Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:52, 30 June 2012

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case

This case is highly contentious, and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads up on the procedures we will be using.

A) First off, we will be running under a "single warning" system. The clerks, myself and other arbitrators will be monitoring this case. Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight. Clerks have been given authority to remove such comments and give the commenter a single warning. If such issues happen again after a participant has been warned, the participant will either be barred from further participation in this arbitration case, or the person will be blocked for a period of time at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone. That includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether it is truly random or not).

B) There will be NO speculations allowed. This includes the following:

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

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

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

If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand. Don't think it's "better to ask for forgiveness then it is permission". It's not. These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages.

We will be using the just-ratified limits on evidence (to wit, 1000 words/100 diffs for direct parties, 500/50 for non-parties to this case). If you're going to exceed either, ask myself or another arbitrator (on the /Evidence talk page) before you do so.

To prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, we are taking additional measures to limit disruption. The case pages will be semi-protected and there will be additional scrutiny paid to accounts who haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. In other words, don't expect to try to avoid scrutiny with an IP address or an alternate, undeclared account. It will be counterproductive. If a new editor or an IP editor truly has something that needs to be said, they can ask a clerk to post for them.

Finally, after I take the first few days to review the initial evidence and workshop postings, I will be posting a series of questions on the workshop page that I would like the parties to answer. I am primarily interested in what the parties have to say in response. This should be aimed solely at answering my questions and not going back and forth with other people's answers.

Thank you for your attention, and hopefully, your compliance with these directives.

For the Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz and WP:NotCensored

Just expanding on the thinking behind the two remedy proposals I made. I understand the restrictions on this case, but they seem to be depriving Fæ of a level playing field in a number of ways. Its especially regretable that MBisanz once again chose to open proceedings with a diff bomb. An accusation can be made using a single diff and one or two words - but it is generally impossible to adequately refute one without using at least twenty times as many words. This is especially so when the accusation has extra weight by being made by a crat. So Fæ is effectively prevented from adequately defending himself. Im not arguing that MBisanz's participation in this witch hunt requires a desysop, he does heaps of useful work so that would be a shame. Yet a stern warning does seem called for. As Varnent argued, its desirable that Arbs display more severity towards the witch hunters and their supporter rather than towards their victim. By comming down relatively hard on MB, the arbs would create some space to possibly gently advise Fæ to consider taking a step back from involvement in wiki politics for a while. That might be in his best interests especially if no way can be found to address the off wiki harassment. If it becomes necessary to gently advise Fæ, I hope Arbs can at least formally recognise that its understandable that not all his recent posting have been perfectly collegial. Even the strongest characters would be distressed at the blind eye many seem to be turning to the sustained campaign of harassment.

Tension over WP:NotCensored is perhaps a reason why some good faith editors are concerned about some of Fæ's editing. The actual wording at WP:NOTCENSORED does seem to allow certain forms of limited censoring, but while we have the WP:Notsored policy shortcut, editors can claim "WP is not censored" to support them including shocking material. Limited censorship is a good thing, obviously its best not to have extreme porn that glorifies rape, and theres all kinds of other sorts of highly offensive material we might be better off without. Theres is little point in a regular editor proposing this sort of change on WP:Not - but if Arbs wanted to take this up they could maybe get support from the Foundation for a policy changing proposal that could only be denied by consensus, instead of requiring consensus to make? As a moderate social conservative, I feel such a measure would be a way to get a good result from this case. But most might see the measure as a victory by the WR accounts. So again it would be useful if MBisanz is warned or admonished so as to avoid any appearance that Arbs help witch hunters profit from their actions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your WP:NONCENSORED proposal, please refer to my comment on the Workshop page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, somewhat procedural

I notice that in the discussion that follows under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Fae's real name, a user posts what might be personally identifying information. Should this information be removed? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything (or at least anything that needs removing). Do you want to email me or the clerks, rather than draw attention to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm doing this the wrong way, but it's a person's real life last name, apparently already posted but being repeated a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been disclosed by Fae in relation to Wikimedia UK, but as a courtesy to Fae - who doesn't seem to use it on Wikipedia - I think it should be removed. Bali ultimate seems to be trying to make a point by using it so conspicuously when nobody else is doing so. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that its use does seem somewhat pointed, since Fae is known by it in his WMUK position, removing it at this point would seem fairly pointless. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess that answers my question. Because it seemed to be known information, I didn't perceive it as an e-mail issue, but because it also seems to be rather mean-spirited, I felt it needed eyes on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have hatted the portion that does not pertain directly to the FoF - which is about what Fae posted, not about what anyone else posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 22:43, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Good solution, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman's workshop involvement

