldn't be necessary to have to say this to anyone, but people always surprise you. Cla68 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're asking ArbCom itself to violate WP:OUTING by dredging up Ash edits which did not violate any policy. The PG-rated pictures you're describing are relevant only to show that inappropriate speculation about Fae's private life and his suitability to serve in Wikipedia^[37] was not in any way supported by them. We should not specially warn people against uploading classes of content, as a general principle, because they might be improperly characterized in personal attacks. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Caveat mittentis. It is the editors' responsibility to understand that "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" line below. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Caveat mittens, you mean. Certainly this is true, but the edit/upload notice is sufficient to communicate that, without an ArbCom principle. What I don't think Ash should reasonably have had to prepare for was for these contributions to be used in invalid arguments against his administrative and volunteer roles at Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, but do note that potentially embarrassing pictures don't become the subject of negative attention by magic - someone has to give them that attention in the first place. In Fae's case quite probably nobody would have given a toss about the pictures if it wasn't for people seeking to find a stick to beat him with over other unrelated issues. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of homophobia, racism, or bigotry

2) Alleging that other Wikipedia participants, whether in general or specifically, are motivated by homophobia, racism, or bigotry must be supported by clear evidence. Otherwise, such allegations are severe violations of WP:NPA and may result in a temporary or indefinite suspension of the offender's editing privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You don't make accusations without backing them up. SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy prohibits "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." It may not be possible to objectively assess the severity of allegations, but if Wikipedia intends to do so it must strive to be fair and reasonable. In the wider world, saying that someone is anti-gay is fairly routine - indeed, there are certain popular political parties where quite a few members wear the mantle proudly - but wrongly accusing someone of risky sexual activities in a public place or making improper use of images of sexualized naked children would raise quite a few eyebrows. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment

3) Alleging that other Wikipedia participants, whether in general or specifically, are engaged in harassment must be supported by clear evidence. Otherwise, such allegations are severe vioations of WP:NPA and may result in a temporary or indefinite suspension of the offender's editing privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Were there people harassing Fae? Yes. Were there people with good faith concerns who were dismissed as harassers by Fae's supporters? Also yes. SirFozzie (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's corrective mechanism

4) Wikipedia's current model generally functions by encouraging participants to provide corrective feedback on each other's behavior through constructive criticism and use of the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Acceptance of constructive criticism

5) Wikipedia participants are expected to acknowledge constructive and appropriately given criticism and feedback and amend their behavior accordingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to participate

6) Refusals to participate in the dispute resolution process are disruptive and counter to Wikipedia's processes for correcting editor and/or administrator behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrators are expected to address good faith concerns about their status and editing. That did not happen here, instead it was basically wikilawyered around and tried to be dismissed. As I said, to try to lump everyone who had concerns in with the small minority of people actively hostile to Fae is not going to work. SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to say "The RfC/U was not legitimate, didn't have consensus to its legitimacy" is not going to fly. The RESULT may have not had a firm consensus, but that's a long way from the process not having consensus. SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RfC/U page doesn't tell editors that they must respond. The latest edit to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 (October 25, 2011) added, "You are not officially required to participate in an RfC/U; however, failing to participate constructively comes at a steep cost, because it is typical for this failure to be held against you in all future dispute resolution forums." However, this is not a "typical" RfC/U; it is one whose legitimacy was vigorously disputed by many participants. Additionally, those making the complaints were not asking for a behavioral change (they were content with Fae's admin actions) but were demanding a status change, to non-admin. In the context of the Examiner article and other such inflammatory content, many did not view non-response as inappropriate, as has been stated elsewhere in this proceeding. Wnt (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Wnt hits the nail on the head here. The RfC/U was not principally about behaviour. First and foremost, it was about relitigating Fae's RFA; the initiator of the RfC/U tacked on a couple of claims about Fae's editing, but these were almost completely ignored in the subsequent discussion and they have not reappeared in this case. It seems quite apparent that the editing claims were a pretext for the main focus of the RfC/U, namely the circumstances of Fae's RFA, and if you look at the concurrent discussion on Wikipedia Review (involving the initiator) it's very apparent that this was the central issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So does an admin have no obligation to discuss a legitimate concern about the circumstances of his RfA? Fæ wouldn't do it in the RFC/U, and he wouldn't do it on his talk page either. What's the justification for that behavior? ReverendWayne (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Legitimacy was vigorously disputed by many participants" is a largely irrelevant point to make; yes there were some that disputed it, but their concerns were found to be without merit. The RfC ran its normal month-long course. There is no question as to its legitimacy, otherwise it would have been deleted, which I believe is the normal course of action for an improper rfC. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, it's highly relevant, and it's false to say that "their concerns were found to be without merit". From my reading of the RFC/U, it seems that no consensus was found on its legitimacy - those who considered it illegitimate certainly hadn't changed their views by the time it was closed - and that absent a consensus of illegitimacy, it was allowed to run its course. However, as I intend to show in evidence (Arbcom willing) there were good reasons to believe that the RfC/U was not started in good faith or with clean hands. Prioryman (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Legitimacy" is black or white; it either is, or it is not. I do realize that there were complaints lodged and an attempt by Farmbrough to delist, but as neither of those were successful, the consensus seems to be that it passed the legitimacy threshold. Obviously you disagree, but in the end that was a minority point-of-view. You didn't "win" this argument then and you certainly aren't going to win it 4 months after the fact. The RfC was legit, period. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is this "you", kemosabe? I didn't participate in the RfC/U - I've approached it as an outsider trying to work out what went on and what happened in the run-up to it. The question of whether the RfC/U was "illegitimate" is in any case a moot point, as it was allowed to run its full course. The more interesting question, I think, is why such a large number of editors - including uninvolved people and experienced admins - thought it was somehow flawed, whether illegitimate, started in bad faith or with unclean hands or whatever. There's an important backstory to this which hasn't yet come out in evidence, though I'm working to remedy that. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

7) Abusive Ad hominem attacks against other editors attempting to utilize the dispute resolution process are violations of WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure, except that one person's ad hominem is another person's "corrective feedback on behavior". I don't see how you can participate in dispute resolution over a user-conduct issue without opening yourself up to the broad charge of "ad hominem attacks". Also per this discussion. MastCell ^Talk 16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

When someone attacks the motivation of somebody else by insulting or belittling their character, such by alleging homophobia or harassment, then I think that is clearly abusive ad hominem. That type of ad hominem did occur during the events detailed in this case. I will add the word "abusive" to the statement. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, as I said in that discussion you linked to, even if you legitimately identify another person as having a COI, such as if they receive funding from tobacco companies and publish a report on the effects of second-hand smoke, it's still ad-hominem because you haven't (yet) addressed the substance of their conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Posting WHOIS data

8) Wikipedia currently allows the posting of WHOIS data in Wikipedia, such as here, for example.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Diff taken from DracoEssential's evidence section. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings

Fae's RfC

1) The Fae RfC was a legitimate RfC. Although there was not a clear consensus, the majority of participating editors expressed some concern with several issues regarding Fae's editing history, including the circumstances surrounding Fae's clean start, his RfA, his BLP editing, and other concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the form of the RfC was legitimate but - as I will describe in findings of fact - there were significant and justified concerns about its motives. It's worth noting here that the vast majority of the comment on the RfC concerned the RfA/cleanstart issue. The only recent BLP issue it raised concerned, as HJ Mitchell put it, "a single (disputed) diff accompanied by a vague assertion of misconduct". That, I submit, is not enough to justify an RfC. Prioryman (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's response to the RfC

2) Fae did not participate in the RfC, and has not constructively acknowledged or responded to the concerns raised in the RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest rephrasing to "Fæ did not participate in the RfC, or acknowledge or respond to the concerns raised therein." The original proposed wording implies it was a bad idea for Fæ not to respond, which distracts readers from the finding of fact. Deryck C. 00:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's real name

3) Fae has disclosed his real name and other personal information and publicly linked them to at least one of his Wikimedia accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence presented. If I have misunderstood the circumstances, please say so and I will amend this proposal accordingly. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you have it right about the real name - Fae stood under his own name in the Wikimedia UK elections and publicly linked that to his Wikipedia/Commons accounts. However, Fae has stated that he has never publicly disclosed two other key pieces of personal information - his home address and phone number - in conjunction with Wikipedia. Those data were obtained from a record which was completely unrelated to Wikipedia and were disclosed off-wiki without his consent in some very troubling circumstances. I'll say more soon on that issue in my own findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Were his home address and phone number publicly available under his real name? Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On off-wiki records unconnected with Wikipedia, just as (I presume) your own home address and phone number are available in the phone directory. WP:OUTING is very clear about what constitutes a violation of privacy: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia" (bolding added for emphasis). Two criteria are given here: consent and place. First, the personal information must be given voluntarily by the person. Second, it must be disclosed on Wikipedia. Both criteria must be met for the disclosure of that information by a third party to be non-harassing. If the information is posted without consent in any circumstances, harassment has occurred. If it's available off-wiki but is not public knowledge on Wikipedia, posting it is also harassment. Posting Fae's real name is not harassment as he's volunteered that information on Wikipedia; the requirements of consent and place are met. Posting Fae's phone number and address is harassment, as he's not volunteered that information on Wikipedia; the requirements of consent and place are not met.

The bottom line is that a lot of information is available off-wiki on individual editors, ranging from domain name registrations to court judgements to birth and marriage certificates. But individuals who contribute to Wikipedia have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is the point of the WP:OUTING policy. The availability of information off-wiki is not and never has been accepted as a justification for obtaining off-wiki records about editors and posting them without their consent. If it was, we wouldn't have an outing policy in the first place and editors would be free to post any personal information they liked, as long as it was in a publicly accessible record somewhere. That would destroy any concept of personal privacy on-wiki. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Were the phone number and the address ever posted on Wikipedia, or directly linked to from Wikipedia as a workaround? If so, by who?

FWIW, the staff at WR redacted that part soon after it was brought to our attention as a problem, though at the time it was public data available on a simple WHOIS request. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess Fae would be best placed to answer that, but as far as I know the phone number and address were never posted on Wikipedia or directly linked to from Wikipedia by Fae or anyone else. I've never seen any indication on- or off-wiki that the information was publicly known on Wikipedia. I note that when the information was posted on WR, it were explicitly stated to be from a source completely unrelated to Wikipedia. The information was presented as something that was previously unknown, which would obviously not have been the case if it had been disclosed on Wikipedia at some previous point. Also, the fact that it was "public data available on a simple WHOIS request" is irrelevant - WP:OUTING addresses whether the data is personal, not whether it is public. Phone numbers and addresses are commonly available in public telephone directories, for instance, while job titles and work organisations may be listed on corporate web pages. But unless such information has been disclosed voluntarily on Wikipedia by the person concerned, for a third party to disclose it without consent is an act of harassment. Prioryman (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One other question, is Fae considered to be a public person under UK law because of his position with WM UK? Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The US definition of a "public figure" is very loose indeed - essentially anyone in the public eye is fair game under US law. In UK and European law there is no distinction between public figures and private citizens, and they enjoy the same expectations of privacy. The definition of a public figure is limited to the most high-profile members of society: sporting figures, celebrities, politicians, heads of major companies etc. The director of a small and, admittedly, fairly low-profile charity would come nowhere near the threshold. It's doubtful if even the director of a major charity would pass the threshold, unless they had a high public profile (for instance, Shami Chakrabarti might qualify). Prioryman (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Under the WP official user terms - is the applicable law US law or is it UK law? Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The pertinent language seems to be "under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content)." This implies to me that US law is primary, although editors outside the US may be subject to the local laws as well. As I recall, the interpretation in the past has been that the WMF and the English Wikipedia are governed by US law, not by extraterritorial application of non-US law. If a US editor were, for example, to post comments critical of the monarch of a foreign nation, forbidden by laws of that nation, no Wikipedia policy would be violated (unless a BLP violation occurred, but that's not a legal issue). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

off topic

If I may. Mr. Van Haeften (aka "Fae") freely disclosed his name and various other personal details (his marital status, his rough age, etc...) on Wikipedia. I have some skills in research. I'm sure others participating on this page do as well. His choice to connect himself to his account (and its obvious history) laid bare, practically instantly, the road to knowing a great deal about him. Some revelation of his personal details at Wikipedia Review (a place that I am banned from for upsetting its proprietor) is irrelevant. It seems the disclosure there was quickly redacted. But Mr. Van Haeften's deliberate disclosure on Wikipedia/Wikimedia has been in public view for many months and remains there until this moment. Personally identifying information is free for all the world to see at the moment, by his own actions. No matter. He may regret his personal disclosure at some point. But this information has not harmed him (in terms of actual harm; Wikimedia social capital is something else again) in any way so far. And it's unlikely that it ever will.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC) The key point there is that you speak of "the road to knowing a great deal about him". If you have a few basic details about a person, it's amazing and rather sobering how much you can find out about them, particularly as everything is on the Internet these days. But the point of WP:OUTING that it bars the road. It says, in effect, that while there may be a wide variety of publicly available information about individuals it may not be disclosed in conjunction with Wikipedia unless the individuals themselves have voluntarily disclosed it on Wikipedia. It's specifically intended to prevent the kind of detective work that you're alluding to. Prioryman (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I don't really understand you. What has been disclosed on wikipedia that Mr. Van Haeften has not disclosed himself?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC) We're not talking about disclosures on Wikipedia. For the purposes of enforcing WP:HARASS, the place where a non-consensual disclosure is made isn't a limiting factor, as long as the person doing the disclosing is subject to Wikipedia's standards. Thus an editor would be covered by the policy wherever he's active off-wiki. Unlike most Wikipedia policies, WP:HARASS explicitly covers off-wiki activity as well: "off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." This is to ensure that an editor can't simply sidestep the policy by going off-wiki to violate someone's privacy in the expectation that nothing could be done about it on-wiki. Because the policy's reach extends off-wiki, this potential loophole is closed. In other words, if someone uses Wikipedia Review to commit a privacy violation or harassment they should expect it to be treated at least as seriously (and punitively) as if they do it on Wikipedia itself. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC) The more I read your writing, the less sense you make. Mr. Van Haeften disclosed his identity on Wikipedia. Mr. Van Haeften uploaded pictures of himself on Wikipedia. If people put 2 and 2 together and came up with four (as I did two years ago when I was being backhandedly accused of "hate crimes" by a user named "Ash" -- his false accusations motivated me to look at his previous handles as "Ashleyvh," "Teahot" and "Speedo/Speedoguy") that isn't "harassment." Harassment would be making threatening phone calls to his house, following him around the streets of london, stuff like that. Pointing out that Mr. Van Haeften had previous accounts is not harassment.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not talking about "pointing out that [Fae] had previous accounts". I'm talking about posting his home address and phone number without his consent. That is categorically harassment, per the plain wording of WP:OUTING. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, a wikipedia review user apparently posted the WHOIS data on Wikipedia review (which was publicly available). He apparently immediately regretted doing it, and it was more or less immediately removed, and he apologized for his action. And? And?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Here is a little exam question for you. Why do you suppose Delicious carbuncle did that on Wikipedia Review and not on Wikipedia itself? He explicitly intended to affect discussions on Wikipedia and even asked for the thread to be made visible again so that Wikipedia users could read it. If the WHOIS information was so innocuous, why did he not post it on Wikipedia? Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Because wikipedia's governance is shambolic and opaque? Because group-think among the in-crowd apparently leads to oversighting of completely innocuous information (like the fact that Mr. Van Haeften self-disclosed his own identity on Wikipedia)? Because he was strenously denying, and being assisted by a sitting arbitrator, the identity of his previous accounts (which was an absurdity -- there was never any doubt)? Because someone asked him a question about "how do you know x=y, since "Fae" seems to be denying it? Etc... And, again: So fucking what? This was long ago, the fuckup was rectified, and no harm was done.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Let me suggest an alternative scenario: that DC knew perfectly well that if he posted it on Wikipedia it would be immediately oversighted and he would be indefinitely blocked. I refer you to what Sir Fozzie, who you apparently don't like very much, has said above: "Don't think you can act one way here, do your dirty work off site and claim that your hands are clear here ... if someone maintains a page designed to harass a Wikipedia user on another site, and comes here and says "Yes, I maintain that page, but there's nothing you can do about it".. they're going to find out they are wrong". Put bluntly, Wikipedia Review has been (ab)used as a route through which editors have side-stepped Wikipedia's conduct policies with apparent impunity. That has to stop. Prioryman (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Has someone in this case said ""Yes, I maintain that page, but there's nothing you can do about it" in respect of Fae or any other party? (I assume Encyclopedia Dramatica as satire is exempt or half the editors on WP would be currently blocked.) I am uncomfortable hypothesizing what DC may (or may not) have been thinking when there is no evidence in support. I note from the top of the page: "There will be NO speculations allowed." As Bali has said, DC put out the address information on WR found by combining Fae's self-disclosed connections on WP with other public, internet records. Then DC (and others) realized that was not a good idea, on several levels, and took the information down. Sensible to start? of course not, but repaired in a reasonable time frame. "DC is admonished" . . . and let's move on. Bielle (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae subjected to trolling comments

4) At least two rude, trolling comments, possibly homophobic in nature, have been left on Fae's talk page by anonymous accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This should be acknowledged. I know of at least one comment. Were there more? If not, then I need to change the wording of "comments" to the singular. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but I would categorise it as abuse rather than trolling, which is far too kind a description of it. See my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Fae has been the target of homophobic abuse and threats. Prioryman (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So, was there one comment, or two? If only one, I need to change the wording of the is proposal. Cla68 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple comments, so the current wording is fine. Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it by "multiple" you mean "two" which is as much as I can see referenced in your evidence section. So, I've changed the wording to reflect that number. If there have been more than two comments, please show me the diffs or where they have been oversighted. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "possibly homophobic" is far too weasel-worded. He was repeatedly called a "fag" and "fagget [sic]". That's like saying that a post calling someone a "nigger" was "possibly racist". Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Was it more than two comments? Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At least two that I know of; there may be more, since multiple revisions are covered by some revdels, and as far as I know oversights aren't visible in the logs. I also have no knowledge of anything that might have been sent to Fae's email. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added "At least" to the beginning of the statement. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think your "possibly homophobic" is absurdly weaselly. Could you clarify what other possible interpretation you see? Prioryman (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prioryman on this issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As do I. The "possibly" should go away. Carrite (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have lined-through "possibly". Cla68 (talk) 23:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman vs Delicious Carbuncle

5) Prioryman has attempted to use the issues surrounding Fae's editing to pursue sanctions against Delicious Carbuncle (DC). On 30 January 2012, Prioryman implied a threat to get DC banned, and has attempted to pursue sanctions against DC in a variety of threads on ANI and in other forums [38] [39], including this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I really tried to frame the case narrowly to avoid this sort of thing. I apparently failed. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, Prioryman and Russavia were acting as proxies for Fæ, both of whom argued stridently for banning me. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prioryman has been relentless in his pursuit of Delicious Carbuncle while at the same time asking for Wikipedia's administration to enforce an interaction ban between them. From what I understand, the dispute may stem from Delicious Carbuncle's objections to the circumstances surrounding Prioryman's clean start. I invite both to comment on whether they think that was a factor in the animosity which appears to exist here. A list of many related diffs is here Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My first interaction with Delicious carbuncle was in the context of the Cirt-Jayen case in mid-2011. I believed that DC was mounting a campaign of harassment against Cirt on Wikipedia Review, and I detailed this in evidence here. After someone stole the arbcom-l mailing list and posted it on WR, I publicly acknowledged my clean start. I had no previous involvement with DC, and his focus on me only began after I submitted evidence against him. I was unaware of his pursuit of Fae until I learned that DC had carried out a campaign against him that was very similar in kind to that mounted against Cirt, which the extra factor of the outing of Fae's home address and phone number. I felt that it was an appalling thing to do and raised the matter on AN/I. My intervention in this case is intended to bring out in arbitration format the issues that I raised on AN/I. The evidence that I've presented here addresses DC's conduct, but as I've stated already, my purpose is to demonstrate that there is an exonerating context to some of Fae's actions. I have not and am not going to post any proposed remedies concerning DC. As also stated, the Arbcom has given specific permission for me to post this evidence and findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(after e/c): There certainly seems to be some bad blood between Prioryman and a few people I know, but (no offense) I'm not sure how this fits into the case. I need the "blink: smiley. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The conflict between Prioryman and DC appears to predate the Fae issue. The conflict between the two I would say is one of the major sub-plots of this episode, as it has taken up a lot space in ANI threads, on the talk page of the RfC, and in several other forums. As Prioryman states above, he apparently didn't appreciate DC's involvement in the criticism of Cirt, and DC hasn't appreciated certain actions of Prioryman. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

DC pointed out in July 2011 that Prioryman seemed to be a returning vanished user. I believe he was the first to become aware of this, outside those on arbcom who were "in the know". The first public reference I am aware of was here ("I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my email with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman." Sat 16th July 2011, 7:16pm). It was later confirmed on-wiki that Prioryman was ChrisO returned; [40] Roger Davies had unblocked Prioryman in December 2010 after he was blocked as a sockpuppet by Avraham [41]. JN466 03:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Prioryman's first diff as a "threat to get DC banned", but only as an opinion that DC was violating policy with his actions. The other diffs make a charge that ArbCom is considering here. The more interesting question is Delicious carbuncle against Prioryman and other users -- has anyone compiled a list of all the users he's started a process against? True, sometimes as with Beta M he actually has something, but I think he casts far too wide a net. Wnt (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

6) User:Fae has operated multiple, concurrent accounts, not all of which were disclosed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We're going over the list that was provided to us as that were linked to him as of mid-late 2010 and seeing if any of them violated policy. My personal view (note: Not for the Committee) is that even if they do comply with Wikipedia's policies, we run into problems. SirFozzie (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on Sir Fozzie's comments. I don't know if any of the socks violated WP policy. Cla68 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

See below for update. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts

7) User:Fae has abused the use of concurrent, multiple accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence here. Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I should note I have added more evidence concerning the Ticaro account. The first paragraph on Ticaro is fairly straightforward in that an article was edited by both Fæ and Ticaro in a way that would imply they are two separate editors i.e. having Ticaro edit the article in very small gaps of time between edits by Fæ. However, the timing that I cover in the second paragraph is another oddity of the account. It was created first right after Ash created that message on March 26th, but began editing the day after April 1, the date provided on the message. Seems like the account served no legitimate purpose, but it would certainly confuse and distract any inquiring editor who was skeptical of Ash's repeatedly proclaimed departure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle

8) User:Delicious Carbuncle did not violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines when he briefly posted User:Fae's WHOIS information to an off-wiki site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence that has been presented that posting WHOIS data is a commonly accepted practice in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:HARASS is crystal clear that you do not post personal information such as an editor's address and telephone number that the editor has not himself voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia. The policy is unambiguous on that point. Your argument is basically a variant of "other stuff exists". Consider the circumstances of this specific case: as I stated on AN/I in January, the circumstances in which this was done made posting the record a dangerous and reckless act. Fae had only a few hours previously been sent a threat of real-world harassment, which DC was fully aware of, and posting a record containing his address and phone number had the potential to give Fae's harasser the means of carrying out the threat. Posting it shouldn't have been done at any time, but it especially shouldn't have been done when it had the potential to cause serious real-world harm. Prioryman (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I added "briefly" to the proposal because the evidence indicates that the personal information was only visible for about an hour. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman

9) User:Prioryman has exhibited a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in his pursuit of Declicious Carbuncle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Prioryman made false statements in an effort to have me banned. The discussion here details the falsehoods. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence that it appears that Declicious Carbuncle (DC) has not violated any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, yet Prioryman has continually pursued sanctions against DC in multiple forums, including this case. Prioryman has stated that he has had a problem with DC since his involvement with the Cirt/Scientology issue. Prioryman, as ChrisO, has a contentious history with Scientology. At the same time that Prioryman was pursuing sanctions against DC, he was also requesting an interaction ban with DC which prevented DC from adequately responding [42]. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my evidence, DC did indeed carry out a serious privacy violation against Fae. When I reported the incident on AN/I, numerous editors and administrators agreed that, as one said, there had been "clear WP:OUTING violations". On this very page, SirFozzie has agreed with my statement that there has been "a serious privacy violation by Delicious carbuncle". After I raised the outing incident on AN/I, I wanted nothing more to do with DC, but he posted on WR: "I wasn't planning on being banned on WP just at the moment (there are some issues with Prioryman that I want to get addressed first)".[43] Subsequently he started an entire thread about me on WR, making bogus claims of corrupt dealings against me, and took it upon himself to start "policing" my edits on Wikipedia. I supported an interaction ban at that point because it was obvious that he intended to do to me what he'd previously done to Cirt and Fae. I hadn't intended to have any further dealings involving DC but when this case was opened I felt it was essential to put on the record the outing incident I'd raised on AN/I in January. I asked for and obtained permission from Arbcom to do so, the interaction ban is still in place and following this case I will have no further involvement with DC. Prioryman (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae posting WHOIS information

10) On 13 May 2012, User:Fae posted a link to WHOIS information on Commons which included someone's phone number and home address.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I have looked at the link that User:Fae posted on Commons in this discussion. It clearly contains a home address and personal phone number. Unlike Delicious Carbuncle in the WR thread, it appears that Fae has not attempted to remove the link, although someone did later place it under a hat. Cla68 (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Discretionary sanctions

1) User:Fae, or any editor commenting on any issue related to Fae, who alleges homophobia, harassment, or any other ad hominem pejorative motivation about any other editor, either in general or specifically, without providing clear evidence to support the accusation, are subject to discretionary sanctions. The discretionary sanctions may be requested at the ArbCom Enforcement board. The sanctions may include escalating suspensions of the offenders' editing privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe the only relevant cases with regard to apparently homophobic statements were in my responses to questions on the Evidence page for which apologies have been accepted. There seems a conflation between things I have written versus those people painted as "Fae's supporters". I do not accept that I should be held to account for those using this case for their own ends. I made it clear during the 2012 RFC/U when I stated "I ask that the speculation about risky sexual practices is removed from the discussion above and deleted from the page history" that some of the methods used in the past by people arbitrarily grouped together as my "supporters" in this RFAr I consider inflammatory even if well intentioned. --Fæ (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to claims of rape that were an issue in a biographic article last summer, WP:BLP is clear enough that "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". A claim of raping a child certainly fits with this policy and where such a claim against a living person of being a rapist in included we require far better sources than a popular autobiography of a well known self-publicist. No matter how much sympathy we may all have for someone who may have been abused in their childhood, if there is no evidence of a prosecution, published confession or other independent high quality sources, then an allegation that a living person is a rapist should not be included in a biographic article. An autobiography is a useful and valid source for the opinions, self-identification and personal history of a notable individual, but it should not be the single source for serious claims about other living people. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The use of ad hominem tactics by certain editors in relation to this dispute has been completely ridiculous. I hope ArbCom can put a stop to it. I understand that the Enforcement board's efforts to enforce ArbCom decisions has been inconsistent, in spite of genuinely well-intentioned efforts by several participating admins. Hopefully, however, this will help reduce the amount of this kind of nonsense from happening in the future. Speaking just for myself, if I provide corrective feedback to an editor in Wikipedia by commenting in an RfC, I shouldn't have to worry about other editors trying to discredit my opinion with insinuations that it is motivated by homophobia, off-wiki harassment, or some other kind of base motivation. If other editors do make the mistake of making such unethical accusations, they need to be held accountable for it. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree in principle, though I have doubts about its enforcement. Are discretionary sanctions the best way of going about it? And isn't the scope a bit fuzzy? Deryck C. 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This certainly would help improve the atmosphere greatly if broadly applied, but actually enforcing it would require a major paradigm shift, and possibly considerable reshuffling of the regulars at AE. IOW, it's a good solution, but not necessarily a practicable one. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this include people who say that Fae "really has a gay agenda", or complains that editors disagree with the BLP policy, or supported a user on Commons that the speaker believes to be a pedophile? If yes, then this essentially is a severe ArbCom rewrite of WP:CIVILITY to increase penalties and impose a new mechanism of enforcement. If not, then would seem to create penalties fairly narrowly targeted at gay editors. In truth, I think that "WP:CIVILITY" has become Wikipedia's War on Drugs, a policy which only sets up carrots and sticks to goad editors to snipe at one another without end. If ArbCom wants to rewrite the policy, it would be better for them to announce it to be unenforceable and formally abandoned. Wnt (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was this supposed to be a response to my comment in particular? I think you're saying that "WP:CIVIL" doesn't work particularly well (which I agree with, if that's what you meant), but honestly the rest seems to be at best a nonsequitur. Perhaps your reply belongs elsewhere? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a general response to Cla68 and those agreeing with him. Sorry for any confusion. Wnt (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Applying discretionary sanctions to all editors who "allege ad hominem pejorative motivation about any other editor, either in general or specifically, without providing clear evidence to support the accusation". That seems overinclusive. Why do you feel such a broad enforcement remedy is needed? -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In my six years of participating with Wikipedia, I don't recall any instance in which there were as many ad hominem tactics used as with this Fae issue over the last six months. It's not all one-sided, of course. The editors making the ad hominem accusations in attempts to undermine other editors they disagree with appear to have no fear of being held accountable for using lazy, negative debate tactics. Sometimes the only way to get editors to stop behaving badly is to employ heavy, negative reinforcement. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". This seems tantamount to saying that you can't point out a flea infestation. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you read at the top of the page here:

No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it."

You just did. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I admit my attempt at flippancy probably didn't work there. I'll make a serious case then: 1) it's far too vague and broad, to the point of being unworkable; 2) it would invite endless wrangling over whether a particular comment crossed the line, assuming anyone could agree where the line should drawn; and 3) if you collaborate off-wiki with banned users to attack another editor, it's not unreasonable for others to point out that you are keeping in bad company. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You appear to still be doing it <g>. BTW, do "banned users" have a scarlet letter on their clothes so that others may clearly identify them and stay 20 yards away from their ringing bell? (deliberately mixed metaphors). Collect (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan Tobias referred to it once, I believe, as "BADPEOPLE on BADSITES". Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Proxy editing. (There are some potentially relevant loopholes, though) Wnt (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Homophobic" is not an ad hom - it's a descriptor of a certain type of behaviour. While it literally means a fear of LGBTIQQ people, common usage of the term describes behaviour. Calling someone's actions homophobic isn't an ad hom. Saying X is a homophobe so we can ignore his opinion on gravity is an ad hom. Saying that X's actions are homophobic and we need to keep that in mind when we try to parse what he has to say about an LGBT individual, on the other hand, is a reasonable comment. It's not something we need to take as valid on its face, but it's a comment to evaluate on its merits, not an "ad hom attack" (cf. antisemitism). Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... this is a distinction I've been trying to get at ever since "ad hominem" replaced "strawman" as everyone's favorite rhetorical buzzword. I think you outlined it more clearly than I did. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording of the proposal doesn't use the word "homophobic." It uses the word "homophobia", as in inferring or claiming someone is motivated by homophobia to discredit their opinion, which is an ad hominem tactic. Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fæ himself has used expressions that are both homophobic and misogynistic – I linked to some instances of "drama queens" and "handbag throwing/clutching" in my evidence. Fæ's explanation as to why he didn't leave a courtesy notification on my talk page after mentioning me in his "reply to questions" section on the evidence page was that he had notified my husband, whom he had mentioned in a different paragraph. User:Wnt then ran with Fæ's implied suggestion that I am merely an extension of my husband on this page and discounted my vote in Fæ's latest Rfc/U. I consider myself lucky indeed to live in a country where married women are entitled to vote, given that on WP, User:Fæ and his supporters get away with perpetuating misogynistic attitudes and language. Fæ's attempt at casting doubt on a notable author's experience of rape at age 13 is another fine example: "I have no opinion on whether she is "emotionally damaged" but the fact that she writes about her claim of rape at 13 repeatedly in her works (for which there is no related evidence or prosecution to support these claims) puts the claims in the public domain ...". This is from the talk page for the BLP on Karrine Steffans, where Fæ inserted a streaming porn site with a sex video Steffans had tried to suppress as a BLP source. If Fæ is honestly vexed about what he perceives as homophobic language and behavior on WP, he should not be using discriminatory expressions and actions himself when it suits his purposes. Draco^E 23:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There are several people here who have argued that accusing an editor of homophobia should be punished very severely as a personal attack, and perhaps the same is true of misogyny. I take it from your willingness to raise such concerns about Fae that you agree with me in disagreeing with that position? Because we do need to be able to call editors out when they are being insensitive, especially when they don't know they're being insensitive. That said, I don't see a problem with the logical argument he makes in the diff you cite - if a woman publishes an account of her rape, Wikipedia should not hesitate to describe that account. I don't know anything about the topic so I can't judge the factual details and diplomacy of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if more sensitivity was in order. I should note that I mentioned you and your husband as one vote for purpose of vote counting according to policy, without saying who is an extension of who, so I see no misogyny in that, but if there is it exists in the policy itself. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The misogyny, in this case, lies entirely in your uneven application of the WP:FAMILY/ WP:COWORKER policy.

If you think Fæ’s way of casting doubt on Karrine Steffan’s account of having been raped as a child betrays any kind of sensitivity, I suggest you read this reply by Alex Harvey, the editor Fæ was arguing with in that particular thread.

Regarding discrimination on WP, my point was that someone who uses homophobic and misogynistic expressions and actions as liberally as User:Fæ does comes across as rather insincere when claiming to be vexed by perceived homophobic undertones from good-faith editors trying to hold him accountable for his actions, not his sexuality. I don’t recall any members of what Fæ regularly called a “traveling circus” ever referring to Fæ as a “dramah queen” or a “handbag clutching annoying drama monger”. Delicious carbuncle definitely never stooped to that level, yet they have been at the receiving end of some of Fæ’s most vicious attacks, including claims that they had speculated on Fæ’s HIV status – a blatant untruth. And with edits like these, Delicious carbuncle makes for a rather unlikely homophobe, wouldn’t you say? Given that you broke the rules of this page and speculated on whether Fæ had been deliberately insulting or not, why don’t you take a moment to speculate on how Delicious carbuncle must have felt during all this time that Fæ tried, with considerable success, to paint them as a homophobe? Do you think “hounded” and “wounded” would fit the speculative bill? Draco^E 04:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many individual variations in misogyny and homophobia, and no one single model can predict all the biases that may affect an editor. I think we need the right to allege such biases in order to make progress in discussion - but I'm not saying these things are necessarily true, especially not in the traditional sense. The problem I see with Delicious carbuncle's edits you cite above, as with the recently-hatted comment by Tarc, is that some of these editors seem to be saying that homosexual-related topics are specifically unworthy of being covered in an encyclopedia. That's not the old-fashioned kind of homophobia, but it does mean that some editors are being told that their interests, in particular, are unimportant, and throughout these conflicts it has tended to be accompanied by various allegations that the editors who think otherwise are somehow violating Wikipedia's rules by trying to cover what interests them. My perspective is that if you come to us with sourced, relevant data we can find a place for it, and if we fail to do this, then we are saying that Wikipedia is for some editors and not others, for some readers and not others, and that is a bias we must not be willing to accept.

The "handbag" comments were certainly not Fae's finest hour, but the one with the "drama monger" seems directed at a more masculine editor for comic effect. Unfortunately AN/I, which should be a display of admins acting as paragons of civility, is crammed with comments more abusive than this. If ArbCom took action against every admin who had made such snipes, there wouldn't be many left. Wnt (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Michaeldsuarez

Proposed principles

Arbitration is a last resort

Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Last_resort:_Arbitration:

If [one has] taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, [one may] request arbitration. [One must be] prepared to show that [he or she] tried to resolve the dispute by other means. Arbitration differs from mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by arbitration, [one] will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing, as laid out in the arbitration policy. Note that arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while mediation is normally for disputes about article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just wondering why in particular you feel this needs a principle. In practice, whether or not we're at the "last step" of dispute resolution is a given for taking the case, and the grounds for accepting/declining a case are spelled out in the policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@David Fuchs: I feel that the community should've had a chance to handle the ED issue. The ED article wasn't an issue when the Arbitrators were deciding whether to accept the case or not. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Noting the relevance of several important exceptions to Arbitration as the last resort. Lord Roem (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Using Special:EmailUser will disclose one's Email address in the "From" field of the Email header

Wikipedia:Emailing_users#Privacy:

Sending an email via the Special:EmailUser system will disclose your email address for the purposes of a reply, but no other information will be provided by the system to the recipient. (Note that emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Departure in response to conflict

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/GoodBye:

It the height of a conflict, you will often see a participant dramatically exercise their RightToLeave with a goodbye message. This isn't simply a notice that the person is leaving before they slip away, it's a magnum opus of anger directed back at TheCollective. However, they are not going to leave. Even if their original intent was to leave in anger, it's not satisfying to go from such an emotional high to an immediate vacuum. Because we can lurk online, the person is going to come back to see the reaction of the community. It's just so tempting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Michaeldsuarez, given your unseemly (to put it mildly) role in this situation, what could possibly lead you to think that posting this type of proposal now is helpful? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Newyorkbrad: Fæ's former accounts (Ash, Speedo, Ticaro, and Era8) are an integral part of this case. Why should we ignore Ash's farewell messages when he clearly didn't intend to depart from Wikipedia in the first place? if Ash's wikibreak / farewell message wasn't a true message of departure, then what was it really? Perhaps you should pay more attention to what's being said than to who's saying it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Insincere departures

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/GoodBye:

Very often, a goodbye message is not an attempt to leave, but an attempt to draw all the attention upon oneself. In this way it is typically PassiveAggressive, as an intrinsically NonViolent act--the RightToLeave--is turned around to become a vehicle for violence. If it helps you think of it, the GoodBye message is seen as the author as a means to punish the rest of the community for failing him or her. As in, "Fine, I'll show you. I'm out of here."

The trouble with goodbye messages is they are often taken naively on face value by the community. In the case where the community actually does not want the person to leave because they like him or her, outpourings of messages will come to keep the person within the fold. However, this is merely acquiescing to the ultimatum the author has presented. "Love me or I am leaving." All ultimata must be called as it is unacceptable to use emotional extortion to get special treatment, thus this strategy ultimately fails as the community will end up eating humble pie when they have to live with the person whom they were fighting with. It's hard to go back and disagree with them again (as the original dispute has not been settled) after you just exclaimed your undying admiration. Thus they gain shortcut privileges as a VestedContributor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[44], [45], [46]. In addition, Ash didn't really leave: [47], [48], #F.C3.A6_has_used_multiple_accounts.2C_not_all_declared. The Ash account also continued to make revisions for several days after the final revision to User_talk:Ash/pause: Special:Contributions/Ash. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Responding to insincere departures

http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/GoodBye:

First, NameTheConflict so others in TheCollective who do not know what is going on can at least read this to understand the emotional state of the situation before they do something stupid. At no point should the community bend to the ultimatum, for that is what it is. You should be careful though as MentioningPatterns is insincere, so you will have to actually transcend your own AngryCloud and work to be incredibly sincere and open, more so than what is written here.

First acknowledge the situation to make sure the author does not feel in a vacuum. Relate to them what you think you did to cause his or her departure. Make it clear that you are open to continuing the discussion later when the person feels up to it. Be deeply sincere in that statement.

Do not gang up with "Ok, bye!" smarminess. That only closes the CommunicationChannels. While at the moment you feel really glad that you might have "won" in the conflict, you haven't won, and in fact you are about to lose big time. Keep dialogue open.