Dear arbitrators,

Is this the Fæ–MBisanz case, or the Prioryman–Delicious carbuncle case? I am absolutely astonished to see reams and reams of material about DC from Prioryman here on the workshop page, given that the two are (recently!) interaction-banned. Now, Prioryman did say on the evidence talk page that you gave him permission to post these, but Prioryman asserts over there that "This evidence and findings of fact are not intended to indict Delicious carbuncle and Bali ultimate, the other editor whose conduct I have cited, but to provide background and context to the RFC/U against Fae. I believe that this evidence, and the findings of fact that it supports, makes a case for exonerating circumstances in relation to certain aspects of Fae's conduct. In order to respect the interaction ban and to avoid personalising the issues any further, I will not be following up comments posted by Delicious carbuncle and I will not be proposing remedies concerning him." However, when I read what Prioryman actually wrote, things like "Delicious carbuncle had unclean hands", or "Delicious carbuncle has previously used the tactic of posting intensively about other editors off-wiki as a prelude to an RFC/U," these look very much like indictments of DC to me, rather than description of circumstances likely to exonerate Fæ. Is this the sort of stuff you had expected Prioryman to post? Because it seems to me this case is degenerating into a mudfest between two interaction-banned editors, neither of whom are parties here, and that you have privileged one of these two editors. Do we really think no one else could have presented mitigating circumstances related to Fæ's conduct? JN466 00:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors have an extensive history, including some extremely hostile exchanges in several ANI threads. Prioryman requested, and obtained, an interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle (DC), which DC has largely honored, including in this case. Prioryman, however, appears to be trying to use the case to further his own admitted attempts at getting DC banned. Like I said, I believe the conflict started before the Fae issue arose, when DC questioned the circumstances surrounding Prioryman's clean start. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I understand that DC has been given the same permission as me - there is no "privilege". I posted these FoFs to make the point that Fae and others had reason to believe that DC was not acting in good faith ("unclean hands") and that DC had a track record of similar conduct (the Cirt-Jayen case and other incidents on WR). The FoFs and evidence aim to support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the RFC/U was not initiated in good faith or with clean hands, and that Fae's response to it was based on that belief. I have not made and will not make any proposals for remedies involving DC, so it's false to claim that I am attempting to "get him banned". My aim here is to exonerate aspects of Fae's conduct by providing evidence of the wider context. Prioryman (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of history with DC. I am prepared to believe a lot, but not that you don't carry a grudge against DC after all that's happened. --JN466 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, both editors may post evidence pertaining to the other (within the prevailing evidence constraints), and make workshop proposals based on that evidence. They may not directly engage with each other in threaded dialogue, or post about each other on case talkpages. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is the scope of this case now? Is it about Fæ and MBisanz, or are you looking to examine and potentially sanction other editors' conduct?
2. If this case is not just about Fæ and MBisanz, but is about other editors' conduct as well, I would propose that you allow members of the community to submit evidence regarding Prioryman and DC. The history of enmity between Prioryman and DC and its underlying reasons should be examined here if you are giving Prioryman such a platform. It may also be advisable for one or two members of arbcom to recuse, in that case.
3. Will you please extend the evidence submission period by a week, given that all of this was posted just as the evidence submission period was due to close?
It strikes me that Prioryman's case and Fæ's case have a lot in common. Both had accounts that claimed to stop editing Wikipedia while they were the subject of dispute resolution. Both immediately came back with one or several new accounts, without declaring the connection to the prior account. Both entered controversy with the new account. Both were recognised by DC. --JN466 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain why this case seems to be about me and not Fæ?

I was planning on staying away from this entirely, but the attacks and untruths in Fæ's answers to the questions posed by the Arbs caused me to post requests for corrections on the talk page (which were, for the most part, entirely ignored). I decided to contribute evidence largely to set the record straight about allegations made in Fæ's statement and on the workshop page. I am puzzled why so much of the workshop material relates to me and not to Fæ. My understanding was that this case was about Fæ's actions as an admin and his failure to engage in dispute resolution processes. I have asked Fæ for literally years now (if you include requests I made to Ash) to engage in some form of dispute resolution instead of making unsubstantiated allegations, but he has consistently avoided doing so - is this that case? If so, I should have been a party and I think it would have been nice if someone told me that I needed to mount a defence. If not, can someone please set this case back on track? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. If this case is about Delicious carbuncle, s/he should have been told when the case started. If it isn't, then the committee needs to make clear now that it isn't. JN466 02:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=497338631&oldid=497338514 – I guess that what SirFozzie said to me also applies to Delicious carbuncle. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you have either misunderstood SirFozzie, or this is an administrative cock-up. SirFozzie refers to "parties" there. It has been customary in the past to add an editor as a party on the main case page if they were considered a party. The main case page in this case still lists just two parties: Fæ and MBisanz. An editor whose conduct comes under scrutiny during the course of a case is entitled to formal notification of that fact from the committee or its clerks. JN466 04:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC has not been made a party. If he would like to be considered one, or wishes to make the case that he is one, that needs to be directed to SirFozzie. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a clerk, can you help facilitate this kind of communication with the Committee, that is if you have any channels of communication with them that we don't have access to? Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If DC would like to be considered a party, I would be more than glad to send a note to the Committee.

Answering your second question, clerks have write-access to the AC lists, which allows our messages to avoid moderation. Additionally, arbitrators are subscribed to the clerks list, so we can send them messages relatively quickly. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's helpful information. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I proposed my DC-related findings of fact and remedy in order to settle the Email incident issue once and for all (the incident featured prominently in Fæ's answers and Prioryman's arguments, and 28bytes's closure of the AN/I discussion was contested by at least three users), and I was concerned about the privacy of others and the possibility that more Emails might be published in the future. I've also alerted Delicious carbuncle so that he or she could defend himself or herself. It was pretty obvious to me right from the start that this case was eventually going to transform into yet another discussion about what one may or may not do outside of Wikimedia, which is why I decided to participate in the first place. The biggest clue of that inevitable transformation was Fæ's accusation about MBisanz meeting privately with Eric Barbour. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get ahead of the committee here, or make self-fulfilling prophecies. The clerk has confirmed that DC is not a party. So s/he isn't. --JN466 05:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, as Fae has contended that he has been the target of harassment, it's necessary to establish whether his claim has any foundation in fact. We therefore need to examine whether editors have engaged in conduct that could be construed as harassment or could have given rise to the impression that he was being harassed. This dispute seems to have been driven as much by conduct off-wiki as on-wiki, so it's also necessary to examine what has been going on off-wiki, particularly as Fae and others have highlighted it as an area of concern. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Even if true, coming home and threatening to take the cat down to the vet 'cos he's been spotted kipping in the neighbour-from-hell's backyard, isn't really on. John lilburne (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Fæ has been the target of harassment on-wiki is evident to anyone who saw the comments posted by IP and throw-away accounts here and on Commons. I did not make those comments. I do not know who made those comments. I do not condone the actions of those who made those comments. I have no ownership or position of authority on Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy and never have. I am not any kind of Machiavellian figure or ringleader, as should be evident from the discussions on WR. If the community wishes to sanction me for my actions on- or off-wiki, that is one thing, but I do not wish to be a scapegoat for the actions of others. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted an Arbitrator to this discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle and Michaeldsuarez have now been added as parties to the case. --JN466 17:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the spirit of all Wikipedia dispute resolution processes that the behaviour of all parties may be examined. Given Delicious carbuncle's heavy involvement in many of the relevant conflicts, I'm not surprised that a significant proportion of the investigation now concerns Delicious carbuncle. It was at most a procedural oversight on the clerks' part not to have added and notified Delicious carbuncle as a party to this case sooner. Der yck C. 23:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no oversight on the part of the clerks. They notified us when the were told to add us my Sir Fozzie. This would have been after the close of evidence. I am somewhat busy at the moment, so rather than waste my time, I am awaiting clarification of the focus and scope of the case so that I may prepare evidence. Given the circumstances, I fully expect that an extension will be granted to permit this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what should happen, but do not count on it happening. I have asked for clarification on the scope of cases before and received nothing. I strongly suggest you review what's been presented in the case so far, and use that as the basis to prepare your evidence. Whether you prepare evidence or not, the case will almost certainly proceed. ArbCom does not have a procedure in place for handling extensions when parties are added to cases. It should be automatic; anyone who is added to a case should automatically get an extension. But, that's not how it works, and without procedure in place there's no way to hold ArbCom accountable for the lack of extension. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there would be very little disagreement that this is what should happen. It would reflect very poorly on ArbCom (and Wikipedia governance in general) if this does not happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee always states that we will look at all issues brought to our attention as part of a case. Right now, evidence has been posted that made me decide to add Michaeldsuarez and DC as parties to this case: DC, if you have evidence to post/rebut other people's evidence, please do so over this weekend. SirFozzie (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone else gets two weeks to submit evidence, and DC gets two days? What if he's busy or out of town this weekend? DC, how much time did you ask for? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he needs to submit statements after evidence closes, he can ask a clerk to submit it for him (as the evidence page will be closed on Monday). SirFozzie (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which effectively means he gets two days while everyone else gets two weeks. If he takes two weeks, the workshop page will already have closed. Extension, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Again, we're not going to let this case drag on indefinitely. They have a method available to them if they wish... SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is closing the case rapidly more important than giving DC an appropriately fair chance? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get my evidence posted over the weekend. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, there is a procedure for handling extensions; it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation_of_participation_in_proceedings and says, Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later. JN466 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen; thank you for pointing that out. I sincerely appreciate it. DC, you have 6 days remaining. Sir Fozzie, two days is too little, and not supported by procedure. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sections of Prioryman's workshop entries need to be stricken