However, don't give the false emotional validation the person wants. Remember, sincerity is important. If the author wants to extort us emotionally, he or she is acting out of line; he or she was likely already out of line beforehand which led to this escalated situation. Instead, hold your ground. It's important to only respond to mature dialogue, to BarnRaising, and to ignore everything else. After all, it cannot hurt you if you don't accept it, so don't worry about it. Don't let it get to you. This is the churn of life. Maintain your own keel. It's up to the author to maintain his or hers. The best you can do is avoid making the situation worse whilst being willing to improve it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Remote from the key issues in the case at this point, and unseemly as a proposal by this editor, of all people, given his appalling role in escalating the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The comments on User_talk:Ash display how Ash's departure shouldn't had been handled. Instead of allowing Ash to come to terms with what others were saying, some users decided to nurture Ash's feelings and behavior. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=498343115&oldid=498341240. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The dispute regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Fæ hasn't been discussed outside of Arbitration

Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Fæ and its creation is a new dispute that has not yet been discussed outside the request for Arbitration. Avenues for dispute resolution outside of Arbitration have not been exhausted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's linked to this situation, and thus when we look at the behavior of all parties, it's part of what I'm reviewing. SirFozzie (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I see what you're saying, but I feel that this is form over substance. If an issue, like the harassment of Fae, is inextricably intertwined with the subject of the case, Fae's conduct, then both should be resolved together, if efficiently possible. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disputes regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica's content have typically been discussed outside of Arbitration prior to Arbitration

Disputes regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica's content have typically been discussed outside of Arbitration on talk pages and noticeboards prior to a request for Arbitration. In some cases, disputes over Encyclopedia Dramatica's content have been resolved outside of Arbitration such as on noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Examples:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Improper_off-wiki_conduct_by_User:Alison_on_Encyclopedia_Dramatica
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive704#Making_ED.ch_pages_on_user_after_article_dispute

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking over these two examples, I notice that in the first case, where the user was blocked, it could be perceived that what she did wrong was not the simple fact of her posting to Encyclopedia Dramatica, but rather, that her postings were evidence that confidential information was being leaked. In other words, looking at that discussion, it appears that even if the E.D. account were completely anonymous, the mere observation that checkuser data was turning up, anywhere and anyhow, after she'd accessed it, would be sufficient reason for administrative action. Whereas in the second case, action was not taken.

It does seem wrong that you apparently feel compelled to defend yourself in this situation, when so far, there has been no indication that you were ever on trial. It would seem fair to me that if your actions regarding Fae were to be discussed, that first you should be brought in as a party, and the consideration of whether other steps should be taken prior to bringing you in as a party would apply at that point. There are several other users mentioned in the Evidence section who would seem more deserving of being brought in to the case as parties, because their interactions occurred more on-wiki. That said, when you combine interactions with Fae in on-wiki processes and off-wiki on ED, that starts to approach the standard I suggested above for when such off-wiki processes become relevant evidence. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I don't know what you are reading in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Improper_off-wiki_conduct_by_User:Alison_on_Encyclopedia_Dramatica but perhaps you might try again. The complainant in this case was African Violin. African Violin was "outed" as a sock of Grawp and there was no evidence at all that Alison had misused either oversight or checkuser information anywhere on or off WP. In her own words: "Still, if there has been any publication of privacy or checkuser-related information over there, someone will surely provide diffs .... right? - Alison ❤ 18:08, 19 October 2008". There were no diffs provided. It was African Violin who was blocked ("Not only that, but it's African Violin's last contribution. Blocked as trolling-only account. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008") and not Alison. The whole episode was extreme trolling. As nothing you have reported about the "facts" of the matter are upheld by the link, your conclusions are, well, suspect, to say the least. I can't even see why Michaeldsuarez would use it as an example, being instigated by a known troll for his own purposes, having little discussion about "off-wiki" behaviour, and none to Alison's discredit. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right I misinterpreted this link while being overly hasty to look for a way to make a policy distinction. (Which remains a distinction I would make, in a theoretical case) Wnt (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=dramatica+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard – I only used it as an example since it appeared in the first few pages of the search results. I wasn't glorifying the trolling attempt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I no longer believe that this finding has enough evidence to back it. I don't have confidence in it any longer. I'm ceasing my support of it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Using Special:EmailUser disclosed Ash's Email address to Delicious carbuncle

Ash disclosed his Email address to Delicious carbuncle when he used Special:EmailUser.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The information disclosed in the "From" field was what lead Delicious carbuncle to the WHOIS information

The information disclosed in the "From" field (Ash <ash@****.org>) is what led Delicious carbuncle to the WHOIS information for ****.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The information outside of the "From" field was irrelevant to Delicious carbuncle's argument

As the information in the "From" field of the Email was all Delicious carbuncle needed to prove his or her point, the rest of the Email (the Email's contents and the rest of the Email header fields) was irrelevant to the point that he or she was trying to advance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It appears exceedingly pointy to include my legal surname five times in this section. I do not use this name on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What was my point? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the proper reply would be "Why don't you tell me?" but I'll explain anyway. Let me break it down:

1. Wikipedia's Ash = ash@****.org
2. ****.org = domain registered by Ashley Van Haeften
3. Therefore, ash@****.org = Ashley Van Haeften
4. Thus, Wikipedia's Ash = Ashley Van Haeften.

Is that inaccurate? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's own words: "[F]or anyone who still doubted the connection between Van Haeften and Ash, this should put any doubts you have to rest." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that argument—as currently stated—is certainly fallacious, since 3 doesn't at all follow from 1 and 2 alone, not even as a remotely probable convincing inductive inference—as Delicious carbuncle himself has already pointed out. While I think your statement might still be true, I believe it would be preferable to revise it slightly so it doesn't rely on making any assumptions about what Delicious carbuncle's point might have been. It does seem to me that whatever evidentiary value the email had for establishing that Ash and Fæ are accounts belonging to the same person, it was completely contained in the email's "From" header and the WHOIS records for the domain name. The strength of the evidence, however, relies crucially on two other facts which are missing from your four steps above—namely, that:

1. besides having the name Ashley Van Haeften, the admin and registrant of the domain had an email address teahot@.....
2. before Ash's account name was changed, he had been editing under the account named "Teahot".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, "not even remotely probable" is probably an exaggeration. There are some suggestive coincidences between items 1 and 2 and other established facts, but as far as I can see "suggestive" is about all they amount to.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle breached the confidence that Ash placed in him or her

By publishing the Email, Delicious carbuncle breached the confidence that Ash placed in him or her.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information to post Fae's email address on-wiki, but I don't think it rises to the level of breach of confidence. That would imply a unique duty that Ash could create in Delicious, without Delicious' consent. Merely stating that Delicious violated a policy would seem more straightforward. That would, of course, require proof that Delicious posted it on-wiki. Posting it off-wiki would not violate a policy, but could be taken into account as an aggravating factor in reviewing Delicious' behavior and, in the extreme, be part of the foundation of a site ban. MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What "confidence" was that? Why would Fæ expect that I would keep our correspondence private without any prior agreement to do so? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Emailpagetext – "Unless the matter is confidential, it is usually better to leave a message on the user's talk page." Corollary: "If the matter is confidential, it is usually better to use Email than the talk page." The Special:EmailUser interface message implied that it would've been confidential. MediaWiki:Emailpagetext should be modified to include a warning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Although advising someone not to leave confidential information on a user's page where it may be read by anyone may be helpful, it does not mean that anything sent using the email is therefore confidential. This is nothing more or less than an interface that allows users to email one another without having to explicitly know the user's email address. The dangers and caveats of general email use still apply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess Ash's faith in you was misplaced. Perhaps he should've known better than to send Emails to a Wikipedia Review user. This now appears to be an unfortunate case of naivety. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright then: #Delicious_carbuncle_was_not_obligated_to_keep_Emails_sent_to_him_confidential. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

28bytes already admonished Delicious carbuncle for leaking the Email

28bytes already admonished Delicious carbuncle for publishing the "Speculation" Email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Delicious carbuncle was already admonished, and as far as I'm aware, Delicious carbuncle hasn't published any more Emails. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

28bytes's closure of the AN/I discussion was contested

Delicious carbuncle, Scott MacDonald, and Begoon contested 28bytes's closure of the AN/I discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since the incident concerning the publication of the "Speculation" Email continues to be brought up, it needs a final resolution; thus, the remedies proposed below. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle acknowledged that publishing the telephone number and address as being a mistake

Delicious carbuncle acknowledged that publishing Fæ's telegraph number and address as displayed in a cached version of a WHOIS record was a mistake ("I should not have done that.").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The publication of the address and telephone information in the WHOIS record was an oversight on my part. Although it was publicly available information at that time, it was not necessary to include it in my posting. I would have redacted that information had I thought of it, but I did not. It was removed very soon after my a mod on WR, with my complete agreement. The thread was later moved to a private area of WR at my request, not because of the WHOIS information, but to reduce the potential that speculation in that thread might lead to other embarrassing online accounts controlled by Fæ. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle was not obligated to keep Emails sent to him confidential

Delicious carbuncle was not obligated to never publicly disclose Emails outside of Wikimedia websites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Harassment#Private_correspondence doesn't mention anything about posting messages on websites outside of Wikimedia's control. meta:Privacy_policy and meta:Terms_of_use don't forbid disclosing Emails outside of Wikimedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have always been told that there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to emails. Emails that an individual composes may be copyrighted, but they are not otherwise protected information. Wikipedia has a rule against publishing email contents on-wiki, but not off-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would be willing to "cross the aisle" here to support this principle, provided the right decisions are made on related topics. As I've explained in my own section, WP:OUTING places its defensive wall at "opposition research", rather than demanding total secrecy - so it should be possible to allow editors to divulge confidences of unsolicited Wikipedia e-mails on other sites without allowing private eye tactics to dominate how we evaluate our editors and admins. Even though it absolutely worries me to have editors' privacy be invaded anywhere, my tentative belief is that if we can properly "WP:DENY" the relevance of such activities here, their extent will be curtailed more than if we attempted to use policy to punish any editor involved we could identify. (Though neither is very effective) But in order for WP:OUTING to mean anything, there must be a wall somewhere, here or there. I also feel that just as Fae cannot impose a duty on Delicious carbuncle to keep a confidence, so Delicious carbuncle cannot impose a duty on Fae to discuss matters heFae finds personal or unpleasant, provided those matters do not concern hisFae's administrative actions toward other users (who are indeed entitled to explanation). Wnt (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  "[…] so Delicious carbuncle cannot impose a duty on Fae to discuss matters he finds personal or unpleasant." – Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? What does Delicious carbuncle find "personal or unpleasant"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wnt, what does this, taken from your preceding comment dated 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC), mean:

I would be willing to "cross the aisle" here to support this principle, provided the right decisions are made on related topics?

With whom are you bargaining and what are "the right decisions"? Bielle (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to distract from the principle here - I think we all see that there's some considerable polarization of attitudes surrounding Fae, and I think this principle could be a spot of common ground. I'd hoped my text above had explained the right decisions... To put what I said another way, I think that editors should have the right to be evaluated based on their "performance at work", i.e. on their current Wikipedia account, rather than on a broad net seeking to judge all their past and outside activities, and to choose when and how to contribute and not to contribute. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Accounts don't make bad edits; people using accounts make bad edits. A person does not get to escape culpability for actions done under other usernames by rebranding himself. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So there's no "clean start", it's just a delusion? Admittedly those changes made recently to WP:CLEANSTART, whose validity I oppose, would vitiate much of the policy. Wikipedia is not improved by a model where it pays to track down editors and riddle out their identities in order to lay the way for sanctions against them, where people who have done good work for us before, but ever got into a dispute with anybody, are worse off than brand new kids logging in for the first time. You are laying out a blueprint for a Wikipedia where good faith contributors have to remain absolutely anonymous as a matter of personal protection; but that is a Wikipedia far more vulnerable to vandalism, "sock puppetry", or any other disruption, because good editors need to take the same precautions as bad ones. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

gomi removed the address and phone number from Delicious carbuncle's post

Wikipedia Review moderator gomi removed the address and home number from Delicious carbuncle's post a hour after Delicious carbuncle published the information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Who's gomi? (Guessing someone at WR?) This needs context. Guettarda (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, gomi was a staff member at WR at the time, and edited the post to redact the contact info about an hour after the original posting. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle asked a moderator to move the "Ash's email to me" thread to be moved to a subforum that was not indexed by search engines

Delicious carbuncle asked a moderator to move the "Ash's email to me" thread to be moved to a subforum that was not indexed by search engines.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

gomi complied with Delicious carbuncle's request

gomi moved the "Ash's email to me" thread to be moved to a subforum that was not indexed by search engines due to a request by Delicious carbuncle.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Delicious carbuncle only suggested moving the "Ash's email to me" thread back to a publicly viewable area after Fæ removed sensitive information from the Internet

Delicious carbuncle only suggested moving the "Ash's email to me" thread back to a publicly viewable area after Fæ removed sensitive information from the Internet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#.22Ash.27s_email_to_me.22 – I feel that after Fæ removed sensitive information from the Internet and since the "Ash's email to me" thread already had the address and phone number removed, Delicious carbuncle must've assumed that the thread couldn't do any more harm to Fæ beyond exposing Fæ as the operator of the Ash account and disclosing an Email that DC wasn't obligated to keep confidential. I feel that DC believed that he or she was acting responsibly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

tarantino discovered Ash's identity from Ash's own Wikipedia uploads

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28643&st=20&p=222797&mode=linear#entry222797 – On February 22, 2010, tarantino discovered Ash's identity from an image (File:C_Ashley_cropped.jpg) that Ash uploaded onto Wikipedia. During the upload, Ash disclosed personal details: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AC_Ashley_cropped.jpg.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Admonish Delicious carbuncle for publishing the entire "Speculation" Email

Publishing the entire "Speculation" Email was not essential to the argument that Delicious carbuncle was trying to advance, and it breached the confidence that Ash placed in Delicious carbuncle. Delicious carbuncle is to be admonished for his or her transgression.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's no set policy as to the status of publishing emails sent to one's email. It can be argued that one retains copyright to their work, so to speak, and thus, such emails should not be published without the emailers acquiescence. However, fairuse allows one to say "This is a summary of what I received from User:X" SirFozzie (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Update: I don't support this remedy any longer. Although I don't approve of the Email's disclosure, Delicious carbuncle hadn't done anything wrong; he or she didn't break any policies. Delicious carbuncle wasn't obligated to keep the Email confidential. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I should disclose here that when I learned of the outing incident I started a thread on AN/I (archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal) in which I proposed a community ban or block. In asking for this penalty I took into account three exacerbating factors: the wilful nature of the violation (the information was obtained by breaching the confidence of Fae's private email); the wilful timing of it (it was carried out on the same day as Fae received a real-world threat, which DC knew about) and the recklessness involved (DC stated on WR: "I reject any suggestion that simply being gay in 2012 England puts [Fae] or his husband at risk", which is - sadly - false and was not his place to judge anyway). All of those circumstances together made me consider it to be the most serious and potentially dangerous violation of a Wikipedian's privacy that I've ever seen. My judgement of the situation hasn't changed since the AN/I thread. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My transgression of what? The unwise assumption that emails sent to someone will remain private? I did not publish the contents of the email on Wikipedia, nor would I have, since it is a violation of the rules here. The contents of the email are rather unremarkable - they can be summarized as Ash asking me not to ask further about the "threats" he referred to at that time on-wiki and a statement that he did not believe that I was involved with those threats (whatever they may have been). Michaeldsuarez is speculating about the reasons for my action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=497146408&oldid=497145916 – I'm not speculating. All you had to say was: "In 2010, Ash contacted me from ash@****.org. Here's what I learned about ****.org." You didn't need to publish the entire Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

1) Comments by Arbitrators in appointment discussions (such as RfAs) can often be (mis-)taken as representing the committee as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally, if we're speaking FOR THE COMMITTEE, we'll put those words in. If you don't, and unless you see other evidence to the contrary, we are speaking as individuals. SirFozzie (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think John Vandenberg made it clear he was *not* speaking for the Committee at Fae's RFA. Many arbitrators, past and present, have been active participants at RFA, without anyone suggesting that their opinions are those of the Committee; I don't think they are "often (mis-)taken" at all. Risker (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In a general sense I suspect this is quite possible - if a judge says something while on the golf course clad in plus fours and Fred Perry shirt, one would generally guess that he is not speaking in his formal role as part of the justice system. Given that on Wikipedia there is only typed script, one is dependent on readers realising that if it doesn't say "for the committee", it probably isn't on behalf of the committee, and there is more scope for misinterpretation, particularly where the committee has been involved at some point. While some folks may attempt to extract leverage on this, the possibility for genuine misunderstanding on the part of others cannot be excluded. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This appears to be a recurring problem. I agree such a finding would be a positive step. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@SiFozzie and Risker: I think the line of reasoning some people follow is: Person told an Arb something; Arbs all talk to each other about everything; the Arb told the other Arbs about Person; no Arbs screamed "bloody murder" in public; it can't be too bad if none of them screamed about it. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This has come up more than once. In the case of Fae's RFA, John V. should have made it clear that his opinion was informed by private discussion with Fae, rather than a result of a discussion among the members of the committee. (I have great respect for John, but I think he handled this badly.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You might have a point, but please cite the diff(s). Wnt (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, that may be helpful for this conversation, earlier last month the Committee confirmed this principle (described by SirFozzie above) in its decision in the R&I review. Lord Roem (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that makes things a bit harder to follow (presumably not everyone participating in an RFA will have read every AC decision). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 08:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie and Risker: Although I don't feel strongly one way or the other as to whether something like this needs to be in the decision, I'd encourage you, and the rest of the Committee, to ponder carefully what MBisanz said above. I'd word it a bit differently than he did, though. What I, and I think many other participants in the RfA, thought was that, first, John V confirmed that the entire Committee had received the message from Fae prior to the RfA, and, second, neither John V as an individual nor anyone else on the Committee saw reason to state at the RfA that the previous account might be a reason for the community to have concerns. That was the atmosphere in which the RfA took place. I'm not saying that those Arbitrators who said nothing at the RfA should somehow be held at fault for not coming forward; that's not reasonable. But I am saying that the one Arbitrator who did, had some responsibility, even speaking as an individual who had access to information not available to the rest of the editing community, to take into account what the community as a whole would expect of his statement that there were no concerns. And, in this context, it will be rather difficult for the Committee to argue now that Fae is at fault in this particular instance, when Fae apparently gave the Committee a fair opportunity to weigh in at the time. In other words, I don't think that any Arbitrators who did nothing at the time of the RfA were wrong to have been silent, but those who were silent then will look like hypocrites now if you blame Fae for not disclosing Ash specifically at the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sir Fozzie and Risker: just to echo MBisanz's statement above: when an AC member comments on something based upon information supplied to the committee as a matter of policy, the assumption is far more likely to be made (particularly by those less aware of how the committee works). This seems to me to be a rather narrow focus, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to point it out explicitly when making statements on an RFA regarding cleanstarts. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 08:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2) Arbitrators and others with access to "official" information regarding a cleanstart should be open and forthcoming about the existence of any issues that call its validity into doubt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I tend to agree here, it wasn't a formal restriction, but if it was important enough that he would have made such statements to John V, he should have disclosed it in the RfAdmin etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a reasonable view. MBisanz ^talk 03:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

John V. should have disclosed Fae's agreement (informal as it was) "not to engage in the behavior that had previously come under scrutiny in an RFC/U directed at his previous account". He didn't necessarily need to go into detail, but he should have disclosed his reasoning in this case because of the "iffyness" involved in the way the old RfC was closed and its bearing on the cleanstart. (Again, I have great respect for John, but I think he handled this badly.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

3) WP:BADSITES failed to become a policy. When attempts are made to revive this policy, this will naturally draw the attention of people involved in the site(s) in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This should be fairly obvious, but worth noting nevertheless. Fae and at least one of the people arguing on his behalf have offered WP:DENY as a rationale for his not responding to the recent RFC/U, while on the other he has relentlessly pursued sanctions, censure, and censoring of the same people, as well as people in any way affiliated with them. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES sort of resembles WP:Linking to external harassment, minus the mumble. Could you point us to where discussion of WP:BADSITES drew editors into the Fae discussion, rather than the other way round? Wnt (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If a backdoor to BADSITES is to become policy, is it not reasonable to inquire whether Commons xfD is included? Carrite (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

4) Avoiding accountability is incompatible with holding a position of trust

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Fae has resisted community efforts to ensure accountability on his part

1) Fae has consistently avoided community efforts to hold him accountable for his actions, through changing accounts, disparaging the character and/or motives of those seeking accountability, and encouraging proxies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I consider this comment to be a recent example of "encouraging proxies". --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae has not engaged with community members during this Arbcom case

2) Fae's only comments to date on either the Evidence page[49] or on this Workshop page [50] have been in response to arbitrators (or more specifically, to Sir Fozzie). He has not commented at all on evidence, principles, FoFs, or remedies offered by "regular" community members.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was wondering if there was an appropriate way to state this. Thanks for reading my mind. MBisanz ^talk 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this is important to bear in mind, because it makes it clear that this is not just a "historical" issue, and so adds weight and relevance to the pattern. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies

Fae topic banned

1) Fae is topic banned from pages, talk pages, and project pages dealing with human sexuality and gender politics, broadly defined.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose, per what I've stated earlier in response to Tryptofish's proposal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a ban against half the encyclopaedia. The sad case quoted below about alleged cyber-bullying and suicide of Clementi is not a human sexuality or gender politics article. In practice, the article shows how I avoided problems by walking away from the article, initially for 6 months, rather than continuing to get dragged into what I saw as fruitless debate that did not benefit the article content. Anyone interested should consider User talk:Fæ/2012#Your comment regarding "homophobic" which appears part of a pattern of tendentious argument, the only outcome was that after considering returning to help with the article improvement after reading about the legal case, I instead took the article off my watchlist and have avoided interacting with LedRush anywhere else. --Fæ (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as a stronger alternative to Tryptofish's proposal below. Fae's strong feelings on these topics and his tendency to get wrapped up in escalating conflicts over the issue have proven to be an explosive mixture. Exceptions should probably be made where the topics directly relate to his work with GLAM and other outreach projects. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I oppose this as being too strong. For example, Fae has largely been a constructive presence at Suicide of Tyler Clementi. This goes too far. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, Fae's largest contribution to the Suicide of Tyler Clementi in the last (approximately) 9 months was to accuse me of tolerating accusations of homophobia on the talk page without foundation, and then refusing to retract the statement. Please see the LedRush evidence section for full details. His accusation was the turning point from when everyone was generally pleased with the editing atmosphere to a time of a couple of months of a truly toxic environment. Of course, it is debatable that Fae was the sole catalyst for the deterioration, but his actions certainly contributed to what became a very, very bad environment. His interaction on that article are proof positive that any topic ban should be construed broadly to cover areas and article on which he has already demonstrated serious issues.LedRush (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to tread very carefully in what I am about to say here. What happened to LedRush there was unfair to LedRush. Fae's accusation against LedRush was wrong. And although LedRush and I have had some significant disagreements, we have worked them out amicably, and I want to emphasize very clearly that I want our interactions to remain amicable. However, I have to point out that LedRush took some positions in those discussions that could have been misconstrued as unsympathetic to GLBT persons. Fae was wrong, but it was mistake that other people could also have made if they were a little careless in reading all the discussion. LedRush was also rather, well, insistent, which was why Fae had backed off from editing the page. And LedRush's repeated efforts at WP:WQA to seek Fae's apology were generally seen by uninvolved editors as prolonging the problem. That doesn't justify Fae's comments to LedRush, but it muddies the issue enough to make the argument that a topic ban should extend this far a flawed argument. In fact, Fae made very helpful contributions to that page in the time period before LedRush started editing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad Tryptofish is attempting to stay even-handed with his comments, and I appreciate that. However, Tryptofish is incorrect that I took any position that could have been construed as unsympathetic to LGBT persons, (or, at least, Fae has not made this accusation about me). Fae's accusations about me stemmed from the following: I believed that another editor called me "biased". This editor construed the word "bias" to mean "biased against LGBT" (saying "Well, when you said that you felt that I was accusing you of bias, I took "bias" to mean homophobia") and stated that he never called me homophobic. I agreed with him: he never called me homophobic. This other editor and I worked through this misunderstanding. However, Fae came into the conversation after it was over and made his accusation against me regarding the use of the term homophobia. It is true that although everyone on the WQA who commented on it agreed that Fae was wrong, a couple of editors also believed I should just let it drop. With such a sensitive subject, I felt it important to get a retraction or strikethrough from Fae, which he has, to this day, refused to give.

None of this changes what I said above: Fae's biggest influence over the past 9 months on the Clementi article was to make an accusation regarding homophobia that he never substantiated and that he never recognized were an issue. That article is a prime example of why any topic ban should be broad enough to cover issues and articles about which he has caused problems in the past.LedRush (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Fae's response here [51] demonstrates why a broad topic ban is necessary. Even though the editors at the Clementi article and the editors at the WP:WQA agreed that Fae's accusation was wrong, even though the editor arguing against Fae's topic ban here thinks that what Fae did was wrong, Fae refuses to accept any responsibility or show any understanding that he did anything wrong. In fact, he seems to think that his actions were good and that me being hurt by his unfounded accusation is somehow a "tendentious argument".LedRush (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with the editing history at the Clementi page, and what Fae says above is entirely congruent with my own observations. Fae made good content contributions to the page in its early days, and it is true that in large part Fae simply withdrew from the page once differences with LedRush emerged, except for the one unfortunate conflict in my evidence and LedRush's evidence. I keep finding that discussions on this matter make me feel like I'm in a perpetual state of facepalm. Please see the comment LedRush just made at my talk [52], and my reply to it [53]. You can read what I wrote above. LedRush took it as me saying that I think he has been insensitive to LGBT people. No. LedRush argued against content that reflected what many LBGT people and their sympathizers were saying in the media, because LedRush was concerned about BLP issues about the person on trial following the suicide. Just as LedRush jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that he was insensitive, it was not entirely unreasonable for Fae to jump to the conclusion that LedRush was criticizing the perspectives of the LGBT community. Jumping to conclusions did a lot to bring us to this arbitration case. Jumping to conclusions is a bad way to determine the scope of a topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not jump to any conclusions saying that Tryptofish said I was being insensitive to certain positions. I clearly stated that "I think you can make your point (that Fae is a positive contributor on the Clementi article) without trying to paint me as arguably insensitive to LGBT issues or people." (emphasis added). This is the essence of Tryptofish's point (he said "I have to point out that LedRush took some positions in those discussions that could have been misconstrued as unsympathetic to GLBT persons.") My point is that I did not take any positions that a reasonable person would misconstrue as being unsympathetic to LGBT persons and that I am hurt that Tryptofish is making this unnecessary argument here.

Finally, even if we accept Tryptofish's premise, it still leaves Fae as someone who misconstrue's others' posts, makes extraordinary claims about them, and then refuses to make any corrective action or admit any fault.LedRush (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This pretty much re-runs how the incident in question started. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fae: half of the encyclopedia does not involve human sexuality. If you really think that, it's a problem. If you're just being intentionally hyperbolic, that's a problem too.

@Tryptofish: I think it's pretty clear that these topic areas push Fae's buttons, and that he tends to get a bit over the top when those buttons are pushed. Avoiding those topics, even just for a short while, would probably be a good idea if the goal is not to end up back here again.

@Michaeldsuarez: Fae's editing and admin tool use was never the problem from what I see. The talk page/dramaboard/etc. stuff was the issue. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@SB Johnny: I think it's a little bit simplistic to equate Fae's statement about half of the project with a mathematical value; it was a point about the proposal being too broad, and not objectionably hyperbolic in context. And I think it paints with too broad a brush to frame this in terms of pushing his buttons, simply because the discussion here might push his buttons. I think we can see a lot of pushed buttons, belonging to a lot of different users, in this thread of the discussion. What I'm making the case for here is for the Arbs to make a decision that is separate from the emotions that keep intruding in the debate. On objective, dispassionate, evidence, we've spilled a lot of pixels over one interaction between Fae and another user, in which it was a two-way street, on a page where Fae has otherwise been a positive contributor. My own proposal, below, gets it right, even though it has drawn some complaints that even it is too strict. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a gross mis-statement of the facts. There was no "two-way street". Fae misconstrued a conversation, made extra-ordinary claims about me which everyone recognizes as false, made insufficient attempts at dispute resolution and, to this day, refuses to admit that he played any part in this. A more perfect example of why the ban needs to be made as proposed here could never be found.LedRush (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the street had two lanes of unequal width. Or perhaps you are making the case that the interaction bans should also include you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No and no. I am only saying what I said, not what others misconstrue, misread or misrepresent.LedRush (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion: I can see that the issues that differentiate the proposal here by SB Johnny from the narrower topic ban that I proposed below continue to be a topic of discussion, and I've been trying to think of a way to find a middle ground that would also be fair. As far as I can tell, my proposal below covers those pages where there has been evidence of disputed content editing by Fae, whereas the proposal here adds those pages where there have been disputes only in talk, principally related to Fae claiming homophobic intent by other editors, and the other editors objecting to that. My thinking is that a broader topic ban, as proposed here, goes too broadly to prevent only talk page disputes. Perhaps a "Fae is cautioned" type of remedy, with a caution against making unsubstantiated accusations of homophobic or other bias, would be a better choice than a broader topic ban. ArbCom has frequently issued such "cautioned" remedies in the past, with the effect that sanctions are issued much more quickly if the cautions are ignored. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate, as always, your efforts to find common ground. The issue I have with your proposal is that Fae still hasn't even acknowledged that his behavior in this regard is an issue: he doesn't see an issue with the accusations he made, with his reluctance to engage in dispute resolution and with his lack of attention to community consensus regarding his actions. Without that, I feel a ban is necessary. If Fae demonstrated understanding of the issues I'm raising, I would agree to your proposal.LedRush (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae restricted to one account

2) Fae is restricted to using one account, must be logged into that account when editing, and must notify the committee if he decides to switch to a different account than "Fae".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, since evidence has been provided that he has used multiple accounts in an improper manner. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae must go through WP:RFA if and when he decides to retake the mop

3) Fae must go through WP:RFA if and when he decides to retake the mop

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My email yesterday (subject:"De-sysop self request") requesting immediate de-sysop to the Bureaucrats list, included the statement "Should I be nominated, and feel confident to do so at some future date, I will have a reconfirmation RFA rather than requesting the bit back without such a community process."

My proposal below includes the statement "[I] will not pursue RFA until after June 2013" and my intention in making that statement was to confirm that I would go through RFA should I ever feel confident enough to offer my support to the Wikipedia community in this way. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@SB_Johnny for reasons you are aware of, this case started when I was in an emotional state and was trying to avoid making decisions. I accept your point and agree that I am still not in a good place to judge how I confident or not I might feel in the future or to assess what the community view might be at that time. Fæ (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fae: I don't think any arbitrary time period needs to pass. If you feel confident in community support for requesting the tools before then, I don't see any reason to wait out a "sentence period". --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 12:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that this should be explicitly specified, if nothing else in this overblown dramafest is an explicit result... Also agreed that no time penalty should be inserted. There should have been a quick re-do of a flawed RfA long ago, in my opinion. This whole mess can be traced back to that failure. Carrite (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

{In progress, incomplete)

Proposed principles

Self-disclosure

1) When editors have freely disclosed their identities and other self-descriptive information on-wiki and allowed that information to stand openly for extended periods of time, they may not subsequently declare or treat those disclosures as inoperative, and they have no legitimate objection to references to those disclosures, when relevant, in discussions on- or off-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hasn't this come up before in a previous case? Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Identity

1) Ashley van Haeften (AvH), currently the chair and a trustee of Wikimedia UK, has acknowledged editing Wikipedia under multiple accounts, including those of Ashleyvh, Teahot, Ash and Fæ. AvH also self-disclosed his identity as a gay male, a fact repeatedly mentioned in on- and off-wiki discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Everything up to the final sentence is true (And there apparently is other accounts as well, previously undisclosed). The final sentence is irrelevant to the case (only relevance is that people have made unacceptable comments on-wiki and off-wiki based on it). SirFozzie (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't identify editors by real-world name as opposed to username in arbitration decisions, and I don't see this as a time to start. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yes I'm gay and explained my long term work with cultural archives during the Wikimedia UK elections, a background considered a potential benefit to open knowledge projects. Being in a Civil Partnership is a public act, there is no choice but to be "open". I doubt that many people that read this case think that my being openly gay makes it okay for Wikipedia contributors to use off-wiki websites as a shield to abusively speculate about my sex life. By the way, it is more accurate to say I am a gay man, not a "gay male". Apart from being pointy, I am unclear what the benefit of using my full legal name or initials in this section is, this case is about my Wikipedia account, not my legal identity. --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe the evidence supports this. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to comment on someone's sex life or sexual orientation? Has the arbcomm ever commented on someone's sex life in an FOF? Guettarda (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Among the prominent issues in the case are the claims of disclosure of personal information and of bias. The claims might well be analyzed and viewed differently if the information about his sexuality has been disclosed offsite by third parties rather than onsite by the person himself. Note that the statement is carefully phrased to pivot on what he has disclosed, not the personal information itself. His sexual orientation is not an issue, but what has been said about it is an issue. "AvH also self-disclosed his sexual orientation, and that orientation has been repeatedly mentioned in on- and off-wiki discussions" is certainly an acceptable formulation, but I do not think it addresses the relevant issues quite so clearly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of mentioning the actual factual details either. Deryck C. 08:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Peter cohen

{In progress, incomplete)

Proposed principles

Contexts beyond Wikipedia

1) Policies and Guidelines as drafted often fail to take into account specifically the fact that users may sometimes comment on or interact each other in capacities other than that of editing Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd say rather that Wikipedia largely tries to take a "don't bring it into the office" approach. Where off-site relationships or activities become an issue, it does have policies - on partners proxying for each other, on legal threats, on offsite harrassment etc. And of course if they spill over onto the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedians can be each others' partners, ex-partners, friends, neighbours, enemies, bosses, employees, colleagues etc. Also a number of Wikipedians are in the public eye and either notable in themselves or feature in events of public concern.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Often fail to" - are they even meant to "succeed"? Deryck C. 08:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Custom and practice with regard to non-Wikipedia contexts

2) If someone is being commented on with respect to features that go beyond their being Wikipedia editors, then it is custom and practice not to take action against users for those non-Wikipedia contexts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, I'd say that the normal approach is "don't bring it to work", and only if that is not possible - as for example where editors are being stalked in real life, or one editor is suing another - is action taken. Or, obviously, where it spills onto the project. Which from experience, it usually does. People generally can't compartmentalise themselves that way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Famous Wikipedians include the likes of Peter Hitchens and Richard Dawkins both of whom are known to be quite outspoken at times. If a Wikipedian used a blog to attack either of those for what they published outside Wikipedia, then it would be ludicrous to take the Wikipedian to AN/I or Arbcom for what they wrote. Similarly, if someone used a blog to attack their ex-partner, or if a manager started disciplinary action against an employee, then the fact that both parties happen to be Wikipedians does not mean that we should consider whether WP:NPA might have been violated. Similarly if two editors squabble on Commons or another language Wikipedia, then they are not taken to this Wikipedia's AN/I or Arbcom.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Collect

Proposed principles

Evidence not in original purview of case

1) The Arbitration Committee establishes the purview of a case at acceptance, and may or may not decide to extend it or reduce it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is fundamentally incorrect. SirFozzie (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing is fundamentally incorrect. Our job as arbs is to determine the cause of issues, and do what we can to resolve it. If we discover further issues that come up during the case, they can be folded into the case. SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I understand this to be a statement of simple fact about the concept of any case before the committee. Collect (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@SF -- in what way is it "fundamentally incorrect"? Looking over many cases, it appears to be quite precisely correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed finding of fact

Evidence has been provided beyond the purview of the case

1) Substantial evidence has been provided substantially beyond the purview of the case as accepted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on a incorrect premise. SirFozzie (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

Comment by others

I think this is a fair proposed finding. Collect (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@SF - I assume you mean that no purview of the case ever existed? Where the reasonable meaning is that some sort of limit as to case range existed, I would have thought this was a "no-brainer" - or is your position that no limits exist on any case accepted by ArbCom at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This evidence would substantially delay the resolving of this case

2) The substantial broadening of the case would result in a great deal more time and effort to resolve the original issues, as all the new issues and parties should be accorded the same time and notice as did the original issues and parties in order to fairly address them all.

Comment by Arbitrators

I have granted a small extension of evidence time to DC. I don't think any more delay will be necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the new parties requested "At least a day" of extra time. I extended it three times as much. Then we'll see if more is needed. SirFozzie (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Seems intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, I would think. Collect (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae had several weeks - how long do the "new entrants" have? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the stated rules in the past specifically allowed for seven days for any new party in a case. I suggest that three days is actually less than seven. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Remedy

1) The Committee recognizes the great deal of effort placed in providing the extended evidence, but feels that the reasonable desire to resolve the original case is of great import, and so, without prejudice to any subsequent case, regrets that it must restrict the evidence in the case as presented to the original case purview, and restrict its decisions and remedies to those associated with the original case purview.