I find it rather deplorable that accusations lobbed against banned or blocked users have been allowed to be entered into the Workshop discussions. As much as certain Wikipedia may wish to view the likes of Vigilant, Peter Damian, and Eric Barbour as wiki-villains, they are still living people who are not fair game for attacks when they are not allowed to be here to offer explanations or defense.

The following sections

Banned users were heavily involved in off-wiki threads initiated by Delicious carbuncle
Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention

Need clerk/arb review. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not made any "attacks". Under "Banned users were heavily involved in off-wiki threads initiated by Delicious carbuncle", I've simply stated what the block logs say about why Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and EricBarbour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were blocked or banned. That is a matter of factual record. If they wish to "defend" themselves, they are of course free to post unblock requests or email the Arbcom to ask for their blocks or bans to be lifted (though I suspect the response to that is likely to be "over our dead bodies"). Under "Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention", I've simply stated the indisputable fact that threads were started by DC and Vigilant, who is indefinitely blocked. It's not an "attack" to note that someone was indefinitely blocked for harassment when, in fact, they were indefinitely blocked for harassment. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, just so I'm clear, is your concern that allegations are being made against users who aren't here to respond or about the tone of the statements? Lord Roem (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little of both. Others have noted that Prioryman is casting a rather wide net of aspersions in his defense of Fae, so much so that some questioned why Delicious Carbuncle was getting so much flak in a case began as "MBisanz-Fae", a net now spreading to others off-wiki. It is coming across as a bit of a character assassination, like a lawyer trying to discredit witnesses to make his client look better. Something has seemed remarkably off about this entire case so far, and what it is is that Prioryman-Fae relationship is quite similar to a lawyer-client one. I've participated in a few Arbcoms, read many, and I do not recall this sort of proxy defense ever being done before. Additionally, yes, these 3 are banned users who are unable to participate here. IMO it is a basic gesture of courtesy that one does not attack people who are unable to offer a defense. Further, none of these 3 were banned for anything to do with Fae, so the "facts", as they are, about their bans is not really relevant to this case. Unless Prioryman would like to show what connection, say, Damian's purported WMUK ban has to do with this Arbcom (e.g. did Fae have a hand in discussing or voting upon it as part of his WMUK affiliation?) then it really has no place here. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what - I'll compromise on this. I note DC's comments in the section above about his lack of responsibility for what goes on at WR/Wikipediocracy, and after all what can we do against already-banned users? - ban them again? (shades of posthumous execution). So although I refute any suggestion that noting that a banned user is in fact banned constitutes an "attack", I'll remove the section on banned users as it's at a bit of tangent to the main thrust of the FoFs. I will not, however, remove the section "Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention" as that is just a short statement of very basic verifiable facts which in any sane environment would be entirely controversial. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is "predominately hostile" a finding of fact, though? Perhaps if those involved had an opportunity to respond, they may characterize those discussions as "frank" and "candid". IMO alot of this stuff is simply going off the reservation and into speculative territory, that's the problem here. Tarc (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we all should just take a short break here from debating those workshop proposals? Let's sleep on it, come back in the morning, and see whether we want to keep discussing that tangent. I think that's reasonable. Lord Roem (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks, but you also removed my and several other editors' comments when you removed that section. [1] Could I ask you to restore the section, or have a clerk restore it, and then simply redact those parts of your own posts that you wish to remove? Other editors can then proceed similarly, striking those parts of their statements which they feel no longer apply. Thanks. --JN466 21:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presented here without comment: this from Prioryman. I have replied on Tryptofish's talk page. JN466 02:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll add this reply: [2]. Arbs are welcome to stop by and take a look (unabashed hint!). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The link was http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=483 and should have led you to page 483 of a pdf document on the UK parliament website. I am sorry it didn't work for you; probably something to do with your computer's pdf handling. JN466 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link is working for me - not seen that before - very interesting work - thank you J. - Youreallycan 04:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't work for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It works now; please see: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of stalking and a "campaign"