Comment by Arbitrators

• No. The Committee will look at all behavior pertaining to the issue when we accept a case. SirFozzie (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties

Comment by others

Short of this sort of solid action, I can see this "case" becoming a marathon - especially since some of the "parties" recently added through "evidence" were not originally so named, and that they can not expect to have a full and fair discuaaion unless they have as much time as the original parties were granted. The committee can surely open a new case after this if it is warranted, but the vast amount of stuff now presented makes it highly unlikely that any clear resolution to the original case will be found. Collect (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@SF as you here appear to be speaking for the Committee in an official capacity, I think having other members weighing in would be fruitless? Well - I still would like to see a discussion about a decision which is clearly within the normal power of the committee be discussed openly. Fruitless or nay. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by SirFozzie

Proposed Principles

Administrator's conduct

1) Policy states: [while] administrators are not expected to be perfect... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting things up here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems an appropriate starting point. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment on edits, not editors (affiliations)

2) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack

Comment by Arbitrators:

As I stated in my case notes, too often we've seen.. "Well, "Nasty Persons X, Y, And Z" post at such and such a place, and so and so post there too, so obviously they're advancing the cause of banned users and thus should be ignored". This was even applied to users who had no real connection to the people mentioned. This ad hominem attempts to discredit one's opponents is a personal attack and needs to stop. SirFozzie (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@MastCell and AlanScotWalker: This is straight from the TG Ban appeal page, but I'll take your view under consideration. SirFozzie (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am fully behind the notion of comment on the edit not the editor, and feel that most conduct issues could be resolved if people did not personalize so much (both ways - making personal comments, and feeling that one has to defend against "slights"), so am supportive of this finding. I have a feeling though that there is a slight gap somewhere in the wording which is being picked up in the comments below. There is this notion that we have accounts for accountability, and so when there is a discussion on an issue, and User A comes in with what appears to be a reasonable neutral view, and then someone else comments that User A is speaking from a biased position because of their past views on the issue as evidenced in dif, dif, dif, then we do take User A's previous position into account which may inform how we now parse their current view. I'm unsure, though, on if and how much we should take previous views into account, as people can and do change their minds; also if someone is affiliated to an issue, they can still see flaws in that issue and speak against it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Do editors have any legitimate way to discuss whether others are involved in off-wiki WP:CANVASS violations? Wnt (talk) 10:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sharing news, insight, and opinions on a forum shouldn't be considered canvassing. Learning about a discussion or a problem shouldn't be considered canvassing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't write that policy. I would be willing to vote to delete it in its entirety, especially if ArbCom can't enforce it with regard to Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy. What I'm not willing to do is to allow a few groups of editors who go through the trouble to set up an off-wiki site to act as a political party in favor of destroying Commons, imposing censorship, ousting WMF officials and the like, while at the same time we have no right to organize a political party on-site in defense of our traditional open and academic perspective. Wnt (talk) 12:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What an extraordinary comment. I don't see you as having any less rights than anyone participating in these discussion forums. You may feel that you ought to have greater privileges, but that is not quite the same thing as having fewer. --JN466 15:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, to give some examples, without WP:CANVASSING it would be legitimate to go to the GLBT WikiProject and request assistance on interpreting the comments involved and instruction on combating homophobia, complete with some brief editorial comment. The Village Pump could be alerted more readily regarding some of the principles that have been proposed. Just basic things which, on those other sites, would indeed pass as a matter of course. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This needs to be tightened up to say what you actually mean. The point seems to be that mere participation at an external criticism site does not automatically invalidate one's on-wiki expressions of concern - so the finding should just say that. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with MC. As worded, this proposal gives free rein to COI editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. And as SirFozzie notes, it's straight from the TimidGuy ban appeal case - in which ArbCom gave free rein to COI editing. But hope springs eternal that this time the finding will be more carefully constructed to limit the collateral damage. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors (Real Life Info))

3) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others edits. Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks. When making accusations of bias, one must make sure to scrupulously adhere to Wikipedia's norms and policies, and not make unsupported claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

First off, I fully admit this is a jumble. I've been racking my brain on how to say this, so don't expect this wording in the PD. This is the flip side of the previous principle. Don't use personal information to discredit one's views. There may be VERY limited exceptions to this (for example, our CHILDPROTECT policy and WMF directives on such users means that necessarily we discount their views. However accusations that some one has some bias in a discussion tend to cause a breakdown in the collegial atmosphere needed to maintain and improve Wikipedia's articles. When you start throwing around "This person has a pro-X bias".. or "Don't listen to him, he has an obvious anti-X bias".. it doesn't really matter what X is. Be it nationality, religion, race, sexuality.. once these things get thrown around, the possibility of achieving a good result for all parties nose dives. (be it NPOV in our articles, or a successful resolution between parties in DR). I'm not saying you can't call out people who DO have a pro-X/Anti-x bias.. but if you're going to do that, make sure you have evidence to back it up. (For example, in this case, where someone said (paraphrase) "Are you here to advance your queer agenda?".. you can DEFINITELY call that out. But too often, people are seeing a pro or anti bias where there isn't one. So... any ideas on how to word this better? SirFozzie (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wnt, see the last part of the sentence "Make sure to scrupulously adhere to Wikipedia's normas and policies, and NOT MAKE UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS". This goes back to the extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence issue where if you're calling someone pro-X, or anti-X you'd better have evidence that THAT SPECIFIC PERSON is pro-X or anti-X. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the last sentence should be rephrased slightly to distinguish between suggesting that a paragraph in an article seems to be biased, which is a routine part of the editing process, and making a serious allegation about another editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the things I like about anonymous contributions is that we are not judging someone's contributions by if they are male, female, black, white, old, young, new world or old world, but purely on the contributions themselves. Having said that, there are concerns in the Foundation that there are not enough female, older, new world contributors, so there must be a sense that some of a contributor's personal traits are valued as enriching Wikipedia. Is it allowable to say that a young, white, male software designer living in middle America might not have much insight into the position of a grandmother working on a farm in rural China? Probably not, as that young man might have made a study of farm life in rural China. I think we can make incorrect assumptions about others from their affiliations and personal traits, though, perhaps, there should be some allowance for what can be expected in normal situations. On the whole, though, I think it is important to get all points of view in order to get the full picture. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Perhaps, "Ad hominem attempts to discredit others' views by making claims about their character, beliefs, philosophy, religion, affiliation, age, gender, political party, race, creed, nationality, and/or sexual preference are personal attacks." Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie: an interesting wording. An attempt to discredit someone's views based on race or sexual orientation might or might not be a personal attack - but anyone alleging such bias must make sure to scrupulously adhere not just to policy, but to "norms", however those are defined. It sounds like the risk is all on one side here. Cla68's version is better, if the text stops there, but still, it describes "making claims about" an editor's race etc., but it might be interpreted by some to exclude making claims about whether an editor is pursuing a "gay agenda". Wnt (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As with the immediately preceding finding, if you want to tackle this then you really need to clarify your thinking and wording. Otherwise you're going to cause major problems for those of us who actually have to deal, on occasion, with biased editing. In this case, it looks like you're trying to say: "Accusations of bias, particularly those based on race, creed, nationality, or sexual orientation, are serious matters and should not be made without clear and convincing evidence." MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

"Clear and convincing" is that better than "objectively reasonable"? And how will real healthy conversations about unrealized or even unspoken bias be affected? The problem with this one is the first sentence deals with characteristics of others and the second deals with "bias" claims and is too vague here. Perhaps because the bias claims being made are overbroad? Split these two and deal with overbroad claims in a different finding. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: Posts made on Wikipedia should not in any way be aimed at who the 'other editor' is surmised to be in any way, whether to establish bias or for any other reason, other than on noticeboards intended for such discussions or specifically permitting such discussions, but focus entirely on the content of the posts made by the 'other editor'. No link should be made on Wikipedia to any post made outside Wikipedia which does not meet this standard.

This would exempt the AN, AN/I, COI, SPI, ArbCom etc. venues where such discussions might reasonably be pertinent, and make clear that the use of outside venues (which clearly WP can not regulate well at all) simply should not be referred to or linked to when the content would be a violation if posted directly on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Collect's wording there sounds pretty reasonable. However, the status of user talk pages discussing noticeboard type issues should be clarified. Note that this should permit discussion anywhere of whether a specific post sounds homophobic. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with linking to particular posts on forums or pages on wikis is that the forum discussions will continue and possibly contain something that would not "meet this standard", and of course pages of wikis tend to change over time. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: changing "accusations of bias" to "accusations of bigotry or malice" would hit the nail a bit better. Everyone has a bias, at least in the hermeneutic sense. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the crux of the issue. SJ Johnny's wording implies that accusing a gay man of having a pro-gay bias, unduly focusing on a gay agenda, gay publications, non-notable gay persons and places, is merely "hermeneutic" - but a gay man who alleges a heterosexual man is unduly critical of a gay agenda, gay publications, non-notable gay persons and places, he is making an intolerable accusation of bigotry or malice. I hope that ArbCom can apprehend that such a double standard would be a great injustice to contributors. Wnt (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrators expectations with Dispute Resolution

4) Administrators are expected to make good-faith efforts to participate in dispute resolution when it comes to their conduct, be it with their administrative actions, or user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Basically, administrators are given the trust of the community and are expected to act in a way worthy of the trust the community has shown. This includes both the use of their administrative tools and their conduct. SirFozzie (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

All users should make an effort to address issues regarding their conduct. It is generally frowned upon for any user to ignore concerns, and if any user continues to ignore serious concerns they generally find themselves blocked. We are part of a community, and ignoring the concerns of others will generally aggravate the community. This is, of course, even more imperative for an admin. An admin who continually ignores legitimate concerns from the community disrupts and poisons the admin structure. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is how I've always understood things to work. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This should be expanded to "... and content disputes." Admins should be expected to participate in that DR too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to clarify this a bit, with respect to my earlier comment here: [54]. The expectation described here should not be limitless. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Findings

Background

1) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has used multiple accounts. His first account, Ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) retired in 2010 while a Request For Comment was active. They later took a Clean Start as User:Fæ. In March 2011, Fæ successfully applied for administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting up background. SirFozzie (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

When I looked into it what I noticed was that the Fae account was started before the Ash account was retired. It might be more accurate to say that the Fae account was started on 28 March 2010, the Ash account announced it was being closed on 1 April 2010, an RFC on the Ash account was started on 5 April 2010‎, and the Ash account ceased editing on 5 July 2010. The Ash account formally announced it was closing before the RfC had started, though it took a while to completely stop. It is of course a separate issue into why Ash/Fae felt he needed to do that. Was it to avoid scrutiny or to avoid harassment? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle. Perhaps you could help me. The comments that you link to were made on 1 April 2010, and the RfC on Ash you initiated on 5th April, though I note that you had started it slightly earlier in your userspace and Ash nominated it for deletion - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Delicious carbuncle/RFC, and that you earlier notified him that you would be opening a RfC. I also note that Ash had started drafting a RfC involving you, which you twice - [55] [56] nominated for deletion. My reading of the situation is that Ash set up a new account and announced his intention to close the Ash account before the RfC had been set up, but while he was aware that you were intending to set one up. At the time he closed the Ash account he didn't know what the community consensus would be, so he was either setting up the new account to avoid scrutiny or because he was stressed by what he perceived to be harassment from you. Or perhaps both. I understand that you had concerns about Ash's sourcing of BLP articles. Could you link me to how you had raised those concerns with Ash so I can get a sense of if his concerns about harassment were appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle. Thanks for that link. I will start to look into the history of your interactions with Fae/Ash. As regards Ash's feelings of harassment - he indicated that he felt harassed in a statement that is still on his user page: User:Ash. My point is that we have comments that Ash retired his account while a RfC into his conduct was active, with the implication that he was avoiding scrutiny; while Ash himself said he was closing his account due to harassment. What there is in common in this is that you were setting up a RfC into his conduct; and there was clearly some antagonism between you two because you each were preparing an RfC on each other, and you each nominated the other's fledging RfC for deletion. On the one hand there is the view that Ash was retiring his account to avoid the outcome of the RfC, on the other there is Ash's comment that he was retiring because of harassment. What I'm interested in is looking into the background of this to see how much if any harassment there was, and if Ash was justified in seeking that clean start; while at the same time looking into your allegations to see how true they are. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle. User:Ash/RfC Delicious carbuncle Your deletion nominations: [57] and [58]. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@SilkTork: Fæ, as User:Ash, may have announced on 1 April 2010 an intention to stop "editing articles", but posted statements that they were intending to be involved with the RFC/U.[59][60] Note that by the time the RFC/U was filed, User:Fæ had already had literally hundreds of edits. Note also that when I notified Ash of the filing of the RFC/U, he stated his intention to respond, but was unable to do so immediately because he was travelling due to a family emergency and may not have internet access.[61]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I believe that this discussion (also linked in my evidence) was my first interaction with Fæ. I am having trouble with your supposition that Ash/Fæ might have taken my attempt to resolve the issue using dispute resolution channels as harassment. Surely if he believed that I was harassing him, an RFC/U would be one way for him to get those concerns addressed in a forum which is publicly visible, encourages the participation of others not involved in the dispute, and uses a somewhat formalized process which reduces the need for him to interact with me directly. I encouraged him to follow dispute resolution processes if he had a genuine belief that I was harassing him. I only asked for his draft RFC to be deleted because he repeatedly failed to file it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: You have a couple of things wrong. Fæ/Ash was not preparing an RFC/U. I suggest that you read over Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ash/analysis (2nd nomination). This was nothing more or less than an attack page and was deleted as such. I had encouraged him to file an RFC/U literally for months, so that his allegations of harassment could be addressed, but not only he did he not do this, but he manufactured reasons for not doing so, despite having a "draft RFC/U". That Fæ/Ash "retired" his account during an RFC/U is fact, whether or not he felt harassed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: You will have to explain why you are posting links to my requests for deletion. I have referenced and even linked to the MfDs in our discussion, so I am aware of them. What are you trying to say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't believe the timeline here is correctly stated. The Fæ account was created on 28 March 2010 and began editing immediately. The RFC became active on 5 April 2010. The Ticaro account was created on March 27, but did not begin editing until April 2. Ash's ambiguously phrased "retirement notice" was not posted until April 1, and Ash was participating in the RFC/U and in deletion discussions until April 10. I don't believe the phrase "later took a Clean Start as User:Fæ" adequately presents the events involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it doesn't. Nobody Ent 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fæ has used multiple accounts, not all declared

2) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) declared in his admin request that he was a returning user who had taken a clean start with no sanction against them. While this was technically correct, they did not disclose there was an active request for comment against them at the time of his previous account's retirement. They had linked several accounts as Legitimate alternate accounts at the time of the RfA, including User:Fae, User:Faes, User:Faelig. However, there was a number of additional accounts that were not disclosed, as they were claimed for privacy reasons. A list (not necessarily full) include: User:Ticaro, User:Era8, and User:Speedo, also known as Speedoguy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Setting up background. SirFozzie (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it provides us a complete background of this issue, what was and was not declared in your request for adminship, and ties in with the issue with the confusion over your CleanStart account. This will likely tie in with any proposed remedies restricting your account. SirFozzie (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, looking over WP:CLEANSTART, you were limited to one account. It says, even as far back as September 2010, If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. One could argue that using multiple accounts to edit (Not including the doppelganger accounts which did not edit) invalidated the CLEANSTART then and there. Now it's even firmer, you take a CLEANSTART, you have ONE account. That's all. SirFozzie (talk) 05:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@YouReallyCan: This is the list that was provided to us that was active as of September 2010. It is based on self-disclosure that Fæ made, and thus is not necessarily full nor complete.. If there are other accounts since then, we do not know of them. SirFozzie (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Right , thank you for the detail - Youreallycan 06:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The wording was "For reasons of disclosure it should be noted that after an RFC/U which caused me to refocus and improve my Wikipedia editing I took the option of a clean start, though I have never been blocked." What is interesting me, and I need to dig deeper, is the background to the RFC. Ash/Fae appears to be aware it was coming and avoided it, yet read it carefully enough so that in the RfA he makes a statement that the RfC was a benefit as it caused him to "refocus and improve" his Wikipedia editing. Either he changed accounts to avoid harassment (of which the RfC was a part), or he was evading scrutiny. His own comments in the RfA suggests he was avoiding scrutiny at the time, and later took on board the concerns raised in the RfC and adjusted his editing. Or it is a bit of both? Some clarity on this matter would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Having other accounts for privacy reasons is fine, but noting that the Speedo account was being used in a complex manner to interleave with edits by the Ash account on the same articles is mystifying. Is there a legitimate explanation for this? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fæ - thanks for your responses. In regards, first, to the RfA. There's been a lot of focus on that RfA and the words that you used. The thing with Wikipedia is that we make a mistake, or we word something awkwardly, and it can follow us throughout our time on Wikipedia, to be brought up when we least want it. If people word something badly, and put their hands up to it, and say - "Ooops, I made a mistake. I could have worded that better" or "I was in a bad mood" or "I have learned from that, and won't do it again", I have noticed that Wikipedians not only forgive the mistake, they tend to warm to the person. It was once said that the best way to pass a RfA is to cock up and apologise for it. Are you now saying that the wording was a mistake, but that the mistake was not yours, but John Vandenberg's as he advised you what to say? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fæ - as regards the Speedo account. I've looked at the edits and can see how they may be mistakes - though there are a number of them. Looking at your edits on 22 November 2009, you were editing in the morning as Ash until 12.33, then logged into the Speedo account to edit Ironmonger Row Baths at 12.56 returning to the Ash account at 12.59 to continue editing Ironmonger Row Baths. Possibly you paused for coffee, then when you went to log back in you typed the name and password of Speedo by mistake, and as soon as you realised you logged out and back into Ash. On 17 November 2009 you'd had a day editing swimming pool articles as Speedo and other stuff as Ash, crossing to and fro from one to the other. You finished the day as Speedo, crossing into the 18th where you edited Guildford Lido at 00.36, then at 00.51 edited Bude Sea Pool using AutoEd as Ash, realised your mistake, logged in as Speedo and made another edit on that article, again using AutoEd. On 7 October 2009 you were editing as Ash only - you hadn't used the Speedo account since 1 October. You edited Brockwell Lido ‎as Ash at 18.42, then logged into the Speedo account at 19.02 to make another edit to the article before resuming your edits as Ash. That one is harder to account for, and now we have three mistakes with you not taking appropriate measures to prevent these mistakes occurring. On 21 September 2009 you edited as Ash until 9.24, then you created the Speedo account at 9.45, requesting a name change to Clifton Lido and The Victoria Public House at 10.12 - logged into the Ash account to make the name change at 10.15 to return to the Speedo account at 10.18 to resume editing. Perhaps you were thinking that someone might query how a new account would know how to move a page, so you constructed a situation in which the new account asks for the name change and an experienced account (Ash) then makes the name change.* [Can newly created accounts move pages? Was it that you couldn't move the page, so you had to get the Ash account to do it?] Whatever it was, this doesn't appear to be a mistake so much as poor judgement. I don't think, however one looks at it, that the use of these accounts was malicious - simply unwise or sloppy or both. And the use of these accounts was in the past, belonging to a previous account. The Wikipedia community dislikes people using multiple accounts in a secret manner, especially when there are edits on the same articles, so this doesn't reflect well on you, but by itself I don't think is a major sin. It's when this situation is put together with the circumstances of the CleanStart and the less than clear statement in the RfA that you need to think seriously about how you explain these matters. The community do appreciate and respect complete openness and honesty and admissions of mistakes. The more you embrace and trust the community the more the community will embrace and trust you. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fæ. Again, thank you for your full and detailed response. I feel things are becoming clearer. I don't think you are a malicious person - though you can respond at times inappropriately; I think you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart - though your actions and behaviour can create disruption and attract negative attention to the project; I think you have time, energy and knowledge to offer the project - though you lack the judgement (or "clue" as Wikipedians say) to hold advanced positions such as admin; and I think that your lack of sound judgement can lead you into awkward situations which leave you vulnerable. I feel you have an ambition and enthusiasm for the project which may lead you to jump into deep water without much thought for the consequences - such naive enthusiasm is concerning yet also engaging. You say that given your time again you would have made a better job of your clean start. I suggest you consider that if you had your time again what you would do to prevent having to go for a clean start in the first place. I've not yet finished looking at the history of DC's interest in you - an interest which resulted in you going for that clean start, and an interest which is continuing to impact on you and on the project; if you had your time again, what do you feel you would do to prevent DC becoming interested in you? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@Tarc - I have struck my question. I agree that it is inappropriate. I've not finished looking into the case so the question could be seen to be making implications that were not intended. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Struck the whole statement as unnecessary and inappropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I reviewed these accounts with User:Spartaz on 3 September 2010. On 4 September 2010 I stated "I've decided to go ahead and retire my other currently active accounts that are not declared doppelgängers. Reviewing the number of contributions and the lack of any current possible COI makes these accounts not currently active enough to be worth rationalizing. I'll re-read the guidance on doppelgängers while I'm at it, just to make sure my compliance is clear-cut." I mentioned this review in an email to Arbcom member User:Newyorkbrad on 9 December 2010. I invited further advice from Spartaz on 19 February 2011 in preparation for RFA. The most significant of these privacy related accounts, Speedo, I reviewed with Arbcom member User:John Vandenberg on 13 March 2011.

I would appreciate a clear explanation of why Arbcom feel it necessary to disclose these privacy related accounts at this time. --Fæ (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On 5 March 2011 I wrote the following email to the Arbcom email list and received a reply the same day:

Subject: RfA preparation

Hi,

I am User:Fæ I used to be User:Ash but underwent cleanstart.  I intend
to accept an RFA nomination this month without mentioning my former
account, if you are uncomfortable with me doing so please tell me by
the 13th March.

I have previously provided the same information for comment by
NewYorkBrad (December) and John Vandenberg (February) but received no
comments either way.

Thanks,
Fæ

Hi Fae,

Thanks for the email, and we let you know if we have any concerns before the 13th.

Also, if we believe further information from you would be helpful, we will be in touch.

Phil

Nobody from Arbcom, apart from my previously mentioned ongoing review with John Vandenberg, raised any questions at that time or during my RFA. --Fæ (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lidos&diff=428968701&oldid=428968196 – That would explain this revision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This new evidence and implication of other undiscovered accounts is concerning. A finding restricting Fae to one account and requiring Arbcom notification if he wishes to changes accounts might be wise. MBisanz ^talk 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork I followed advice from John Vandenberg that I needed to address the RFC/U background in my RFA, and so I did. I did not want to unnecessarily say I had felt harassed and hounded as any meaningful questioning would rapidly attract the same people to start hounding me again when, up until that point, my clean start and carefully avoiding the same people and topics had succeeding in allowing me to contribute to the encyclopaedia without these problems. The Speedo account was reviewed with John Vandenberg and was created to protect real life privacy concerns of others; concerns that they still have. Any overlaps were a mistake on my part rather than strange machinations. --Fæ (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork I wanted a clean start to draw a line in the sand, start again and be free to concentrate on improving Wikipedia, and later to help benefit the open knowledge movement more widely. The hounding after touching gay and sex related topics seemed excessive to me, and I could not bear the idea of spending so much time preparing the RFC/U against Delicious carbuncle and so withdrew, though the page was not deleted as DC was keen to have it filed against him, refer to [62] where I explained on 26 March 2010, "I shall blank the page for the time being and get some feedback from the other contributors if they wish to proceed. I am in a very black mood due to the attempting outing information pasted at ANI. This causes me a great deal of distress and at the moment I couldn't care less about what is best for Wikipedia compared to what is best for my family." [63]

I continued to use some other accounts which I saw as legitimate due to privacy reasons, including the privacy of others involved. I stopped using all accounts that were not openly linked after my review with Spartaz in September 2010 as explained previously. It was a serious mistake to use these accounts, after clean start. I did not understand the policy properly and my review with Spartaz helped me understand why this was an issue. I regret using accounts in this way though it seems like a long time ago and I have learned a lot since 2010.

With this background I was concerned about being nominated for adminship. I could have not mentioned my clean start, but I was keen to be open about it. I sought out advice from a number of respected Wikipedians including Arbcom members. It was not my intention to mislead during my RFA, but there were things about my being hounded that I did not want to attract again. This is why I was grateful to have independent review of my replies with a sitting Arbcom member to ensure I stayed accurate and reasonable. I take full responsibility for my choice of words. I apologise to anyone now who took part and feels that I was not straight forward enough.

If I could go back now and advise myself, I would recommend that my clean start was not clean enough and beyond the expectations for someone wielding the mop, there was too much potential for future outing which would lead to the same problems resurrecting that I desperately wanted to leave behind with the User:Ash account. I would advise myself to clean start again, with a solid break, do a better job removing the few remaining places where it was possible to track down my full legal name or make the choice to stay anonymous and ensure clear blue water stayed between my real life and my Wikimedia life. Nobody could ever have foreseen the level of off-wiki interest in my personal life and alleged sex life over the last six months, amounting to many thousands of man hours investigating every possible interrelationship between every public record, internet record, deletion logs and webpage archive. With 788 posts on a single thread on Wikipediocracy about me having over 18,000 views, this is the level of pursuit for gay scandal and gossip that one would expect for Big Brother celebrities rather than an unpaid volunteer Wikipedian who happened to help create the UK Wikimedia charity. --Fæ (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@User:Fae's previous usernames - "A list (not necessarily full) include". . .please list all the users accounts known to the committee for investigation - This is a further related issue as per his/User:Fae's failure to declare previous editing issues during his request to the community for advanced permissions in his WP:RFA - thanks - Youreallycan 05:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just getting this on the record: the doppelganger account User:Fae redirects to User:Fæ, User:Faes and User:Faelig are properly tagged as doppelganger accounts. The accounts User:Ticaro, User:Era8 and User:Speedo were all marked as "retired" on 4 September 2010, although all had ceased editing content in August 2010. Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a handful of edits from two or more years ago. Why should this have any bearing on the case at all? Is it truly your belief that the terms of WP:CLEANSTART require giving up any small separate account used in accordance with WP:SOCK, and never making an edit from any of them? It seems very peculiar to me that you've proposed a principle saying that it is a personal attack to comment on someone's accounts and interactions on a site like Wikipediocracy, next said that the mere fact of legitimate use of other accounts here should vitiate an editor's right to have his current contributions considered on their own merits. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added some evidence on the interaction between two of these accounts. The Speedo account does not appear to have been used in compliance with WP:LEGITSOCK. At least one clear instance exists of the Speedo account and Ash account acting in concert in a manner that falsely implied they were separate entities and not operated by the same individual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right that some of those double edits look worrisome, and make it clear why using multiple accounts tends to be discouraged. But the pattern is one of very, very minor edits being split between the two accounts - things too small and inoffensive to possibly be the object of a sock puppet show. None of those examples involves edit warring or reverts or votes. I assume he must have logged out and back in again in one window but not another. It's true that the choice of word "requested" rather than "proposed" in the one move makes it look bad, but still, it has to be an accident. Who on Earth cares whether an article is named Clifton Lido and The Victoria Public House or Clifton Pool and The Victoria Public House? You can't seriously propose taking action against him for this. Wnt (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

By itself that would be a trifle certainly and the kind of thing that would normally get an editor blocked for a week and the sock indeffed. However, Fæ has a track record of getting involved with funny business using alternative accounts on top of the other conduct issues that have been raised. People who misuse an alternate account once get a brief time to reflect in the corner. When someone repeatedly misuses alternate accounts they tend to get much longer periods of reflection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You should provide diffs for a statement like that here. So far, this is the funniest "funny business" I've heard of with his accounts, and it's a big nothing. Wnt (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate has backed it up. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, I find your posing of the "what do you feel you would do to prevent DC becoming interested in you" question to be a little disconcerting, as it seems to presuppose that there is something wrong or untowards about DC's involvement in all of this, and that you presume Fae can offer something constructive or objective in response to such a query. I mean, you don't go ask Obama "why doesn't Mitt Romney like you?" and expect an objective answer. Also, the "an interest which resulted in you going for that clean start" line is troublesome. Fae has claimed that he retired the Ash account due to real-life harassment, and now you seem to be saying pretty boldly that DC is the one behind that harassment. Is this what you are actually saying and entering into the conversation here? Tarc (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I gotta say Fæ, I and quite a few others are getting tired of the persecution complex. Suggesting that everyone posting on that thread at Wikipediocacy is just pursuing a "gay scandal" is the exact kind of mentality that got you here in the first place. There have been a few unfortunate comments directed at you over this time, but I have seen far worse directed at people on Wikipedia. I don't know if you are overly sensitive or using claims of homophobia as a smokescreen, but either way you have got to stop it. The more drama you create, the more drama everyone else creates.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fæ's administrator request

3) In the March 2011 administrator request, then-arbitrator John Vandenberg vouched that Fæ had identified to the Arbitration Committee the nature of his clean start. It is impossible to definitively say if Fæ's request would have succeeded if their complete history had been disclosed at the time of the request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Basically, I'm trying to state here that I cannot determine if the request would have been successful with any certainty, so rather then say "Yes it was fine" or "No, it wasn't done right", I'm going to say that there could be reasonable concerns that it would not have passed if it had been fully disclosed. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsure about second sentence. How about: "It is unknown what the outcome of the RfA would have been had the community been aware of Fæ's full history". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I edited the FOF to make it clear that Jayvdb was on ArbCom at the time. NW (Talk) 04:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems one central, issue. How can anyone go back and say, what history might have been? Counter-factual history? That being the case, if an unanticipated disclosure issue later arises, are there any policies which address such, and if not, than it appears any remedy has to be prospective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not the issue. I think clean starters should be able to ask for adminship without effectively disclosing their former identity. John Vandenberg's careful language at the RfA was not misleading. However John should have immediately corrected Fæ when he led the community to believe that he had taken a clean start after an RfC/U which imposed no block or ban.

I don't blame Fæ or John for this situation. A careful reading of the RfA leaves me wondering if I could/would have handled it any better. The intention was to preserve the integrity of the clean start while allowing the community enough knowledge to make an informed choice. Fæ's words unfortunately (quite possibly inadvertently) misled the community on a very crucial point - his standing at the time of the clean start. John either didn't notice this, or couldn't think of a way to correct the point without unfairly exploding the RfA of a worthy candidate.

Nevertheless, blame aside, the community gave permissions to Fæ based on false information that was crucial to that choice. I can see no reasonable way forward other than to put that choice before the community again.

I realise that, now knowing the identity of the candidate, there will be a number of critics attracted to the new RfA, but sadly that is unavoidable. I hope the closers of the new RfA (and I'd like to see it closed by a triumvirate) will be able to distinguish between sound comments and those based on personal animosity or blind loyalty. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks

4) Fæ has violated Wikipedia's rule on No Personal Attacks on several occasions: [64], [65], [66].

Comment by Arbitrators:

More diffs coming as I review evidence. The first one.. if I had seen that link at the time, I would have endorsed a long block for Fæ then and there. SirFozzie (talk) 04:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. PhilKnight (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This comment caught my attention: "I am a long term active supporter of the Wikimedia movement who happens to be openly gay, and as a result I have been subject to nasty on-wiki and off-wiki homophobic attacks, stalking and abuse in sustained attempts to frighten me off the projects." The opinion stated here is that Fae/Ash feels he is being chased off Wikipedia purely because he is openly gay. If that is true that would need investigating. Have other openly gay Wikipedians been subjected to abuse in an effort to remove them from Wikipedia? If it is not true, then saying so puts genuinely harassed gays in a weakened position in line with the boy who cried wolf scenario. The difficulty here is that as the evidence unfolds it appears that Fae/Ash is not always as open, frank and honest as we would like in a Wikipedian, and responds hotly and out of proportion to incidents, creating rather more drama than we like. That is not to say that the claims he makes are not true, but that it makes it more difficult to get at that truth. Some opinions from other openly gay Wikipedians as to if they have or have not suffered attempts to chase them off Wikipedia would be helpful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

After some discussion on my talkpage and via email I understand better Fae/Ash's comment. My understanding now is that Fae/Ash was possibly being targeted because of a feeling that his Wikipedia/Commons conduct was incompatible with his role at Wikimedia UK, and that as part of this targeting his sexuality was being used against him in an attempt to discredit and unsettle him. Potential homophobic aspects of these comments are interesting and complex - both in terms of Fae's perception of it as such and in Delicious carbuncle's defence of it not being so, and in the impact such behaviour may have on other gay Wikipedians. I have said that I don't want to subscribe to an approach which puts personal attacks on a rating scale - who will be more offended: a gay, a Jew, a black, an Irishman a Scot, a Welshman, etc - but I can see that a personal attack which not only denigrates the individual attacked, but also a whole group of people who were not involved in the incident, and who are already subjected to abuse, is actually more serious than just a personal attack. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

These diffs need to be read in their context. The first link that SirFozzie would have given me a long block for, was corrected per diff to avoid misinterpretation in the same thread. The same thread is the subject of the last paragraph of my answer on the evidence page here which should also be taken into consideration. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, with regard to "the boy who cried wolf", the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Fae_has_been_the_target_of_homophobic_abuse_and_threats may be useful. I am unclear how your request here for opinions from openly gay Wikipedians would be noticed by LGBT contributors unless it is promoted in some way, or how those that do feel they have been seriously harassed would consider this a suitable place to share their experience. --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, I think you are going by my statement "I am a long term active supporter of the Wikimedia movement who happens to be openly gay, and as a result I have been subject to nasty on-wiki and off-wiki homophobic attacks, stalking and abuse in sustained attempts to frighten me off the projects". This was not intended as a claim that I was being driven off Wikipedia "purely" because I am gay. There is no doubt that threats on-wiki and allegations off-wiki have been judged by many others as homophobic. The trouble with paraphrasing my statement with the word "purely", is that if someone keeps bringing up my being gay (such as allegations of "risky sexual practices") when discussing what may be seen as relevant Wikipedia complaints, then it is easy to claim that is not "purely" a campaign of hounding intending to be homophobic, but it still may be unnecessarily pandering to homophobic views. --Fæ (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I have received no reply to my email to ArbCom about the discussion on your talk page, so I assume none will be forthcoming. Fæ has made several unsubstantiated allegations there, which, if made here, would be in clear violation of Sir Fozzie's rules of evidence, which I believe were intended to avoid exactly that sort of thing. I find that completely unacceptable. I am disappointed that Fæ and his supporters appear to have been given license to do the very thing that this section is discussing. After having been added as a party so late in the RFAR (which is nominally about Fæ's failure to participate in dispute resolution), I feel that I have become the focus of the case. I hope that I have misunderstood your statement about "potential homophobic aspects" of my comments and the reference to "the impact such behaviour may have on other gay Wikipedians" - it sounds like you are saying my comments (which aren't about gay people at all) are homophobic. Please clarify your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The third one certainly seems horrific since it postulates a scenario where Rob is akin to the man who murdered a history-making gay politician.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Silk Seems to me that the situation you are referring to is a misunderstanding. Were you to talk to most in the bondage community they would undoubtedly acknowledge there are health risks to the practice and that they have to take precautions. It is also a fact that, while BDSM has gained some level of tolerance, it is still very much looked down upon and poses risks to people in high-profile positions from a public relations standpoint and consequently from a legal standpoint. Fæ obviously took those comments the wrong way because he is very sensitive regarding hostility towards the homosexual community.

As to the other issue, I do not think DC's objections are hinged on Fæ's connection with WMUK. Rather, that is an aggravating factor, in no small part because the Fæ account essentially lead to an editor evading scrutiny. Basically, DC thought a troublesome BLP editor had left the project rather than face sanctions, when, in fact, said editor dodged administrative action and rapidly rose to a powerful position. With all we know now about what Ash had done, it seems obvious now he would have been severely sanctioned, but that did not happen because the Fæ account allowed him to dodge responsibility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I would consider most of the comments linked from my evidence section to be personal attacks as well. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fæ would like to see his diffs (which include accusing my husband of promoting a bestiality porn video) read "in their context." Please note that in his recent "Reply to questions" on the evidence page, User:Fæ interpreted and linked to a statement I had made during his 2012 Rfc without providing context, i.e. mentioning that I had redacted that comment the same day, after receiving an email from User:Fæ. Draco^E 20:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae - your post preceding is remarkably ill-advised at the point where you appear to have settled the case - I, for strong personal reasons, had not commented heretofore on the iterated "homophobic" accusations, but at this point they make absolutely no sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez Battleground

5) Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created an article on another website designed to "expose" Fae, which may reasonably be considered WP:HARASSMENT.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Folks, there are good ways and bad ways to deal with people you don't like, or people you feel do not deserve the position they are in. Creating an article on ED to "expose them" is.. pretty clearly on the bad ways list, if you ask me. Even though the pictures put up on the off-wiki article are, for lack of a better word, legal (in that they were uploaded under a license that would allow such use), there is little doubt that Michaeldsuarez created the article in an attempt to force Fae off the board of a Wikipedia-related charity not under the auspices of the WMF. In Michaeldsuarez's own words "I don't have any desire to harass Fæ; I only wish to expose him.". This is a plain violation of BATTLEGROUND. SirFozzie (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

$Hullaballoo: There are right ways and wrong ways to deal with these issues. Creating an ED article is a SPECTACULARLY wrong way. SirFozzie (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actions off english-Wikipedia designed to have an on-encyclopedia affect also fall under the Committee's purview. For example, The motion to sanction Racepacket would fall under such a view. The way that Michaeldsuarez went about this, (creating a page soon to be tagged with several anti-homosexual epithets) is completely, utterly and totally wrong. A reasonable person (a standard I like to use, iwhich means somneone who is not involved in the conflict viewing this for the first time) would not find any value in such an "expose". One could even argue that the sole purpose for which it could be used for Wikipedia-related disputes (creating a public record of misuse) is counterproductive, since ED is on a blacklist and thus can't be used on wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. So, the only real use of this "expose" would then be harassment of another Wikipedia editor. SirFozzie (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm always uncomfortable ascribing motivations to people, and in this case I'm more than normally uncomfortable. "designed to expose"? Expose what? I've looked at the page - I assume it is the one in question, though it doesn't appear to be an article, it consists of a few images that I understand Fae/Ash uploaded himself of himself. I don't see anything wrong with the page or the images. I understand that the website is a lampoon of Wikipedia, as such I would expect it to contain humourous, satirical material which would make the subject uncomfortable. I don't see much on that page which is unexpected or could be seen as harassment. The harassment might be in the eye of the beholder. Yes, it is satirical. But is it more than that, especially as the images had been uploaded by Fae/Ash himself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I took this right from MichaeldSuarez's comment on the evidence page: "I don't have any desire to harass Fæ; I only wish to expose him.". SirFozzie (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to mention that page while making that statement. I assume there is a pattern of behaviour which makes it clearer that MichaeldSuarez intends to harass Fae/Ash, and that the page in question fits into that pattern as part of circumstantial evidence? I am aware of an animosity toward Fae/Ash by certain individuals, and I'm working toward an understanding of why that would be. There is the suggestion that it is partly to do with the view that Fae's conduct on Wikipedia (and on Commons) was not compatible with his position on Wikimedia UK; and I can understand why people would hold that view, though not why they would engage in personal attacks (or exposés) on him in places which have little or nothing to do with Wikimedia UK. As Arbs looking into this case, I think it is beyond our remit to comment on Fae/Ash's fitness for his role on Wikimedia UK - that is a matter for the members of that organisation, but we can look into his conduct on Wikipedia, and into the conduct of those who have set out to "expose" him here, and in so doing have caused disruption and upset. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@SirFozzie: I never said anything about "forcing" Fæ off of WMUK's board. Informing those who vote in the elections isn't force. Sharing information isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This finding overall seems appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 20:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, you have an article on ED. How about you compare ED's article Fæ against ED's article on MBisanz and then list the differences between the two? I invite the Arbitrators to do the same. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I have. They both are done in a manner designed to harass the subject. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That Michaeldsuarez has chosen to unnecessarily mention here the ED article attacking MBisanz should be taken into account by Arbcom. This is a particularly sadistic and maliciously upsetting example of an attack page that I was previously unaware of. MBisanz, I am very sorry that I have been hooked into looking at it and I wish there were a way that the Foundation could get this sort of filth deleted.