commons:File_talk:Carn_Brea.svg – Am I not allowed to point out a flaw in an image? I'm not stalking, and I'm not running a campaign. When I decided to ignore one of Fæ's claims in order to avoid an argument, Fæ took it as a sign that I was acknowledging his claims. Hearing about an accuracy in an image from a forum isn't stalking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threat made on Wikimedia Commons and I have not mentioned anything on Wikipedia. I said on Wikimedia Commons "Michaeldsuarez, considering your campaign against me on EncyclopediaDramatica, don't you think it might be seen as a bit creepy to be seen openly imagestalking me on WikimediaCommons?" and after a reply, "I note you do not deny this is a campaign. Should you persist, I feel it will become perfectly reasonable to refer to your actions as abusive stalking and to complain about them as such." I then clarified "Nope, no legal threat above, that's in your head. I have made a statement of fact that I will start referring to your behaviour as abusive stalking and complain about it on the most appropriate noticeboard." It seems odd that someone following my contributions in immense detail, creating a page about me on EncyclopediaDramatica, persistently writing about me in negative detail for many months on Wikipedia Review and more recently on Wikipediocracy should be worried about it being called "creepy" or that I might feel imagestalking me looks like "abusive stalking", especially in the light that Michaeldsuarez has decided to bring a false claim of a legal threat here rather than on Commons, which itself looks quite a lot like deliberately stalking across Wikimedia projects, especially as claims of legal threats are known to be treated quite differently on Wikipedia versus Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "following [your] contributions in immense detail". I've viewed your contributions and log entries in the past, but I'm not following them. I'm not not keeping myself updated. I'm not constantly watching you. I'm not stalking. In addition, I wouldn't call my posting about you "persistent". I don't comment on you as much as the other users on the WR and Wikipediocracy do. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, considering that evidence has been brought up that strongly suggests that you apparently engaged in some flickrwashing in the past, it's no surprise that people are looking through your upload logs. OTOH, I suspect that anyone who has been around for a while knows that "wikistalking" (or "stalking" in general in wikispeak) doesn't actually imply what normal people think of as "stalking" (which is, indeed a crime). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 13:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no remit over Commons. Does this have any relevance to the case before the Committee (specifically, en-WP?) SirFozzie (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, it probably doesn't under the rules you have set out, but those rules seem to be a bit narrow to me. The English Wikipedia isn't a world unto itself. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same sentiment, more temperate language [4]. Just to clarify things, My first two removals happened whilst the image on Commons was incorrect. The third looked the same to me because IE/Wikipedia (whichever is responsible for what I saw on my screen) loaded the article page without having accessed the refreshed image from Commons. It therefore looked to me as if the image was still incorrect and I made a good faith mistake in reversing Fae's reinsertion. It is unfortunate that Fae denied the mistake in the map when error when PK first pointed it out on Commons and it was only when PK pointed the error out on Wikipediocracy and people reacted to that that Fae fixed it and that he chose to interpret the fact that I removed an erroneous picture as some sort of following him around.--Peter cohen (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Peter, are you claiming that your apparently single minded contributions since the 28th of November 2011 to Wikimedia Commons inter-spaced with dropping into every discussion about me over the last 8 months on Wikipedia is a coincidence?[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] If we add in your letter writing about me, meetings about me and many, many posts relating to my professional and personal life on Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy in the same period, most people would say that, yes, you were making a sustained and determined effort to follow me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those diffs mainly point here, to the RFC, and ANI threads, hardly presents a case of a "determination to follow me across Wikimedia". Also presenting evidence to a parliamentary committee that they may have been mislead on page 729 by "In particular with biographies, they fairly represent the enforcement of polices to ensure facts are presented with appropriate weight and are verifiable." Especially when the statement maker may himself have been 'under a cloud' on BLP issues; where policies are more often breached than adhered to; and where the few isolated editor that attempt to uphold such policies, often end up sanctioned by the WELIKEIT brigade. John lilburne (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, 8 out of 18 diffs are not RFAr, RFC, ANI or AN, you seem to be exaggerating by using the word "mainly". It should be noted that these diff are only a representative sampling, not a complete analysis and are limited to Wikipedia, rather than other projects. As for the letter you quote, this was redacted by Peter Cohen before publication so you may only have a partial view of his original statement. The observation that Peter Cohen has been determined to follow me across Wikimedia in consideration of his well documented efforts on and off wiki over the last 8 months to make and promote claims (in the sense of making similar claims in multiple forums on and off-wiki to draw attention to them) about my private and professional life seems entirely accurate and mild. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of Fae's WP:BATTLEGROUND selectivity. As people will recall, the previous proposed Arbcom case involving Fae arose out of his complaining about references to the comments of his emails. Here he is referring to the content of an email which I sent to him among others and on the workshop page he quotes from an email from an Arb. For Mr van Haeften, the policy concerning referencing emails only applies when it is convenient and most certainly does not when it is inconvenient. The application of boundaries around what is said on and off Wikipedia again is only relevant when it is convenient. I myself have at least posted on SirFozzie's talk page to try to clarify what is and is not admissable and he replied to my message yesterday. Fae continues to makes several references here to things on Commons in the very same thread that SirFozzie has just made clear that they are not relevant to this case. I am not going to reply to the content of the allegations about what I have done off-Wikipedia as this clearly does not fall within the boundaries set by Sir Fozzie. My evidence to the Select Committee, for example, relates to my views of evidence Fae gave in his capacity as a Trustee of Wikimedia UK and only indirectly concerns his actions on Wikipedia except as they illustrate my concerns with his evidence. It therefore is irrelevant to this case. My meeting with Jon Davies was in response to his contacting me by email and then by phone. It was he, and not I, who proposed a meeting about my email to the select committee, i.e. about evidence submitted on behalf of WMUK and van Haeften's conduct as a trustee, not about his conduct as a Wikipedian. Again it is irrelevant to this case. SirFozzie has made it quite clear that any comments I, or others, continue to make off-Wikipedia about Ash in his capacity as Chair of WMUK are not admissable here. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, you seem to miss out that I did not introduce off-wiki evidence here, I am only putting the claims of others in context. Check the history of this thread. As for your email, check the diffs provided, you made this public, not me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SirFozzie: Fæ's pattern of making accusations is an integral part of this case. You seem concerned about activity outside of enwiki: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Michaeldsuarez_Battleground. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once you start looking at off-site behaviour, you cannot with intellectual honesty choose which sites where parties relate to each other are within scope and which ones are not. If anything, what is done or said on Commons in relation to Wikipedia users is far closer to home than anything said elsewhere. As for the image, Ash inserted the now-deleted, and allegedly Flickr-washed Commons image here on Wikipedia: [24], thus carrying any copyright issue from Commons into Wikipedia. It is a long time ago, but so is the beginning of this dispute. Let us note that there was much in the modus operandi of the Ash account that was apt to attract attention and scrutiny from good-faith editors. JN466 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen466, if your key evidence is to a single edit four and a half years ago and relates to deleted files and long deleted flickr accounts on other projects then there is a problem here. I am terribly sorry if four and a half years ago I did not properly understand Wikipedia policies or Wikimedia Commons licensing rules, I put my hand up to that mistake, though I cannot remember any details or making the mistake as it was so long ago (more than 100,000 edits across Wikimedia projects of mine have gone under the bridge since then). However are you really trying to introduce this as evidence for this Arbcom case? --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like a mistake. It looks intentional. Why go the detour via Flickr, and put a CC licence on it there, before uploading it to Commons? Why not link to YouTube? And if you were doing stuff like that then, accompanied by your natural flamboyance :), it's not really surprising to me that your editing attracted attention. There are good-faith explanations for why people noticed you, and looked into your editing. You may simply have created the impression of someone sailing close to the wind. Regards. JN466 18:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Natural flamboyance? Could you explain exactly what you mean by that apart from being some sort of jibe about being effeminate and gay? Your comment appears like your intention is to make vague implications and assumptions about evidence that a banned user has published off-wiki about my private life from over four years ago in order to smear my character, rather than provide any evidence that could ever be of relevance to this Arbcom case on Wikipedia. By the way as you are delving into evidence as far back as 2008, I suggest you also look at how the account "Delicious carbuncle" was started with some rather odd edits less than one week after the edit you reference in 2008, and if it may be relevant to inquire about pre-existing accounts which may be relevant to this case, or not. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there you go again, Fae: you've just picked up on a few words in a comment, and spent your energy responding to the perceived offense rather than the actual issue. It's a perfect example of how you got yourself into this mess, and it's absolutely tragic that you apparently can't see that and avoid it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the basic issue is that stuff from four and a half years ago is being dug out of my past on and off wiki. If Arbcom accept this as relevant, then we will need a significant extension to the deadlines for this case while I refresh my mind about edits that far back and take a long hard look at the edits made by the other parties, in particular those rather odd ones by Delicious carbuncle in January 2008. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, in a way. Perhaps the best way out is to make a "clean start" of it, admit to perhaps taking inappropriate shortcuts in the past (grabbing images for the right reason but in the wrong way, attacking the person rather than the argument, etc.), and promise to try to do better from here on out. That's the hard way in the short term, but the easy way in the long term (I apologize for pointing out the obvious here). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is a big ego and big talk – not unlike the editor who deleted that copyvio over in Commons the other day, and who is presently banned here for a year. You can get away with a big ego in Wikipedia if your work is clean and honest, as Giano and Bishonen did for so long before they called it a day here. You can get away with bending the rules in your work for a looong time if you affect a meek appearance. What you cannot get away with in Wikipedia is a big ego and playing fast and loose with the rules, and trying to get the people who call you on your stuff site-banned, as with Delicious carbuncle here, and Pieter Kuiper over in Commons (who I am confident will shortly be unbanned). It's not wise to aggress honest editors if you have feet of clay. --JN466 21:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) By way of an additional opinion, and for whatever it's worth, I did a double-take too at the mention of "natural flamboyance". Even if I AGF that it refers only to the uploading of attention-grabbing images, and was said in a knowingly humorous manner without any hurtful intention, it's a clear example of the kind of discussion style that tends to escalate conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. It was meant to needle Fae. That Fae can't seem to help responding exacerbates the problem, but doesn't excuse the original statements.LedRush (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Natural flamboyance" in the world at large is a characteristic prized by performers in all fields, for example, as well as by types of salespeople, many teachers, most public speakers, many heads of corporations and other institutional worthies, and almost all politicians: "big ego, big talk", as JN has said. Not one of them would consider the description anything but positive. It is possible to give a negative spin to anything, but you would have to work at it, and tone of voice (something we don't have here) would be critical. Bielle (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't meant to needle Fæ, and it's something I would have said to his face (and I doubt he would have taken offence if I had done so; it's one of the limitations of this medium). Fæ has a large footprint, like Giano, or Bishonen, or Russavia. Those are editors whom people remember, because they like grandstanding a bit, they can be very witty, even if their wit is sometimes trenchant; they are not quiet grey mice, but attract attention. This is what is called being flamboyant, and that is all I meant. I like flamboyant people, and Fæ's repartee has sometimes genuinely made me smile in appreciation. --JN466 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ, please elaborate on what is odd about my early edits. I can see no connection whatsoever between the start of my account on Wikipedia and the edit on Commons being discussed, other than the happened around the same time. Your statement seems to imply some causal connection - what is it? I remind you that unsubstantiated accusations like this are explicitly warned against in the large boxed notice near the top of the page, so please accompany your answer with diffs. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Arbs and/or clerks? Anyone care to start enforcing the stated rules here? In the course of this proceeding, Fæ's evidence has had to be redacted more than once, he has made several unsubstantiated claims on an Arb's talk page, he has accused people of stalking, and now he is making accusations of, uh, something (sockpuppetry, maybe) against me related to the start of my account. This is exactly the type of behaviour that brought us here. Can this be addressed here or do I have to make it a "finding of fact"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Question: If "we have no remit over Commons", then how can "we" have remit over Encyclopedia Dramatica? You can't pick and choose. Tarc (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]~~
Nobody is claiming that Arbcom has a remit over Commons, because Commons is a WMF project with its own dispute resolution procedures and its own equivalent of Arbcom. But Arbcom's right to deal with off-site harassment is set out plainly in WP:HARASS#Off-wiki harassment and previous Arbcom decisions, notably Racepacket last year, deals explicitly with the question of damaging conduct off-wiki - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Conduct outside Wikipedia. So there's no point in you trying to wikilawyer this, as it's a long-settled issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I are reading something different out of your link. The full quotation is:
3.1.5 Conduct outside Wikipedia
5) 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.'

Whose conduct has been "damaging to the project and its participants"? Diffs please. Anything less is "not subject to Wikipedia's policies or sanctions." 22:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bielle (talk • contribs)
This isn't an evidence page, and the evidence relating to off-wiki activities has already been posted. Prioryman (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the evidence to behaviours "damaging to Wikipedia's policies and its participants". It seems I also missed the bit about only evidence pages are subject to the "diff" rule; speculation is speculation wherever it may appear and evidence is evidence wherever it may appear, too. Or so I thought. Perhaps there is a wikilawyer who can show me the difference? Bielle (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't been involved in the other pages in this case, I would like to point out that people should probably be focusing on the last sentence of the off-Wiki section, "An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's employment." As Fae is the Chair of Wikimedia UK, one form of employment, and it is quite clear that actions taken by multiple users involved in this case have been to try and harm this position, they are then violating the off-Wiki rules. This seems rather obvious. Silverseren^C 07:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

That's right, and that's what I had in mind when I quoted Racepacket. It's also why in my last finding of fact on the workshop page, I pointed out that Fae's role in WMUK is at the centre of this. Tarc admitted as much when he said, in effect, that Fae would continue to be hounded even after this case. It's quite clear that at least for some people - the core group of individuals campaigning against Fae - this is not about dispute resolution but about hounding Fae off Wikipedia, off the Commons and out of WMUK, and they will continue to campaign against him until they achieve this goal. Prioryman (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is most likely more nonsense. Are trustees employees of WMUK? what is their renumeration? Additionally outside influences can't do dooddly squat. At best they can highlight issues, which WMUK, WP, and Commons could simply BIG UP and say yes we acknowledge all of that or some of that, but we don't think it matters. John lilburne (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, you are not quoting policy. You are quoting a hypothetical example from another ArbCom case. Fæ is not an employee of WMUK. He is a volunteer. Fæ's claims of harassment predate his role as a trustee, and possibly even his involvement with WMUK. Fæ did not become the Chair of WMUK until after the RFC/U which has been mentioned often in this proceeding. It may be helpful to look back at who initiated this case and why they did so, rather than abetting a last-minute attempt to insinuate some larger conspiracy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have been in contact with Jon Davies, CEO of WMUK, in regard to statements made by Fæ on Commons which implied that I was connected to threats against him and his partner. I asked Fæ to strike or clarify his remarks ([25], [26], & [27]), but instead of doing so, he placed a notice on his talk page directing people to contact the police regarding threats and giving a case identification. Given Fæ's past remarks, it is difficult to read this as anything other than associating me with a criminal case. I approached Davies not because I wanted to jeopardize Fæ's position, but because Davies inserted himself into the affair in the RFC/U regarding Ash/Fæ. Davies neither explained how he was involved, nor agreed to intervene personally with Fæ to clarify or strike his comments, but he did commit to bringing this up at the next WMUK meeting under their "whistle-blower" policy. I believe that meeting is at the end of this month. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seren, you are wikilawyering there. Fæ's position with a WMF chapter would only be threatened because of his activities on WMF projects. If you want someone removed from WMF positions because of their actions on WMF projects it is not the same as trying to get someone fired from an unconnected company or foundation by going after them here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~And that's a response from 1,2,3 Wikipediocracy members. Are you guys just trying to drown out anyone who points out that what you're all doing is wrong? Silverseren^C 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I don't really see the point here. There is pretty obviously "stalking" as the term is used on WP, and Fae has provided more than sufficient evidence of it. Otherwise, this looks like an effort at a "gotcha" moment directed at Fae - one that appears to have backfired. I would say that it is best if we all refocused on the case.LedRush (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not stalking. I viewed a forum post and decided not to ignore an error. Is it a crime to point out errors? Don't we have a duty to be as accurate as possible? It isn't a "gotcha" moment; this is just another event in a sequence of related events. Fæ has a habit of making accusations. Dismissing criticism based on who a person is or their participation on certain websites is an aspect of this case as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any claim of a crime against you, and repeating that allegation is an extraordinary claim that would require evidence.LedRush (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Abusive stalking"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I told Tryptofish that his comments hurt me. I'm not going to ask the police to investigate a claim of battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Words don't have objective meanings; they are understood in context. If Fae's context wasn't crystal clear (I don't believe anyone can misunderstand his statement to be anything other than online stalking (wiki-stalking)), his explanation makes it so. Ignoring the explanation and the context and making this outrageous claim creates a battleground atmosphere and makes rational discussion more difficult. I suggest you stop.LedRush (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I agree with everything you've said in this discussion thread. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just did some research into "wikistalking". WP:STALKING says everything that I need to know. The use of the word "stalking" is discouraged and with good reason. It's advisable for you, Fæ, and everyone else to stop using such terminology. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice Michael, accepted. I feel this discussion is at a natural end with regard to your original complaint about my words on Commons, and has sufficient evidence presented within it to inform the Arbs of the background and history of parties involved. I doubt any good will come of encouraging others to squeeze acid from this bitter lemon any further. Do you agree? --Fæ (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. Although the "meta-issue" remains for ArbCom to settle, this particular issue is finished. I don't have anything else to add to this thread. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~More double standards.~~