Nobody should be subject to this sort of public abuse with false criminal allegations just for taking part in Wikimedia projects. His promotion of the ED page against me by using this Arbcom case, which includes the statement "The Wikipedians now wish to put my head on a stake due to the Fae article, which isn't even as vicious as the other articles on Wikipedians. I'm due to become banned on July 2nd. Whatever happens; no regrets. --JuniusThaddeus 17:27, 17 June 2012" is indicative of the disruption that Michaeldsuarez brings to Wikimedia projects and appears intent on continuing and promoting. --Fæ (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't "unnecessarily mention" that article. I was simply showing MBisanz and ArbCom what a true "attack article" looks like. I wasn't promoting ED's Fae article at ED's Thizzlehat Junction Center; I was simply sharing news about ED-related ongoings with my ED colleagues. As I've stated over at the ED page that your quoting, this case is the biggest role that an ED article played in an ArbCom case since the EEML drama. I also wished to share my earliest experiences on ED with my colleagues. I wanted to pass on those memories. I'm not glorifying the article on you; I'm simply sharing news and old memories. In addition, I clearly told users there such as Tuxlie not in interfere with this case. I simply want them to listen and learn. If I wanted to promote your article, I would've featured it on ED's Main Page, just as the article on MONGO was featured on the Main Page way back when. Since this case is ED-related, I don't see any reason why ED users should be oblivious to it. Sharing news and information isn't a crime. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the sympathy. I've come to expect this from the internet in general and it hasn't been that much of a pain over the last 3-4 years. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: There isn't anything wrong with the BDSM photos. The problem is with what happened to the photos (i.e. the coverup). Look at the edit summary of the first revision of ED's Fae article. With the exception of pedophilia, I wouldn't attack someone for their sexuality. The third image is there because three is better than two, and since that third image is also evidence that the person in the first image (who wears AussieBum underwear) is the same person in the third image. At least two of my colleagues at ED are homosexual, and I find working with them to be a pleasure. I don't have any desire to harass Fae. If I wanted to harass someone, I would've sent hate mail or done something menacing. Merely creating an ED article isn't harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Information wants to be free. I used ED to post leaks from the Wikipedia Review's 300 Club. I'm not fond of coverups and secrets. By creating the ED article, I've ensured the coverup failed. People can visit the article and view who Fæ is and what he has done. That how these things are exposed. I have a duty to inform, and ED is the home of liberated secrets. I don't have any desire to harass anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: What pattern? Exposing Fæ is disruptive? No, creating a myriad of sockpuppets and alternative accounts is disruptive. Pushing censorship is disruptive: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Censoring_rebuttals_and_the_perpetuation_of_Wnt.27s_faulty_accusations. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with Michaeldsuarez on this narrow point. The article mentioned, perhaps in fear of libel laws, seems to be solely a rehash of WP postings, and as an off-site activity shouldn't be something we have to concern ourselves with. However, in accordance with the "opposition research" principle, raising this article as a concern here at Wikipedia might be a violation of WP:OUTING, which is less about keeping secrets than keeping irrelevant ad-hominem arguments out of our decision making. SirFozzie would strengthen his argument considerably if he can show that Michaeldsuarez made such a reference. Wnt (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I disclosed my role in creating the ED article when I decided to participate in the case. I later decided to explain further when Prioryman presented his evidence. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Without denying that there are issues about the appropriateness of the ED page. I'm bothered by the idea that "exposure" of past misconduct in relation to a dispute not involving editorial content is deemed or presumed to be HARASSMENT. Last night I saw a report on CNN that an individual once sanctioned for improper diversion of charity funds had been found running a second questionable nonprofit. Such an "exposure" would be entirely appropriate -- most of us would find it beneficial, I believe -- if that person somehow gained a position of similar responsibility in a Wikimedia component or affiliate. The analysis needs to be narrowed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the connection between posting photos (that are not about charity funds) and charity funds? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of order, Fae exposed himself by uploading those images to the Commons in the first place. Per Reusing content outside Wikimedia, material "may be freely reused without individual permission". Fae is being satirized on an external website. The categorization other users at ED have placed upon the page is indeed virulent, but such is life at the ED. You can't expect Suarez to revert such changes there, as he would likely be quickly undone. Tarc (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• @SirFozzie, the following past principles/findings adopted in previous AC cases may be helpful/relevant here, either for wording purposes or for assistance in crafting principles for the present case: (1) Principle on ED, (2) Further ED Finding, (3) Appropriate reactions to harassment principle, (4) Further harassment principle, (5) Participation in other websites, (6) Expected response for criticism of administrative actions, (7) Principle on RFC/U. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Meh, findings 1 and 2 have the zero applicability to the present day, this case or anything else. 2006 was another era of Wikipedia, where WP:BADSITES was treated as de facto policy by some, where ED was a non-existent, non-notable hole in the wall. Like it or not it is a notable website that is critical of pretty much everything. Trying to police the Eds, 4chans, etc...of the internet is like piddling in the ocean. Tarc (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I don't agree with Tarc about much here, but I agree with him about this. You can police your border at your border, or you can police it 25 miles into Lebanon. Which is a chaotic and counterproductive adventure. For example, so far as I can tell, Encyclopedia Dramatica doesn't have, or doesn't effectively enforce, rules against sockpuppetry, or sharing account passwords, or logging in from open proxies - their editors have more important things to do than file processes at each other trying to get someone banned. Even if one of their admins sent checkuser data to ArbCom, would you trust it? Michaeldsuarez was up front about his position, but if you make a point of punishing people for material posted to the site, you won't see that happen so much in the future.

I should also ask - if you think you should punish editors for ED material, how much control do you expect? Can you pass a remedy that says an editor will be punished unless, or until, he removes material from ED? Can you say that an ED administrator will be punished unless he protects a page, blocks users who add certain material? Indeed, demand that he not hand over his admin tools to someone else (like a new anonymous ED account) or face penalty for giving up his known association with ED? Can you declare that an ED editor must not use racist/homophobic terms or rhetoric, even in fun? If you start bringing up edits someone makes in ED, or which you think they made based on evidence or suppositions, are you yourself WP:OUTING him?

Now suppose you don't punish people for material posted to ED. What can you do then?

• You can watch for any reference to or use of this material on-wiki that seems to bring it up in an irrelevant context to disrupt or derail discussion. You can watch carefully for WP:CANVASSING and WP:Proxy editing and all that sort of stuff, which occurs on wiki, but which is based on this offsite material.
• You can embrace the "forgiveness" mentioned in #3, more so than in that principle, and recognize that in the face of off-wiki harassment, that you can't stop, and don't want to be a part of, you're going to give an editor some meaningful slack, and deny those off-site some of their "lulz".

Of these, I think the second sends the stronger message. You can't punish anonymous trolls across the internet, but you can give special dispensation to their target who you do know, and by doing so, break the back of the assault against them. This applies not just to ED, but more serious off-wiki sites. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, if anyone at Wikipedia who has violated the "five pillars", policies and guidelines can show they have been attacked on an outside site, we should give them "special dispensation" for the acts which were done on Wikipedia as recompense? Seriously? I hope not. Collect (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the dispensation transitive? Do the wiki victims of ED victims also get dispensation? Nobody Ent 00:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

While agreeing in principle with the idea that someone should be given some slack for reacting when provoked, Fæ's conduct has been problematic in ways that cannot be reasonably accounted for as a normal reaction to real or perceived harassment (the latter being most of it in my opinion). Indeed, several of the more serious conduct issues under Ash have nothing at all to do with reacting to any off-wiki activity and were not even known to those editors until this case began. He can get a little slack for lashing out at DC or Suarez, but if that were all this case were about it would never have been accepted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the two ED articles, as suggested above by Michaelsuarez. I may never be the same. By my standard, they are both gross but the one on MBisanz is the worse of the two. However, I can't see that these articles have any bearing on this case. Bielle (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, if you want evidence of intent, you need only look at Michaeldsuarez's most recent comments above [67]. It's quite clear that he has no intention of stepping back or leaving Fae alone or even recognising the wrongness of what he's done. Michael: wrong answer, profoundly so. This isn't Watergate and you're not Woodward or Bernstein. You're perpetuating an editor's embarrassment and distress, not "exposing a cover-up". If you're looking to avoid getting sanctioned, doubling down isn't the way to go. Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you said, "It's quite clear that he has no intention of stepping back or leaving Fae alone." What else is there left for me to do? I've stepped back since Fae relinquished sysop privileges. I move ED's "Ashley van Haeften" article to "Fae". There are fewer incentives to talk about Fæ on Wikipediocracy now since he isn't a sysop any more. I'm not going to apologize if I don't believe that I've done anything wrong. I'm not trying to "avoid getting sanctioned"; I'm only interested in speaking honestly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae has not responded to Dispute Resolution

6) In January 2012, there was a Request for comment on the issues, in which the majority (if not consensus) view was that there was issues in Fæ's declaration that his prior account had no issues. In May, MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) opened a Wikiquette alert against Fæ based on accusations that Fæ had made prior to and during a request for arbitration (which was declined at that time due to lack of prior dispute resolution). In both cases, Fæ did not significantly participate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We require our administrators to answer good faith concerns about their conduct. The seeming answer here was to try to redefine all those with good-faith concerns as "trolls", "harassers", and "enablers of banned users", to avoid having to deal with these good faith concerns. Were there users (on and off-wiki) who were one of those three? Yes. Indubitably. But it stretched credulity well past the point where it snaps and breaks into many pieces.We're seeing a pattern similar to "lobbing rocks at others and then running" (or, more accurately, making accusations and then not following up in dispute resolution with them) And that's not acceptable. SirFozzie (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that you're mischaracterizing the situation. I assume the diff you're talking about must be [68], in which MBisanz raises the issue that Fae had accused him of something on WP:AN.^[69] His first message ends "I would hope this process could determine if my conduct was wrongful and if his allegations were appropriate". Obviously Fae should not be forced to make a case against MBisanz. Fae did respond there, making a strange statement that "As Arbcom have confirmed by email that the still open, parallel, Arbcom request opened by MBisanz is to be interpreted in such as way that my comments may represent Wikimedia UK rather than just myself as an editor of Wikipedia, I am unable to comment here until I have reviewed the situation with the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. This is unlikely to be until next week." I assume you folks on ArbCom know what that's all about. The case was, however, closed by Nobody Ent with MBisanz' permission, indeed, "My apologies to Fæ for placing him in such a position."

Other processes about activity before a "cleanstart", questioning the RfA vote, and so forth aren't really about Fae's "conduct" as it should be considered. Further, Fae's judgment that participating would be counterproductive, as it would expose him to harassment, does not mean or require accusing each and every person in the process of being a harasser. Rather, he should be permitted to make an overall' consideration of whether engaging in dispute resolution will create more problems than it solves. There was simply no plausible outcome of the RfC/U that was going to be informative - he could either take their 'advice' to give up admin status, or not. And there were plausible outcomes that would be significantly detrimental. Of course, if his actions as admin had ever been questioned, he would have needed to defend his reasoning for making them. Wnt (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, an RfC/U is the will of the Wikipedia community attempting to deal with what is widely seen as a potentially problematic user. They aren't filed on a lark. One is free to refute to participate, but that such a refusal will be something used against the subject in future dispute resolution processes is a given. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Was the RfC/U about administrative conduct or to undo the RfA? If the later, it seems bad process, which has led the Pedia here. It seems the major discussion at the RfC/U was about counter factual history (ie. "If this would have happened than maybe that would have been the outcome."). There is no response anyone can make to undo history. If the action sought is to de-admin, and the admin does not respond than the community could just go ahead and reach consensus to take the tools, if they want, and there is no real reason to make the admin "argue" about it. Is there? On the other hand, if there is a pattern of this admin avoiding dispute resolution, it seems at least several instances and their circumstances should be weighed against any instances of not avoiding dispute resolution (and the later evidence should be brought forward by the admin in question, if there is any). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This comment by Tryptofish has food for thought related to both the RfC/U and remedy issues: [70] Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies

Fæ resignation of tools

1) As Fæ has resigned his administrator tools during this arbitration case, he cannot get the administrator status restored without first undergoing a fresh Request for adminiship if they wish to return to administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Common sense we would consider this resignation of administrator status as "under a cloud", and as thus, unable to get the status back upon request. He's already noted that this is the case on his workshop proposal, so I don't expect this to be any more then formalizing the situation as it exists. SirFozzie (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd need a finding of fact that he has resigned his tools, and we'd need to vote that it was "under a cloud". And that he has resigned the bit shouldn't mean that we shirk looking into his conduct as an admin and if appropriate making a finding that his conduct as an admin was below that which is normally expected. And then it would be OK for us to have a remedy which said that he couldn't get the tools back without first going to the community. At the moment resigning the bit could be seen as much due to "under stress" as "under a cloud" unless we clarify the matter. If we don't find that his conduct was inappropriate that could have later implications. If he has genuinely been harassed and stalked as he says, and if his personality is such that he finds it difficult dealing with stress, and we find that his conduct in the circumstances has not been enough to desysop him, then that would be taken into account by the community in any future RfA. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fæ Single account restriction

2) User:Fæ is restricted to one account, which must be publicly identified and linked to his prior accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As noted in this case, there could be a reasonable case made that the way Fæ transitioned to this account from his previous account along with the previously undeclared alternate accounts meant that he violated the terms of WP:CLEANSTART. In such cases, it is not unusual for the Committee to put a one-account, publicly linked to past accounts restriction in. Normally, if a case was amde that such abuse of CLEANSTART had indeed occured, at least a short block would be in order. However, as no other account other then Fæ has edited in approximately 20 months, I think that applying any sock-related blocks instead of a restriction would not be preventative, but instead unduly punitive. SirFozzie (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Tryptofish

Proposed Principles

Two wrongs don't make a right.

1) The fact that a user behaves disruptively towards another user is never a valid reason to reciprocate or to continue the conflict.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With regard to comments here and elsewhere using terms such as "supporters" and "critics", I do not agree with polarizing views in this way. Those commenting on this case do not have to pick sides and should not be expected to be labelled as a my personal supporter or adversary just for expressing an opinion. --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, because I see this as an ongoing theme in the dispute, from its beginnings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the simplicity, but I get the feeling we aren't going to see claims of excuse, provocation, extenuating circumstances leaving the behavior boards anytime soon, especially since so many admins (right or wrong) indulge them. But would it be more "just" if they did not? If only people would just walk away, when anger rises. But that's part of the difficulty of this case, walk away is often a good thing - what's the duty here to go toward the conflict? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it may actually be simpler than that. It just seems to me that Fae and his supporters, and Fae's critics just as much, have many times escalated the WP:BATTLEFIELD in just this manner. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fae: Your point is well-taken, duly noted, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to have the trust of the community.

2) Administrators who demonstrate a loss of community trust cannot continue to serve.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think something like this is consistent with, for example, the Cirt case. This principle may apply if the eventual remedies include desysopping of Fae. I want to make sure that this, and not the issues about the RfA, are the rationale in that event. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I take the evidence about the RfC concerning the RfA is to demonstrate a pattern of avoiding dispute resolution, I don't know if that case is made and this may seem a more valid approach, if the "community" has lost faith. But didn't the RfC suggest that the community was not in consensus on that point, so the arbitrators would have to say they lost faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine there are several ways this could go, and I don't feel, personally, that I've absorbed enough of the evidence to say which. What I'm saying is the wrong way to go is to base it on the premise that Fae passed the RfA by misleading the community. Someone who, perhaps, avoids dispute resolution, or perhaps makes personal attacks, or perhaps sources BLPs improperly, or things of that nature, might face, perhaps, a topic ban or an editing restriction. The Committee held in the Cirt case that imposition of such remedies on an administrator is, in effect, a determination that the administrator can no longer be trusted with the tools. I'm making the case that, should there be a decision to desysop, it should be based on a principle like this one and corresponding findings of fact – and not on findings that Fae "shouldn't" have passed the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Then they should say " we don't trust you with the tools" (who knows what the community thinks). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's what they will say, I don't know. But there's certainly a history of the concept of "community trust" behind this. My intention here isn't to get into a forensic discussion about polling the community, but rather to redirect the train of logic from finding fault with the RfA (when ArbCom was already notified before the RfA), to valid reasons for potential desysopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

An admin who has been found to have misled the community on a very significant point at his RfA, one that would certainly have given many pause for thought, must put himself before the community for reconfirmation. It is simple, kindergarten ethics. It dismays me that you're arguing against that, Tryptofish. That's the way to determine whether openness about his clean start during an RfC/U would affect the community's confidence in him, Alan: reconfirmation. Fæ has chosen not to volunteer for that. Desysop and RfA seems the obvious next step to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, I probably dismay a lot of people! :-) But you are right to remind me of that. Yes, that could be a valid reason indeed. My concern above was something different: the issue of whether it was Fae's fault to have not revealed the Ash account during the RfA, when he actually had disclosed it in an e-mail in advance to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Findings of Fact

Fae has responded to good faith comments by asserting homophobia.

1) On talk pages related to pornography and persons working in pornography, and on pages devoted to dispute resolution, Fae has cast aspersions of homophobia on other users who were simply making good faith suggestions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have become convinced that this is one half of the cause of this dispute. I also thank the many users who have responded on my user talk to my questions about this sequence of events. I'm not saying that Fae has necessarily always been wrong to worry about homophobic bias, nor do I lack sympathy for his sensitivity to the issue. But there is clearly evidence of him doing this on multiple occasions, and thereby avoiding engaging with serious editorial concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple other users have responded to Fae by escalating the dispute, giving rise to a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