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Isn't it strange that Fae and co have repeatedly argued here that Fae's actions on Commons have nothing to do with his position here and then he goes and posts this today? It appears that when someone posts on Commons about how a number of people including Fae seem to want a user banned for pointing out their copyvios, then it's fair enough to draw that person's wording to public attention on Wikipedia when he applies for office. Yet more demonstration of how Fae's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality leads to his interpreting policy in whatever way best suits him at the time.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Peter. This is not the right place to log general commentary about every thing I do, and most would see repeated griefing, presumably with the intention of provoking a response, as being a symptom of someone with a battleground problem. However, just to be clear, do you really think that Oversight member Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) was demonstrating mellow and civil behaviour we would expect of someone entrusted with Oversight privileges, deriding everyone taking opposing views to him in a Wikimedia Commons consensus process by using the offensive term "butthurtness"? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'General commentary' would be bringing up unrelated edits. Peter's comment is pertinent in that it clearly demonstrates your 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality. If anyone has any issues with Salvio, take it to his request. Do not respond to Fae's (routine) deflection tactics above. This is about you Fae and your actions, not other (unrelated to this case) people. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter pointed to a single post, the content of that post is precisely what I addressed. It seems the only reply you really want here is a full confession of what you think might be my sins and praise for Peter for being so wonderful in doing such as fantastic job following me about for the last 8 months and posting and writing in detail about my personal and professional life along with many allegations from elsewhere, in multiple locations where people might notice. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add the example of EssJay, to those of you and Salvio, then personally I think that the policy of splitting the actions of Wikimedians as editors or office holders on different Wikimedia projects, as employees and office olders of the Foundation, of national, regional or local Wikimedia chapters or indeed those as organisers and attenders of Wikimania and other official events is unwise. So, if I could wave my magic wand, I would change things so that what Salvio said on Commons would feed into consideration of his suitability for office on Wikipedia (and, if anyone has the time or the tools, I would suggest searching his contributions to see if references to butthurtedness etc occurred in any of them that do not involve discussion of gay-related matters or interaction with gay editors). However, in the past when things concerned yourself you have argued for compartmentalising the different Wikimedia contexts and this case has been carried out on the assumption that they should be compartmentalised. The fact that you hav now gone over to the page for Salvio's candidacy and brought up his Commons actions strikes me as inconsistent and symptomatic of a battleground mentality.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my question to Salvio, I made no assumptions or accusations of homophobic language. My question related to the simple expectation of exemplary civility and mellowness (in Commons parlance) for people trusted as Oversight members. It is not obvious to me that "butthurt" counts as homophobic language, it is an internet meme, is only ever used offensively and in the wrong context any unnecessary use of apparent sexual related words may be both inflammatory or defamatory. On Commons Salvio did not use the word in any obvious LGBT context that I can see and neither was it especially directed at me personally, though given his past actions on LGBT related issues, I would have thought it wise for him to avoid being seen using language that can be so easily interpreted as intended to be inflammatory in that context. Not everything I write is intended to be read in an LGBT context just because I am openly gay. You will note that I have a long practice of not confirming my gender on Wikipedia, precisely to avoid problems of identity assumption. --Fæ (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have a word with your supporter and Commons bureaucrat Russavia about his use of "butthurt" and being "mellow"... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This absurdly off-topic conversation should be hatted, and the arbitrators should use it as more evidence of certain editors' desire to follow Fae relentlessly looking for any "gotcha" moment they can. Fae has serious issues that should be addressed, but these conversations derail the purpose of this workshop and merely provide mitigating evidence for Fae's past actions.LedRush (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to that. I'd hat it, but I get the impression only clerks are supposed to hat things on this page. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+2. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Mitigating evidence for Fae~~

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While Fae has acknowledged the possibility that he may have lost the community's trust by giving up his Administrator's tools without being told to, it is clear that there is a campaign to target him and that campaign uses multiple sites off of Wikipedia. Though Wikipedia does need improvement and Fae has likely made mistakes, this targeting of Fae has been homophobic for the most part. The accusations and methods used against him are appalling. Allowing such coordinated effort to intimidate Wikipedia editors on any basis, including sexual orientation, cannot go on any longer. Whatever it takes to end such sustained hostility, hounding, wikistalking, and a possible connection to a threat Fae required the assistance of the police and victim services to deal with must not be overlooked. It in no way contributes to building an encyclopedia. Something is going to have to be done about this threat to Wikipedia editors' feelings of not being able to freely go about their volunteer work without enormous offsite pressure intruding into their personal lives or contributions to Wikipedia. NewtonGeek (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add I think the only solution at this point is to ban or block editors here who are under a cloud of any kind for any possible use of tactics off of Wikipedia to intimidate editors on Wikipedia or influence the course of events on Wikipedia broadly construed. It would be my preference that any of the current Wikipedia editors using any of at least three non-Wikipedia sites that encourage or facilitate such behavior sign an oath not to engage in any form of overt or covert actions against fellow Wikipedia editors or to seek to influence the course of events on Wikipedia with actions off of Wikipedia. Any editors who will not sign the oath should be banned or blocked so Wikipedians can go back to focusing on writing an encyclopedia. It's a shame that it has come to this, but too many critics of Wikipedia on those other sites have gone too far too often. They should not be able to have their cake and eat it too. NewtonGeek (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Arbs? Clerks? The above screed is about the worst violation of that big warning box at the top of this page seen yet... e.g. "this targeting of Fae has been homophobic for the most part", weird calls for wiki-loyalty oaths, etc... Tarc (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask a clerk how to proceed with your complaint. My understanding is that no evidence is supposed to be added at this point. I thin the Arbs can read what evidence was made available during the evidence phase and take note of any that may have arisen since the close of that phase. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that Tarc would be one of the editors you're referring to, which is why he is responding as he is. Silverseren^C 21:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sore point, you reckon? :-) Prioryman (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of why I suggested discretionary sanctions on the workshop page for editors who make sweeping charges of homophobia or other such ad hominem attacks. It seems that some editors in Wikipedia feel they can make accusations like this without fear of being held accountable for it. That needs to be rectified. Cla68 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, NewtonGeek, have you read Catch-22? Cla68 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a passerby is allowed to come in, look over the evidence, and say, "nope, I don't see any homophobia here", then he must also be allowed to come in and say "Gee, I see lots of homophobia". Otherwise, the "arbitration" is a skewed process allowing some people to come in and blare out their opinions, while others are threatened with sanctions for merely disagreeing. This is exactly the sort of reason why we need to allow editors just as much leeway to allege homophobia as to allege BLP violations, copyvios, incivility, COI, or any other such policy issue. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That ain't no passerby.VolunteerMarek 22:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, dismissing existing evidence is rather a different thing from making claims without evidence. Neither is a good thing but whereas the former may be the product of dishonesty or hypocrisy, the latter could be seen as a personal attack. At the very least, claims of misconduct should be supported by evidence. Prioryman (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators have by this point had very substantial input from everyone involved with this case. There's going to be a proposed decision posted very soon, which I am sure will trigger another round of input. Unless there are substantial new points to be made, there's probably not much value to continuing this thread at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The value would come from demonstrating that the rules that were laid down for this arbitration will be enforced. Ignoring them kinda send the wrong message. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for the stated rules of evidence to be enforced, both privately and publicly. I am hopeful that my requests have not been dismissed because of my involvement in this case. Failing to follow up on clear violations is to the detriment of ArbCom and the community. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~NYB's proposals~~
I note that Newyorkbrad has posted some proposals, in the spirit of offering them for consideration and not as a drafter, after the workshop page has been full protected. Brad, I actually don't have any issues with what you posted, but I figure that someone should make it clear, just to avoid misunderstanding, that those of us who are not admins will not be able to respond, except on this talk page. I'm not complaining, just pointing it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those of us who are admins should respond on the page either- if the workshop is closed, it should be closed for admins and non-admins alike. Being an admin shouldn't allow greater participation in cases. WJBscribe (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the fact that the workshop had closed when I posted, so I apologize for that ... I must admit that I was wondering why no one had either agreed or disagreed with anything I had posted....

In any event, it's probably more transparent that I posted these ideas here, as opposed to just circulating them on the ArbCom mailing list which would have been the alternative. Editors with comments on the proposals should feel free to post them right here.

By the way, I thought that when an administrator starts to edit a full-protected page, there's a warning that comes up at the top of the page, to help avoid an admin editing a protected page when he or she shouldn't. Either for some reason the warning didn't show up, in which case I'd like to know why, or I read through it without noticing it, in which case I apologize. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And actually I just checked and the warning is right there at the top when I go to edit the page. I probably subconciously read through it assuming it was the semiprotected warning rather than the full-protected warning. Maybe they should be different colors or something. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that the ideas are posted on the workshop than on the ArbWiki. The community can see what is happening, and have a chance of commenting on this talkpage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think the proposed principles that NYB posted are appropriate and helpful. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~NewtonGeek's response to NYB's proposals~~
This project has dealt with admins and users who behaved improperly many times. Dealing with any alleged, probable, or definite behavior that contravenes policy on Fae’s part is not such a complex matter. It’s the rest of what’s allegedly gone on that makes this an issue only ArbCom can address.
To me the problem appears to be that any possible lack of clarity in the findings will be capitalized on by people who are devoted to criticizing Wikipedia. I have formed an opinion that some, most, or many of the critics have decided that any way to disrupt Wikipedia is the goal. I believe it is likely that some, most, or many of the critics have chosen to focus on an editor who is vulnerable in some way as a means to their end. Rather than dispassionately considering actual actions, behavior, or situations on a case by case basis some, most, or many of the critics appear to want to use any standard of conduct for themselves that is expedient to their purpose. Some, most, or many, of the critics appear to demand standards of behavior from others on Wikipedia or from the Wikipedia project that they may have discarded for themselves whenever it was convenient. It appears to me to be a political battle. Since Dr. Larry Sanger is a trustee at one of those sites there is no reason to think this will not continue for the foreseeable future.
For that reason, I think a finding regarding conduct outside Wikipedia must devised to be strongly worded and easily enforced. Any lack of clarity will be an area some, most, or many of the critics are likely to exploit. Wikipedia will suffer when conduct outside Wikipedia becomes intolerable for Wikipedia editors to endure with peace of mind or marks as free targets any class of editors considered protected on Wikipedia based on such things as race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, or anything similar. Tolerating even one such instance of continual, persistent, upsetting behavior specifically derogating even one editor’s membership in such a class will obviously upset and dissuade from participating other members of that class currently participating in or considering participating in Wikipedia. It will have a chilling effect. Even if other members of the same class as the editor being targeted appear to condone or not notice the behavior, Wikipedia must consider whether those individuals may think everything is fair game in an attempt to undermine Wikipedia.
Legitimate Wikipedia criticism does not involve repeated derogatory remarks against protected classes of editors based on their protected class. It also does not involve invasion of privacy.
In order to as strongly as possibly dissuade this kind of behavior in the future I would reword newyorkbrad’s first alternative to read: “glaring or intolerable disruptive off-wiki conduct which is disrupting the project or considerably disturbing participants' peace of mind will be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to strongly negatively effect another user's real-world life because of his or her affiliation with, participation in, or opinions about Wikipedia.”
In order to strengthen that principle I would not limit it to that. I would also include the wording of newyorkbrad's alternative proposal. I would reword the relevant part to “involving acts repeated to such an the extent it must be assumed the editor’s peace of mind would be negatively effected and/or acts of overt persistent harassment or threats and/or repeated subtle but obvious acts or statements that can plausibly be construed as persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action will be taken either by the community or by the Arbitration Committee.”
Finally, I think more is necessary. I believe the finding should state that “any Wikipedia editor participating in an off-site area possessing the ability to find comments which have been removed from public view on that site and which were made by another Wikipedia editor must produce those comments when requested by ArbCom or the community. To refuse to do so will result in immediate permanent banning and/or blocking of both the editor who could produce the hidden remarks but refuses to do so and the editor who allegedly wrote them.” This should end what appears to me to be a strategy of “catch me if you can” by some, most, or many editors using off-wiki criticism or lampooning sites.NewtonGeek (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]