2) Numerous instances of escalation, giving rise to an appearance of harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My concern over biographies of living persons was what lead me to interact with Ash/Fæ. I was almost immediately accused of having an anti-gay agenda, but I continued to try to work on the issues. It was very difficult to make any progress due to the tendentious tag-team of Benjiboi, Ash, and an IP contributor. At that time, my feeling was that the allegations of harassment and homophobia were nothing more than a tactic to avoid scrutiny. It is difficult to resolve disputes with editors who are constantly trying to divert the discussion from the issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I have no desire to hold Ash/Fæ responsible for the misdeeds of Benjiboi, but he should be held responsible for his own actions. I am not sure what more I could have done to make my motivations and intentions clear. As I have said elsewhere, I had no belief at the time that it was anything other than a deliberate ploy, but even if I had thought that Ash/Fæ actually believed the allegations he was making, they were in bad-faith and completely at odds with my statements. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to see both of those shows more than once and I have little time for either. Read any of the many discussion between Ash and I - a better person might have tried to get through the nonsense to find out if there was anything behind it, but I am not that person. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt: I don't generally waste my time by replying to your nonsense, but some people here may not be familiar with your style of "argument". By calling Ash and Benjiboi a "tag-team" I was describing actions, not affiliation. Remember that the issue was biographies of living persons, not whether anyone -- editor or subject -- was gay. You are welcome to try arguing that having poorly sourced or unreferenced BLPs of gay porn performers is somehow "pro-gay" and not having them is "anti-gay", but I hope that no one would be foolish enough to buy that. If you read and can comprehend my evidence, you will understand why Benjiboi has been mentioned. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt: I am always prepared to back up any allegations that I make. I'm not sure that "tag-team" has a formal definition here, but I think most people will recognize the behaviour in any of the many ANI discussions linked in my evidence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And this is the other half, per two wrongs don't make a right. I don't actually mean that the wording above should be in the final decision verbatim. Rather, I think that "multiple other users" should be replaced by the names of specific individuals. I haven't done that here because I think that evidence is still coming in and needs to be evaluated. But I want to present the concept of this proposal now, at this stage of the workshop discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle: Based upon your own evidence, it appears that, early on, there was only Benjiboi and no tag team with Ash. Fae is not Benjiboi, and Benjiboi is gone. That is very much why I have been asking for evidence about exactly how the dispute here came into being. I do agree with you that it is difficult to resolve disputes with editors who are constantly trying to divert the discussion. I also agree with you that your initial interest came from a good faith and helpful interest in BLP. But my thinking is that, having found yourself in a tough editorial place, you could have done less to present yourself as a wounded party and more to show understanding of why Fae had misconstrued your motives. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Calling Fae part of a 'tag-team' with Benjiboi is an example of dismissing editors according to their affiliations - except in this case Fae and Benjiboi were not corresponding on an off-wiki site, but merely happened to be two editors who agreed on some points. According to other principles promulgated in this case, if they were to be applied fairly, we should not say that either had a pro-gay perspective, as this is an impermissible exploration of their state of mind which, in theory, would be dealt with as harshly as suggesting they were part of an anti-gay cabal. Which leaves no valid reason to mention Benjiboi at all. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Those are very interesting points. Although I have no opinion as to whether Delicious carbuncle did anything off-wiki, it's clear that there have been a lot of anti-Fae discussions on external sites, and I imagine that if there had been an external site where Fae and supporters were strategizing about this dispute, we would be hearing no end of it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Veering off-topic; discussion is related to Crisco and alleged "problematic pro-gay editing". NW (Talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, it is not dismissing them according to their affiliations, it is dismissing them because they are bad editors. Characterizing an editor as "pro-XXX" is not an insult or slur if one can demonstrably prove such an assertion. Case in point would be Benjiboi making edits like this to the Crisco article. I'm sorry if it offends sensibilities, but that is a concrete example of problematic pro-gay editing. And the chief point to highlight here is that the ACTUAL problematic part here is the part before the hyphen, not after. I think what we see a lot of...and this is not a Wikipedia-specific problem, but a societal one...is that criticism leveled at a person for the former is sometimes deflected by lobbing accusations that the criticism is about the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 16:54, June 20, 2012 (UTC) I see nothing wrong with the edit you cited. It is a well known use of Crisco. Just offhand I remember reading in And the Band Played On about guys lying around in the old San Francisco bathhouses with a can of Crisco by them, giving a quick nod to welcome a visitor. (Such use of Crisco is not healthy, but then again, neither is eating it. We should also quote the uses described for it in The Help.[71]) To me, the desire to exclude this very well sourced, commonly known information from an article is very difficult to explain without supposing that an editor simply doesn't think we should cover gay-related content matter, i.e. is anti-gay. And you're saying that if I were to call that "a concrete example of problematic anti-gay editing", that would be one of these punishable extraordinary claims, but yours is not?? This is highly unfair to Fae, Benjiboi, and all other editors. Wnt (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC) It is not common or well-sourced, it is fringe idiocy. If you don't see anything wrong with going to an encyclopedia article about a common kitchen product and adding "here's how some people like to use it to fuck", then you're as much a part of the problem as Benjiboi was, and Fae has been. Running around the project finding bizarre and tangential places to insert LGBT-oriented material, or any such POV-pushing nonsense, is disruptive. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC) What it sounds like you're saying to me is that (a) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for normal people. It does not cover weird and interesting details of topics. (b) Homosexuals are not normal people; the readers don't care about what any product might be associated with in their minds. (c) Homosexuals who try to use Wikipedia to write about the kinds of things they have in mind should be shown the door. Now that may be many things, but what it's not is NPOV. NPOV means you cover every detail about a product that any contributor comes forward to provide reliable sources to document. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, but if that is your interpretation of anything that has been said so far, consider me mind-boggled. Anyone who thinks it is proper to write about anal fisting in an article about a cooking product, just because some people may have used said product for a sexual practice, needs to be shown the door. Not because they are gay, or straight, or in-between (btw, you do know that fisting isn't a homosexual-exclusive activity, right? I think it says more about you that you assume that it is) but because they are pretty clueless when determining relevance of material in a topic. Wnt, if we went by your guidelines for what to include in articles, then gerbils would have an entire sub-section devoted to inserting our furry friends into one's anus. Probably with a link to an unfortunate urban legend about the practice and a famous actor, as well. Tarc (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC) The gerbil article does not presently have an 'in popular culture' section, which is where a sentence about gerbilling would belong, as it is a fictional practice. It would be far less obscure and far more relevant than many, probably most, of the "in popular culture" stuff that trails at the end of many articles. For example, I would suggest it is far more relevant than the last sentence of Apollo, about 1940s Batman comics. (This example was selected from the first few hits on a Wikipedia search for "in popular culture") Even I would agree that sometimes "popular culture" wanders into spam territory on occasion, but certainly I do not advocate throwing anyone out of Wikipedia for how they think articles should be written, or for trying to cover significant, factual information. I think it is appropriate to ask, point blank, whether you would favor that people adding sentences about Batman to articles about Greek gods should also be "shown the door", or is your disapproval limited only to those who include what you describe as irrelevant information about certain topics? And if so, how are those topics chosen? Wnt (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC) It seems to me that this discussion is starting to become off-topic with respect to the proposal here (albeit not to the case as a whole), except perhaps to the extent that it illustrates how these kinds of discussion can escalate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious carbuncle, about your reply to Wnt, I believe that you are entirely correct when you say that concern about proper sourcing for BLPs is neither pro- nor anti-gay, and is just good editing practice. But you clearly used the term "tag team" to refer to Benjiboi, Fae, and the IP. Even though your intention was to convey a shared perspective and a similar dispute resolution style of conduct among them, it was very natural to interpret your comment as meaning that Benjiboi and Fae were actively teaming up against you, something that your own evidence appears to contradict. This is actually a good example of how opportunities to de-escalate have been missed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That not really a natural interpretation at all, no. "Tag team" in a wiki sense has meant editors who present a unified front to ensure their point-of-view is reflected in the subject at hand. For an old and famous example of this, see the watch my back incident. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's difficult to see how Fae was doing that with Benjiboi, when Delicious carbuncle's evidence shows Benjiboi originally interacting with Delicious carbuncle before the Ash account existed. And saying that other people's interpretation is not really natural is another example of failing to de-escalate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Difficulty in perception it doesn't mean that it isn't actually there, I'm afraid. Groups of editors edit in tandem all the time on this project, it is the heart of the WP:BATTLE mentality found in many hot-button topics around here. "Tag-team" is more than apt, so please, enough with the nitpicking. Tarc (talk)

Is Wnt now a party to this arbitration that he/she has a comment in that section? Bielle (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Moved from above: @Delicious carbuncle: The ground rules for this discussion are that "Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight." I think the above fails the first part, and I think the part about a Fae-Benjiboi-IP "tag team" fails the second part. I see nothing in the evidence section to indicate that Benjiboi and Fae and the IP did anything more than agree. Or is a "tag team" formally defined as whenever three people disagree with someone in a vote? Wnt (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies

Fae topic banned

1) Fae is topic banned from pages and talk pages dealing with pornography and with persons who work in pornography, broadly defined.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't like the idea of a topic ban, especially from talk pages. If you truly believe that this topic ban is the right way forward, then I recommend restricting the topic ban to pornography-related BLP's and allowing Fæ to use talk pages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a significant part of where the problem originates, both in terms of disruptive interactions with other users, and in terms of improper editing of BLPs. To a large extent, Fae is otherwise a good editor. I also suggest that, if this remedy is implemented and a desysopping is contemplated, then this remedy is a valid justification for desysopping, more so than the non-disclosure of the Ash account at the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this apply just to porn, or to adult content more broadly defined? (bearing in mind that some of the issues raised in this case seem to relate more to the latter than the former). I would suggest the wider definition might be more useful here. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Good question, you may be right. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be necessary, or within the purview of this process, to submit diffs showing that several leading critics of Fae have expressed frank opposition to the idea of covering several aspects of pornography on Wikipedia at all. I think we should all be able to recall that this is so. The question we should be asking, therefore, is not whether his edits have drawn opposition, but whether they are against policy, to any meaningful degree. (where adding an unsourced, noncontroversial datum about the number of floors in a building is not what I count as meaningful!) If ArbCom is going to topic ban an editor on this topic to avoid controversy, why not topic-ban all editors on this topic? No, let's recognize Fae is a good editor not deserving such restrictions. Wnt (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this should be part of the outcome, but there is enormous wisdom to the recommendation which I hope will not go ignored. Carrite (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae and (name) interaction ban

2) Fae and (name) are placed under an interaction ban, in all namespaces.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed largely to protect Fae from harassment, secondarily to prevent conflicts that Fae might begin. Actually, both reasons are equally important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC) As with the second proposed finding of fact, this needs to be rewritten after all the evidence is evaluated, and individual interaction bans specified for each user. I expect that there should be at least one of these, and perhaps as many as five or six. As with the other proposed remedy, it may potentially also be a valid reason for desysopping. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this also cover off-wiki activity related to Wikipedia, or at the very least would such off-wiki activity be held against the instigator? Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I don't think that ArbCom is empowered to regulate what happens off-wiki. I understand and sympathize with where you are coming from, and there could certainly be, in principle, applications to canvassing enforcement, but I think the simple existence of off-site activity would not be sanctionable. But once it becomes something taking place on-site, then it's a ban violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess what I'm trying to get at is the need to shut this issue down for good. If someone is interaction-banned on-wiki but then mounts or participates in an anti-Fae campaign off-wiki, this will just keep rumbling on. I can very easily see that happening, frankly - remember that this issue has been driven by off-wiki activism. The question is, what if anything can we do about it? Could we, for instance, require people to give a prior commitment to not engage with Fae in any context on or off-wiki? Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it isn't Wikipedia's job to police the rest of teh internets. Yes, I too can see all kinds of campaigns rumbling on off-wiki. But if you don't like what people elsewhere are saying, don't read what they are saying. If those other people bring their disruptive campaigns on-wiki, sanction them for that here. And if they've canvassed for those disruptive campaigns, then sanction that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't part of the problem here that Fae has refused to interact when someone calls something he's said or done into question? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

There are many parts to the problem, but I am absolutely convinced at this point that it is far from Fae being the only source of the problem. If this were simply a history in which the other users raised reasonable concerns, then Fae was silent, and then the other users politely asked again, then what you ask would apply. But that is grossly far from the truth. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You're saying Fae can be desysopped to protect him from harassment? If the objective is really to protect him, let him decide if he wants an interaction ban. Wnt (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm saying that there should be an interaction ban, and that it will be a good thing by shutting down much of the problems giving rise to this case. In significant part, it will be good because it protects him, in the sense that the other users have been very guilty of making things worse, and making things worse than they needed to be. But Fae has played a big enough role in the drama that this isn't going to be up to him. And if someone needs to be put under an interaction ban, they are not fit to be an administrator, although that point now appears to be moot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that several of the worst offenders are likely to get long-term blocks or bans, so this may be moot to some extent. Once you take out the three worst offenders I'm not sure who else would need to be given an interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Fæ

I fully agree that using language that could be interpreted as homophobic should not be assumed to necessarily indicate that person using it is homophobic. I accept that my responses in the past have been inflammatory where I perceived homophobic language being used on Wikipedia. On the evidence page I highlighted where I have apologised to those who may have been affected and these have been accepted.

Even with the context of what I see as more than six months of stalking, personal abuse and harassment off-wiki, and throughout asking for help and attempting to follow advice from from the Wikimedia Foundation, Arbcom members and external authorities, I accept that my behaviour and occasionally emotional responses have not been to the standard we would like to see from those trusted as administrators. I firmly believe that any trusted status requires us to take a lead on civility and transparency. I regret not taking part more firmly in dispute resolution when the opportunity was raised. As explained in my reply to questions before and after my RFA I followed John Vandenberg's advice and took steps to avoid those that I perceived as hounding me and steered clear of the contentious topic of gay adult film actors for well over a year.

Under the circumstances, I believe that the following are appropriate actions:

1. I will hand back the mop and will not pursue RFA until after June 2013 should I regain my confidence and be in a position to help in that capacity again.
2. An interaction ban on Wikipedia for one year with Delicious carbuncle, Bali ultimate, Michaeldsuarez and anyone that requests it as part of this case, so that we can all get on with creating content rather than worrying about off-wiki allegations.
3. A one year topic ban on Wikipedia on the area of biographies for pornographic film actors in line with my previous voluntary agreement.

--Fæ (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

When complying with an interaction or topic ban, I would like to be able to continue helping the Wikipedia community with combating vandalism even if in a more limited way without sysop tools. I enjoy contributing in this way and many have noted that I am good at it. I would like a single point of contact to discuss pragmatically how to use anti-vandalism tools whilst making every reasonable effort to comply with a ban.

I have put in a request for immediate de-sysop. --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An interaction ban would be difficult to implement unless Fæ gives up the ability to bring up the Wikipedia Review, Wikipediocracy, and Encyclopedia Dramatica on a dramaboard. Bringing up such websites would invite (or provoke) an interaction. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I find the statement "language that could be interpreted as homophobic should not be assumed to necessarily indicate that person using it is homophobic" (and a similar sentence in Fæ's "answers" on the evidence page: "I recognized that I jumped to the wrong conclusion by assuming an apparent homophobic statement could only be made by a homophobe") to be troubling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have a standing opposition to all forms and implementations of interaction bans, it just adds dumb red tape and inevitably invites more drama than it purports to lessen. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems a good solution to me, as far as the issues concerning Fae are concerned. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems to completely address what I believe to the main issue, being the flawed RfA. I believe the rhetoric both on and off wiki has deescalated to the point where this is a satisfactory solution. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am deeply disappointed by this surrender, and I have no doubt that many of the same parties who have criticized Fae and many others in previous proceedings will continue to make their case here against other editors in the future. But the time for argument has passed - now, the time has come to recognize that Wikipedia's design, which permits an effectively self-selecting group of admins and officials to control the accumulated content and traffic, is simply not viable in the long term. Once sufficient monetary and political value is accumulated, the even keel of academic freedom is forgotten, and a mad squabble ensues over control of the site's "editorial discretion". Too many good editors and admins have fallen to processes like this, in which Wikipedia's bureaucratic battleground leads to them being denigrated for political advantage as nothing but trouble-makers despite years of good service. The question now is whether we can design and launch effective life-boats before this great ship sinks forever beneath the waves. Wnt (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that Fae's voluntary stepping down as a sysop shows a lot of class, and frankly, comes across better than some of his critics. I think the three users listed by Fae as parties to interaction bans sounds about right, as a low-end minimum. And I think the topic ban needs to be "indefinite", rather than have an expiration date that would mitigate the need to petition for a lifting. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

My review of the situation is that there is much more of concern than edits to gay porn bios. The history under Ash with the gay bathhouse article and list of regulars spun off from that article is one notable point of concern. I am also concerned that there has been a habit under Ash and Fæ of inserting sexual material into articles where it is unnecessary/excessive or overemphasizes the sexual aspects of a subject. Should there be interest in issuing a topic ban it should cover the inserting of any overtly sexual material and edits concerning such material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Under the circumstances this seems a most wise and gracious response. Id agree in a sense its a surrender to witch hunters, but given the disappointing lack of support from the Arbs and the wider community, I doubt even 1 in 10 would have had the courage to stand up to them as long as you did. A reasonable outcome to this case would have been for the WR accounts to be warned that further harassment will result in harsh sanctions, while you yourself should have merely been advised not to let the harassment provoke you into incivility. But realistically this was never going to happen without more reasonable editors pitching in, despite the valiant efforts of Prioryman, Wnt and a few others. I hope you don't take this experience personally. As you probably know, many of the same accounts also conspired against the legendary Benji over at WR, descending on ANI en mass to get him perma banned, launching their attack over the Christmas period so it was all over before Benji's fellow squad members were even aware. What you may not know is that several of the accounts have also attacked other prominent inclusionists of excellent character, including ones who are straight, one of which seems to be even more socially conservative than myself. So Id agree it seems unlikely that homophobia is a major motivation. One day the WR accounts will likely over extend themselves and the community will finally do something about them. But not this day. Thanks for the excellent work you've done for the community and I hope you will be able to rejoin the admin corps in a years time, if you feel that's a good choice for you. God bless you and always be rightly proud of who you are. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

[72], [73], [74] – I can't find the late December discussion that you're referring to. Are you talking about a different Benji? Can you please provide a hyperlink to the discussion? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity, I should have said 'run up to Christmas', though the Christmas period is quite often understood to begin early in Dec. This doesn't seem central enough to require links, but if youre interested you could search on ANI / AN for around 8-10 Dec, for both 2009 & 2010, and you should be able find attacks against Benji launched by all too familiar WR accounts. Again very disappointing how few did anything to defend such a prolific and useful editor. He was for several years the well respected de facto leader of the noble Article Rescue Squad; in his heyday the Wiki was a much friendlier, more joyous and more welcoming place. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer links. I don't see WR users "descending on ANI en mass to get [Benjiboi] perma banned": Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive205#AfDs_of_unsourced_BLPs_of_gay_porn_performers. There were WR users, but I wouldn't describe it as "en masse", and I don't see any demands for a permaban. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Are you referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive219#Community_ban_proposal:_Benjiboi. Don't you realize that Benjiboi was a dishonest sockpuppeteer? How many WR users were involved in that discussion? Three? Four? Five? "En masse"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd choose that particular example, but there are other situations (e.g. Cirt/Manipulation of BLPs) where similar battle lines have been drawn. I think there is very good reason to fear that there has been an ideologically motivated purge of admins in progress for some time, but many of the parties and victims to it, or its overall goal, are not immediately obvious. The larger problem is that Wikipedia's site traffic has become an immense asset, perhaps worth billions, up for grabs to whoever can win this game of Survivor, so even if the current concentration of influence could be stopped another would begin. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's comments above demonstrate why a broader topic ban is necessary and why his proposed solution is inadequate. Even though the editors at the Clementi article and the editors at the WP:WQA agreed that Fae's accusation against me was wrong, even though the editor arguing against a more broad topic ban for Fae is unnecessary thinks that what Fae did concerning me was wrong, Fae refuses to accept any responsibility or show any understanding that he did anything wrong. In fact, he seems to think that his actions were good and that me being hurt by his unfounded accusation is somehow a "tendentious argument". Similarly, Fae hasn't adequately addressed, in my mind, that his pattern of personal attacks, unfounded accusations and reluctuance to engage in dispute resolution procedures are problems that need addressing.LedRush (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Tarc

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Legit sock usage revoked

1) Fæ's right to WP:SOCK#LEGIT is revoked; he is limited to one account at a time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A one-account restriction may be in order in this case, although there is a different wording we usually use for this remedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this needs to be set down in writing, as much community time and patience has been expended dealing with the issue of multiple accounts and bad cleanstarts. Note this does not negate a right to WP:CLEANSTART itself. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the old accounts are now nearly two years out of use, I think this would be a pointless remedy: there is no ongoing issue in this regard that needs to be addressed. It also doesn't take into account the fact that Fae has two legitimate doppelganger accounts (like User:Fae) which have not been the subject of any dispute. Prioryman (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really pointless at all, no. If a user has abused alternate accounts in the past, then a condition of them remaining in the project at all is that they are prohibited from doing the bad things they used to do. There has simply been too much deception going on here in regards to socks. If Fae wishes to retain a legitimate doppelganger account and agrees to never edit with it, IMO that could be an acceptable exception. Tarc (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

CLEAN START#RfA revoked

2) In any subsequent RfA, Fæ must run as himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think that as a practical matter this may be a non-issue (I can't imagine that Fae will want to go down this road again, or would have much success if he tried), and so I think it needn't be a separate remedy, though the concept may be worked into one of the remedies at some point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. It must either be as "User:Fæ", or if another clean start has been invoked, that needs to be made known to the Wikipedia community in the RfA itself. So for the purposes of a new Fæ RfA, the "You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts" line of Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#Requests for adminship shall be set aside in favor of a "You are required..." reading. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

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

Fae's references to WP:DENY in his evidence show an ignorance of the referenced essay.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand the point being made, but I think this is far from the heart of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fae links WP:DENY to explain his refusal to participate in the RFC/U and answer questions in the manner expected of admins. WP:DENY concerns itself with vandals. Unless Fae produces evidence that Delicious Carbuncle or others were vandalising Wikipedia, then his linking the essay shows an ignorance of its contents and of Wikipedia policy and process unfitting of an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this even relevant? WP:DENY is just an essay, not a site policy. In addition, the principle of "deny recognition" goes beyond the scope of vandalism, and it is possible that Fæ used the principle by extension. Deryck C. 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY specifically excludes harassment from being a reason to deny recognition. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Essays have no bearing in organizational law and it is inappropriate to speculate on whether the meaning of an opinion piece has been construed properly or incorrectly. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae interactions with Delicious carbuncle

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I suggested to Delicious carbuncle on their user talk that they add evidence about the origins of the dispute, based upon comments to me at my own user talk, and I see that they have now done so; thanks. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Origin of the harassment and homophobia narrative, as well as the section immediately after it, about DR. I have a couple of thoughts about the new evidence. It seems that the "narrative" was begun not by Fae/Ash, but by a different user, now banned. The first time that the diffs show Fae/Ash becoming involved in the conflict, we see Delicious carbuncle making a polite statement, Ash expressing concern about bias, and Delicious carbuncle politely explaining that there was no bias [75]. But note that Ash then admits his over-reaction and apologizes. I also can be somewhat sympathetic to Fae's sensitivity about homophobia, and having these concerns in the context of the previous claims by the now-banned user is not entirely unreasonable, even though the banned user was wrong. (Compare also Newyorkbrad's comments about the "Blue People", following the Noleander case.) I think that this step in the process was the specific point where both parties could have dropped the stick and moved on, and it was a critical missed opportunity. Instead, Fae clearly has some blame per Delicious carbuncle's evidence, but Delicious carbuncle also could have realized how their own subsequent edits would have drawn suspicion/sensitivity, and did not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: