Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed decision

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

Case clerks: NuclearWarfare (Talk) & Lord Roem (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: SirFozzie (Talk)

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.

Arbitrators active on this case

1. Casliber
2. Courcelles
3. David Fuchs
4. Elen of the Roads
5. Hersfold
6. Jclemens
7. Newyorkbrad
8. PhilKnight
9. Risker
10. Roger Davies
11. SilkTork
12. SirFozzie

Inactive:

1. Xeno

Recused:

1. AGK
2. Kirill Lokshin

Just a bit longer..

I apologize for the delay.. I'd explain why the PD is going to be late, but I guess the only proper response doesn't go to why it's going to be late, just say that it's late. It's going to be this weekend. Thanks for putting up with the delay, and again, I apologize. SirFozzie (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Take as long as you like. If you get it "wrong" then a small portion of the community will become quite vocal about how the decisions are "wrong" - See the pending changes RFC arbcom request. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh the decision is goign to be wrong. It's just a matter of waiting and seeing what it is and therefore working out who say it is wrong. (See WP:The wrong version.)--Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. Barring any further issues, like say, my computer becoming sentient and trying to take over humanity, a la Skynet, the decision will be up tonight. SirFozzie (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate the update. Nobody Ent 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Query

With regard to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Michaeldsuarez_banned_and_placed_on_non-article_space_restriction -- can a current ArbCom bind a future ArbCom? If the ban is lifted, wouldn't the terms of the unban be subject to ArbCom seated at the time? Nobody Ent 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the general answer to your second question is 'yes'. Future committees can discuss and vote on amendment requests of past cases, including those that adjust sanctions against users. For reference, go to the AC Noticeboard, where you will find examples of motions lifting topic bans based on changed user behavior. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is clearly No, Future arbcoms can amend decisions of this and past Arbcoms. Hence blocks and bans are indefinite rather than permanent. ϢereSpielChequers 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-article space restriction

I don't recall ever disrupting the non-article namespaces prior to or even during this case. What's the rationale for the proposal? Is this preventative or punitive? What problem is this proposed restriction attempting to solve / remedy? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

PD fully protected

Folks, if I see another edit war on the proposed decision, people will be blocked. I've fully protected it for a brief period (the arbitrators and clerks may edit through protection). Nobody else should be editing those pages. Risker (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I'm sorry that I had to get involved in that but I feel as though it was necessary for reasons that I'm sure I don't have to explain. I hope you don't think I was out of line editing the page in that very limited circumstance. Sædon^talk 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what clerks are for, Saedon; please leave it to them to manage the page. Risker (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and will do. Sædon^talk 05:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can Lord Roem? They're not an admin, right? Nobody Ent 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Page back to semi Nobody Ent 18:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright concerns

I am confused by the references to image copyright in proposed finding of fact #11 and proposed remedy #7. I asked for clarification of scope (including asking specifically about Commons), but my questions were ignored completely, even after drawing it to the attention of the drafting Arb. There was no request made for specific examples of copyright concerns, despite the decision being delayed. I'm sure some can be provided if ArbCom wants to see them - do they? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. May as well lay this to rest now. Sorry, I've been juggling a large number of things on-wiki so yes it would have been good to have evidence before now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two distinct categories of copyright concerns with regard to Fæ's uploads. The first is the more straightforward concern of copyright violation (eg. a claim that something is one's own work when it is not). The second category is questionable claims about copyright status made by Fæ regarding their own uploads in order to have them deleted (and I note there were multiple instances of this during the course of this RFAR to belatedly obscure the source of uploads). I suspect that the second category of copyright concerns may be contentious. Is ArbCom interested in both types of copyright concern or only the first, simpler case? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but a little confusing

The language in the proposed decisions seems to randomly switch from referring to Fae as "he" and "his" to "they" and "their". Perhaps it could be standardized as "he/his" throughout the PDs? 28bytes (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to avoid a gendered pronoun to refer to my account on Wikipedia. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted my comment accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you 28bytes. I note that Arbcom members are not taking into account my stated preference. --Fæ (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Parallel Universes

 Done

As Arbcom's writ arguably only applies in this Universe and not necessarily the whole Multiverse could "other then those specifically" be replaced with "other than those specifically". Ta ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And as long as you're copyediting, you might want to adjust it to say "sister-site, Wikimedia Commons" in Proposed Principle 11. Currently it says "Wikipedia Commons" (although perhaps there is such a thing somewhere in the whole multiverse).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged harassment

I wouldn't call the ED article harassment. It informs readers about what Fae wishes to hide, but the article in its current form doesn't tell readers what to think. Readers are free to use their own judgment based on the information (images) provides; I'm not imposing my own point of view on them. I wasn't the one who added the link to the examiner.com article to the article, so I wasn't even directing readers to Gregory Kohs' opinion. In addition, the article's connection to enwiki is nearly nil. The images were from Commons, not enwiki. Besides a template that I didn't even add to the article, the article doesn't even mention Wikipedia. How is this enwiki's problem? Because Fae is coincidental an enwiki user? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: With regard to this comment, that edit summary only indicates my distaste for censorship and covering-ups; it doesn't indicate a desire to harass an individual. If you look at the page history of ED's "Daniel Brandt" article, you'll see that I've used an similar edit summary ("Screenshots will always exist") when a blog post disappeared from a blog (I keep screenshots in case blog posts disappear). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What I am looking for is any harassment that pre-dates the creation of the page and the deletion of the images. Then I will be looking to see if there is a link between any earlier harassment and the creation of the page. If there is evidence that you were part of an harassment campaign against Fae, then I will agree with the finding. If I don't see a link, then I am unsure how it is harassment in itself. It might be harassment to link to the page in order to draw people's attention to it, and to make Fae aware that is what you are doing. Though even there, some thinking needs to be done. There is an assumption in this that the pictures are of Fae, though they were uploaded by him with a statement that he took the pictures himself. I don't think he has said they are of him. Even if they are of him, they are of an activity he engages in, and he used the images in Wikipedia articles for several years. They are not offensive or silly images, and he was not ashamed of them. If they were of Fae painting or yachting would it still be harassment? On the other hand he felt a need to have them deleted. Why? I think there are a number of issues to think through here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a good decision

Let's go over some of the problems with this proposed outcome:

• It invades Commons, causing editors' uploads there to be evaluated here, indeed, calling for such a review of all of Fae's work, declaring Commons' governance to be invalid. This is much of what the WO crowd was calling for from the start, and I suppose this decision delivers. I suppose that within the next case or two you'll be sanctioning people for "violating BLP on Commons", "doing original synthesis on Commons", etc.

• It comes up with wildly varying outcomes for Delicious carbuncle versus Michaeldsuarez. One is warned, the other banned for a year and told in advance he won't really be accepted as a proper contributor even then. And of the two, Michaeldsuarez's role seemed to me to be less - all his little ED article was was a simple rehash of CC-licensed Commons uploads! The only reason why you're even able to sanction him is that he disclosed his connection. Looking at the principles, this isn't just a matter of who has the better friends - it's based on the goofy principle #7 where you ignore external comments until an arbitrary line into "overt or persistent harassment" is crossed, and then you come down on them very hard. But did Michaeldsuarez cross that line? I don't think you give him any credit for just how mild that article was, compared to the kind of treatment ED has given some people. Having applied your harshest penalty already, you'll have no power left in reserve for when people go further than that.

• You've said that "Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks". The third diff you cite in your finding of fact #5 [1] shows just such discrediting of remarks by some people Fae was responding to. It sounds like you're enforcing your principle against very debatable infringements while ignoring others that are much more clear cut.

• The "personal attack parole" is an impossible situation. Fae will be accused of violating this every day, and if he says someone is falsely accusing him, that's a personal attack. If he tries not to respond, people will say he doesn't engage in dispute resolution, and if he says it wouldn't be productive, that's a personal attack. This decision was supposed to end this political war, and instead, it guarantees that there will not be one hour when there isn't some gripe going on against Fae for as long as he attempts to keep an account active on Wikipedia. (I would suggest that he should unofficially reduce or stop involvement in WP, in favor of other projects if he wishes, to avoid the victory dancing accompanying a formal retirement)

With this decision, the balance of power shifts from admins and ArbCom to sockpuppets and Wikipediocracy - who, in these proceedings, have often seemed to have the upper hand as they started a whispering gallery to torpedo the clerk's RfA and seemed to expect and receive a deferential attitude from the presiding arbitrator (e.g. [2]). The only way to keep a "cleanstart" seems to be not to get caught; the way to avoid being punished for anything you write anywhere on the web, or uploads you make at Commons, is not to disclose your accounts. We change from a situation of collegial editing to one in which every editor will need to think of himself at heart as a vandal to avoid serious long-term sanctions. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concern about how a "personal attack parole" would work in practice, particularly if I do not have a right to ignore questions raised by others which may leave me in catch-22 situations. Presumably the intention is to provide me with a point of contact representing Arbcom who can advise in a timely way when I should reply to any extreme claims (such as claims about Flickrwashing from over 4 years ago) and advise how I can get the wording right in any replies I make during the indefinite parole period. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's about damned time we "declare Commons' (highly dysfunctional) governance invalid." Sooner better than later, but that will come eventually. Carrite (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 2 is game-able

As the proposed decision stands, the personal attack parole for Fae is potentially game-able by people who don't like him. If they play the poke-and-complain game repeatedly, unless he has suddenly acquired much more self-restraint than the typical Wikipedian, he will, at a minimum, occasionally say something that can be spun as a personal attack. Then, since Arbitration Enforcement has a first-mover advantage for blocks, which any of hundreds of admins can use, they will sometimes manage to get him blocked. Then all the rhetoric about "He still hasn't learned his lesson!" and "How long will this behavior be tolerated?" will come into play, and the blocks will escalate. The end result is likely to be an indef or forced withdrawal, after much drama. Note: I'm not claiming Fae's behavior has been perfect. Cardamon (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree; this remedy is a return to the days of civility paroles, which were the least effective and most disruptive idea ever implemented by the Committee. These sorts of "paroles" sound good in the theoretical confines of the case pages, but they're a disaster in terms of practical implementation.

There's typically a good deal of subjectivity around the margins of "personal attacks" (and even more subjectivity around "discrediting other editors [sic] views based on their perceived affiliations"). And there's effectively zero cost to reporting every utterance that's anywhere near the borderline. The net effect is that Fae's opponents will continually report his every utterance, and given the arbitrary and subjective nature of the parole, they will occasionally (and unpredictably) be rewarded with blocks against Fae.

The combination of the subjective nature of the parole and the lack of any mechanism to address vexatious litigation create a bad set of incentives. I'm all for preventing personal attacks, and in my superficial reading of this case it appears some sort of remedy may be warranted against Fae in that regard, but we have an extensive track record with these sorts of parole which should be raising a huge red flag right now about this specific approach. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It might work if accompanied by a few interaction bans. Without them it is pretty much a guarantee of Dwamah. ϢereSpielChequers 19:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. Interaction bans are absolutely essential here. This is a very unusual case in that it's not been driven primarily by on-wiki disputes but by an off-wiki campaign against Fae, closely related to his off-wiki activities with Wikimedia UK. Normally arbitration cases aim to shut down disputes. In this case, there is every likelihood that Fae's enemies will seek to use this decision to step up the dispute. It's very likely that the campaign will continue whatever Fae does.

At the very least there needs to be an interaction ban between Delicious Carbuncle and Fae, as DC has been the driver of the vast majority of the controversy up to now (every single one of the threads on Fae posted on WR was started by DC). I recognise that the dispute may have metastasised to some extent and that others prominently involved in the anti-Fae campaign - here I'm thinking in particular of Bali ultimate (Dan Murphy), Peter Cohen and Jayen466 - are not covered by sanctions (yet). However, I think there needs to be, if not an interaction ban with those individuals, an explicit statement from the Arbcom that attempts to continue the anti-Fae campaign or game this decision will not be acceptable. Otherwise this is going to continue indefinitely with those involved having no incentive to disengage. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you arguing for interaction bans in a post that itself infringes an interfaction ban?--Peter cohen (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to encourage the use of interaction bans. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any of that horse-puckey, i-bans are a needless bureaucracy of red tape that create more problems than they solve. Normal NPA restrictions are sufficient. For the record, this has nothing to do with this particular case, I always oppose interaction ban proposals at ANI. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thing is, NPA only covers personal attacks. I think any form of interaction between these particular users is, on the whole, going to cause more problems than it's worth. If the aim is to reduce or end this dispute then some kind of interaction restriction - be it a ban or something else - is needed. Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the topic of interaction bans, let me quote part of this statement from Elen of the Roads: "They may not directly engage with each other in threaded dialogue, or post about each other on case talkpages" (bolding mine, of course). My point being that interaction bans which are not enforced, or are only enforced against one party but not the other, actually enable disputes to continue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the wording is not suggesting that any incivility can be used as a basis for further action, but rather that specific types of accusations would lead to such such actions. If it is the case that this specifically means unsupported claims of harassment, homophobia, or other seriously negative personal comments will immediately lead to sanctions then I think that is perfectly fine. The desired outcome would presumably be for Fæ to only make allegations of conduct that he can back up with evidence rather than just innuendo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

@TDA: Your hypothesis as to what remedy 2 really means is different from what it says. Cardamon (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the proposed decision

On the whole the proposed decision appears just and fair, so thanks to SirFozzie and the rest of ArbCom for the evenhanded assessment of a complicated situation. I have a few minor comments on the proposed wording:

• Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks The title may be true, but I don't think the three diffs linked go far enough to back the assertion.
• Michaeldsuarez harassed Fæ Again I agree with the finding, but the wording may be read to imply that creating any article, regardless of the content, on an editor off-wiki is de facto harrassment.
• Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ Concur with Jclemens that this skirts the line of WP:OUTING, although it definitely comes under the broader scope of WP:HARASS. Replacing WP:HARASS for WP:OUTING would be a simple solution.
• Michaeldsuarez banned and placed on non-article space restriction Why the third sentence? If/when he is let back, he should have learned enough to edit all namespaces without trouble.
• Fæ personal attack parole Agree with others above that, as worded, this is GAMEable. One solution would be to tighten the wording, perhaps focusing on ad hominem attacks and "casting aspirations" while leaving out the catch-all phrase "personal attacks".

ThemFromSpace 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur with the just and fair. Since we're removing metaphorical lice ....

The evidence is part of the case, so it's not necessary for ArbCom to list more than an example or two in a finding. Regarding "unacceptable personal attacks ... aren't they all? Or there a list of acceptable personal attacks?

Concur that the restriction listed with the ban is problematic -- my understanding is that conditions regarding a future unbanning would be up to the then seated committee.

I'm fine with a personal attack parole. It's not that hard if you're a grown up. Nobody Ent 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting that I and the others are childish for suggesting this is a problem, isn't that a personal attack... (you see what I mean?) Wnt (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that's a personal attack WP:WQA and WP:ANI await. Beware of boomerangs. Nobody Ent 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

What I believe is that "civility" is Wikipedia's "War on Drugs" - the more that is done to enforce it, the more that people will be at each others' throats. Wnt (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the reply in not a good decision [3], I've changed my mind. It's not reasonable to have to have an arbitrator (presumably already very busy people) provide mentoring services to Fae. It would be easily gameable. Nobody Ent 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Point, clearly missed

I assume the members of the committee share a common interest in shaping this decision to avoid (or at least try to avoid) a repeat of this whole drama. this leads me to suspect that the message has not been clearly received.

Fae (like any active contributor or admin) will on occasion be on the receiving end of random slights from random trolls. During my more activy and contributish days I even had a couple of them call me at work! The point that really needs to be sent home is that random trolling isn't evidence of a conspiracy, much less a homophobic/racist/satanic/fascist/etc. conspiracy. That point has clearly been missed (look at the diff, and his edit comment for restoring it). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 19:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should un-oversight everything from my talk and user pages as well, if we're all in a spirit of abuse-sharing here. What Fae has dug out of his archives isn't in any way unique or extraordinary. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae has restored those edits again after user:lankiveil removed them as vandalism.[4] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom's non-existent remit over Commons

Remedy 3.3.7 (Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions) is unprecedented, as far as I know - here Arbcom appears to be attempting to extend its authority onto Wikimedia Commons, a sister project with its own governance arrangements. Wikipedia:Arbitration states explicitly, in the first paragraph, "This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Wikipedia". As far as I know (and I've been involved with arbitration cases for eight years now), Arbcom has never previously attempted to direct any actions outside the English Wikipedia. I can't see how this particular remedy can possibly be actionable given that Arbcom is explicitly limited in its jurisdiction. What is it expected to do if Commons declines? Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Pieter_Kuiper – ArbCom is opening a can of worms. Such a remedy could be seen as permitting Pieter Kuiper to view other users' contributions for copyright violations. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons is unique among the sister projects in that files uploaded there can be directly transcluded here (thus having a direct effect on what people view when they read articles here). I agree that ArbCom doesn't have the remit to direct that there be a review of the files uploaded to Commons, but it is possible to review file uploads done locally, and to review how an editor's images uploaded to Commons are used here (i.e. edits made here to use the images here). That is definitely within the remit of ArbCom, and arguably falls under the heading 'file contributions'. Also, the arbitrator comments in principle 11 (Wikimedia Commons and English Language Wikipedia) are worth reading. It is something that probably does need more discussion, though. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, this remedy only applies to copyvio files uploaded to Commons and subsequently transcluded here, and it is limited to removing the file from en.wikipedia and suggesting that it be removed from Commons as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there some precedent for an image that people on Commons think is OK, but en.wikipedia bans because it is copyrighted? Is there a Category:Commons images banned from Wikipedia? Is there any plausible reason to have two levels of review? What's so abhorrent about the notion of simply saying that "if copyright problems are suspected, please raise the issue on Commons"? Wnt (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons is dysfunctional, that's the problem. The lunatics are running the asylum. I will repeat once again the answer: abolish Commons, place all images under the supervision and control of the various language Wikipedias using them to illustrate encyclopedia articles. If that means an image exists 20 times on 20 language Wikipedias, that's the price you pay for ending the Commons madness. Storage space is cheap, particularly compared to the potential cost in lost donations which threatens WMF if the current rogue Commons is not reined in. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting those comments, Carcharoth. I note Jclemens' comment in particular: "While the English Wikipedia arbitration committee has no jurisdiction over Commons, that doesn't mean that a user who engages in inappropriate conduct on Commons with relevance to the English Wikipedia is immune from sanction for that conduct here on the English Wikipedia." Again, this seems like a new approach to me. I don't think anyone would suggest "immunity" but in all honesty, has there ever been an example of someone "who engages in inappropriate conduct on Commons" being sanctioned for the same on the English Wikipedia? Can anyone point me to an example of that ever happening? Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: The section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed decision#Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions was mentioned at Commons at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#English Wikipedia Arbcom attempting to extend its authority to Wikimedia Commons? I'm not sure if this is relevant for WP:CANVAS.

If you wish to prevent English Wikipedia from using some Commons images, you could in principle add them to MediaWiki:Bad image list if the Commons community doesn't want to delete the images.

I know almost nothing about this arbitration case, so I have no opinion on the outcome. However, I do not like the idea of extending the arbitration committee's jurisdiction to other projects. Of course, English Wikipedia users are welcome to visit Commons and propose files for deletions if they feel that the files violate any Commons policy. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I mentioned the matter at Commons because those responsible for governance there have an obvious interest in what's being discussed here. It makes sense to invite their input to get a better idea of the implications of what's being proposed. Since this is unprecedented, as far as I know, it's worth talking though it before the decision is finalised. Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Works for me. If the Commons admins can't clean their own house, sooner or later it will be done for them, i.e. Beta M. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The other development in recent years is the unified login, thus (WRT governance) linking two accounts more closely than, say, here and Facebook or some other non-connected site. The two entities (en and commons) are linked intimately WRT how images are used, and some form of responsibility thus can't be ignored. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to use that argument, by all means make the case to the community to widen your remit - but you can't simply unilaterally change it. You're limited to the English Wikipedia, as Wikipedia:Arbitration has always stated, and issues on other projects are issues for other projects. If there's an issue on Commons, the proper way of dealing with that is for those concerned is to raise it on Commons, not try to do an end run around the governance bodies on Commons. A request, suggestion, directive or whatever from you that another project should do a particular thing is by definition unactionable because you have no authority on that other project. Prioryman (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you are reading something into it that is simply not there, as you have been told both here and in the Commons discussion. We are not requiring Commons to take action, just suggesting we have concerns and suggesting the best course of action be a CCI-style investigation and make sure that the files uploaded on Commons and in use on en-WP are in Compliance with the rules. SirFozzie (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Being a little simplistic - copyright violations are copyright violations and Commons cannot legally host such images. If/when they are identified they will be deleted. Any decent Commons admin spends most of their time doing just that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

If I read this correctly, the main result is to ban MichaelSuarrez for a "prior bad act" on another site, raher than for any of his acts on Wikipedia. Fae lost adminship - which would have short-circuited the RfC in the first place, and made all of this foofaraw moot. Commons is directed to actually obey copyright law, which is slightly less likely than the tides obeying Canute. Some of those who added extraneous material which ArbCom well might have thrown out as I earlier suggested, are now calling for more tumbrils for the accused hatemongers. I here iterate my earlier proposal, which simply requires Arbitrators to just say "no" to anything more than the existence of Fae's voluntary relinquishment of adminship, and call it a day. Else I fear dozens of AE discussions on all sorts of stuff which should really be past us by now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-contradiction by SirFozzie

From Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions, again:

• "As no specific infringements of Fæ's file contributions have been entered into evidence"...
• "Considering most of Fae's uploads are not hosted on En.WP, or with the name we most expect it under, there's been enough evidence"...

Which is it? Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There's enough evidence in the related discussions to have concerns, which is why I suggested the review, but no specific infringements has been entered into evidence in this case. SirFozzie (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that SilkTork makes an appropriate rebuttal. If this is within ArbCom's jurisdiction, then you should determine whether or not something needs to be done, and if it's not, then you should simply defer to the appropriate mechanism on Commons without the need to weigh in with an opinion on something you haven't investigated.

For what it's worth, I should point out that the copyright issues I've seen discussed on Commons are not easy to understand - they concern freedom of panorama, or the lack of it, in the UK. They're all neatly indexed in archives of his talk page, so I don't see how ArbCom can be unaware of the files, though I definitely understand why they would not want to try to evaluate them! The issue isn't, as PhilKnight was talking about, whether he uploaded other people's pictures, but whether he was allowed to take pictures. So he's been accused of taking pictures of a copyrighted airplane an anti-gay protest with a big banner, etc. It's amazing how many things you're not allowed to take a photo of; maybe the government should provide photojournalists with "minders", like the Soviet Union, to prevent the misunderstandings that occur when tourists put their bourgeois liberties ahead of economic dialectic. Anyone who provides as many photos of as many different places and things as Fae is bound to run into the same sorts of alleged violations. Even so, there are many arguments concerning de minimis, unoriginality, simplicity, mass production, and so forth that might have specific (but vague) interpretations in Britain that would permit some of these shots, if anyone knows the laws. However, it's absolutely crucial to note that these "copyright violations" may be subject to deletion under Commons rules, but Wikipedia permits Fair Use even of photos people snatch from the Web. So here you are on Wikipedia, telling Commons to enforce rules that don't apply here, according to what is allowed under British law, on behalf of hypothetical copyright holders, many of whom might have effectively given permission for photography of their works on public display anyway. That's beyond ArbCom's jurisdiction. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack parole

The rest of the PD is unsurprising, but I'm not wild about this one. It really seems like an AE nightmare in the making, and almost anyone who enforces it is going to take ridiculous amounts of flak. If you must pass this, will you be open to reviewing it after 4/5 months if a bunch of drama ensues? Giano-style years-long epic repeated ANI threads do not seem like a desirable outcome. Moreschi (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I share this concern. Per the discussion above, it would really make much better sense to accomplish this via interaction bans, or, at the very least, set up an explicit (but it will unfortunately have to be rather bureaucratic and complex, which shows up the problems with it) procedure for Fae to be able to request permission from ArbCom to respond to, or otherwise deal with, situations where others may be trying to provoke. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking it on faith that interaction bans don't work since someone else said so. I share the concerns of Moreschi and Tryptofish. I understand Malleus has provoked strong reactions and he may get dragged to dispute resolution or Arb enforcement frequently. Anything to avoid that result would be good because it's repetitive, draining, circular, and likely futile. Perhaps Fae could choose a mentor who would be willing to suggest responses to both potential constructive criticism and potential behavior that is out-of-bounds.NewtonGeek (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they work better than civility paroles do. With interaction bans, it's pretty black-and-white if they've been violated. With civility, it's in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why the other user has that belief about interaction bans. He seems to feel sure about it. I'd like to see many interaction bans come out of this. If the other user is right and they don't work, I'm not sure what I'd do if I was on ArbCom. I don't think civility enforcement has been working well or is likely to work well in the near future.NewtonGeek (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. The problem is almost entirely one-sided, this isn't a "takes two to tango" situation. The reason I despise i-bans so is that they are often used to shield someone from legitimate criticism. If Fae does something untoward from this point on, there shouldn't be any special restriction on, say, DC, from bringing the matter to the community' attention. Those with the greater familiarity with a problem user should not be shunted aside because of some beefs with said problematic user. Not to toot my own horn (though that's pretty much what I'm about to do), but I had a contentious history with both ChildofMidnight and Grundle2600; I knew their arguments and positions quite well, and was able to contribute info to the many (many many) times they were brought to ANI and related venues. Not egotistical enough to say that my input was essential to the outcomes, but IMO they were important. If an interaction ban has been enacted at any point, that'd have been nothing but a hurdle. Tarc (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see the need for constructive criticism for all Wikipedia editors. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suspect that that if Fae were to do anything like that from now on, it won't just be DC who notices it. I also note that the Arbs are considering a site ban for DC, as an alternative. I was actually coming here to start a new talk section about that, when I saw your comment and decided to reply here instead. From my understanding of the evidence, a site ban for DC would be excessive, and it would also be punitive rather than preventative. However, an interaction ban (two-way) between DC and Fae would be a much better alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see the DC ban proposal, but I'd be rather surprised to see it pass. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is on a "personal attack parole", because personal attacks are against policy. What the ArbCom is proposing here is that Fae, as a result of recent behavior, now has the added level of being subject to AE enforcement if he continues the behavior. Totally appropriate. The thing is, the participants in this case, including DC, are now experts on Fae's problemmatic editing history. So, I can understand why a supporter of Fae would request an interaction ban, to try to protect Fae from those most knowledgeable of his history should he be unable or unwilling to correct the behavior which has led to him being the subject of this ArbCom inquiry. Here's the best solution- Fae, knock it off. Stop the ad hominem attacks, avoidance of dispute resolution, and suspect Commons uploads. In the past, when anonymous cowards have left homophobic comments on your talk page, you have done a good job at ignoring them. So, I think you can probably do the same thing if an established editor tries to bait you into a personal attack. You know what the rules are, accept them and take ownership of your own behavior. You do this, there is no problem. Cla68 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cla, you present a number of astute observations that I actually think point towards the opposite conclusion than the one you make. You are right that everyone is under a personal attack parole. That's actually a good argument why making a remedy based on it is a sub-optimal idea. Of course, you also point out that AE would come into play following such a remedy. But an AE discussion over whether something was or was not a personal attack is going to look like every other civility debate, which means it will be a mess. On the other hand, an AE report of a violation of an interaction ban is pretty unambiguous. You imply that the only users who favor interaction bans are "supporter(s) of Fae". Well, I favor such bans and I'd like to think that I've been trying pretty hard to be even-handed here – but I suppose an argument could also be made that those who oppose interaction bans want to have a free hand to, um, watch over Fae. As I said earlier, I doubt that there will be a shortage of eyes following this case.

Arbs: once you sort out the admittedly difficult evidence about what the parties other than Fae really did, I really hope that you will consider interaction bans for whoever is not site-banned, and not rely overly on undefinable civility. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's presume DC and Suarez are bounced from the Wikipedia for some length of time, who else do you have in mind? There's no other parties to this case other than the filer MBisanz. It is beyond Arbcom's remit to just vote and impose interaction bans on people who only commented on the case but were not a party to it, so are you prepared to file i-ban proposals at AN or ANI, and deal with the ensuing slugfest? Tarc (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of presuming, let's see what actually happens. (After all, yesterday you predicted that the DC ban wouldn't happen.) As for non-parties, I don't know about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is currently an AN/I thread on what Elen of the Roads considered a clear breach of an interaction ban that occurred here on this page. JN466 00:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to state that I am not a supporter of Fae. I think approaching such a complex issue with any idea that people have to pick sides makes it harder to solve. Tryptofish has mentioned interaction bans and I think that may be a good idea. I wonder if Fae could use a mentor. My only reason for bringing that up is that there has been a complex situation and two heads may be better than one in future circumstances that may arise. I am confident that many people will be interested in Fae's future behavior. I hope people who have noticed issues in the past feel do not feel they alone can figure out or address any possible future issues that could arise. This is a big community with many smart editors. I wonder if it might defuse tension to let other users address possible future concerns with any of Fae's behavior. Then nobody could wonder if harassing, hounding, wikistalking, off-wiki campaigns, or other such things were possibly happening. Something is definitely needed to calm the situation down so everyone can focus on building the encyclopedia. NewtonGeek (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A Disturbing Precedent: Ban for Micaheldsuarez

I am troubled by the venom in this sole high-order proposal for punishment:

For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Wikipedia.

The page was created on ED, a site that is a collection of parodies with a marked emphasis on matters scatological and sexual. The edit summary to the article creation under Junius Thaddeus, which is Michael's acknowledged persona on ED, is

(cur | prev) 22:08, 29 November 2011 JuniusThaddeus (Talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AMan_in_stress_position.jpg – No, you can't delete images from the Internet.)

The article at the time consisted of one photograph and the article name was "Teahot", one of Ash/Fae etc.'s user names. The whole short history of the article can be found here (encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Fae&action=history). The article, as it changed titles from Teahot to Fae to Ashley van Haeften and back to Fae, has never consisted of more than photographs originally uploaded to Commons by one of Fae's personas, and sometimes also the uploading information which clearly established the chain of ownership. The only reason the photographs are on ED is because they were being deleted entirely out of process from Commons by a user who has consistently argued against giving others the same opportunity to change their minds about embarrassing uploads properly licensed. in what certainly appeared to be an abuse of Fae's admin status there. Several other photographs have been added to the ED page as they, too, were being removed out-of-process. As Silk Tork points out, there is not a single word of commentary, not a single scatological, sexual or derogatory remark- not one; nothing at all in fact but what Fae freely released to Commons and thus to the Internet. It is a model of restraint by ED standards; it could be on Commons without a single change, and probably even on WP in the appropriate article.

You are trying to punish Michael solely because you can. You know his connection to the ED article because he told you. (It seems he does believe in the same standard of transparency he expects of Fae.) At the time of the creation of the ED page, there was no communication between Michael and Fae, no argument and no conflict. The ban proposal sets a terrible precedent. Are you planning to ban every user you can identify who copies a WP photo or a quotation to another site, when the original was properly released to WP, and acknowledged, and not removed in the appropriate WP process? This needs re-thinking. Seriously. Bielle (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

This is somewhat inaccurate. As I've stated earlier, "Teahot" wasn't the original name for article. I changed the article's premise from teaching readers about the downside of using free licenses to teaching readers about Teahot one or two days later. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I also see an inconsistency in the approach here. While Michael's actions at ED only have an impact here if someone views that page on ED, Fæ's actions on Commons are being described as out of ArbCom's remit even when those actions directly impact the English Wikipedia. While I would generally concur with a principle of "what happens on Commons stays on Commons", these image uploads to Commons are not staying on Commons. If the image is only present on Commons I would agree that any issues associated with it are outside the purview of ArbCom, but if the image is added to an article here the violation by that editor also becomes an issue here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why, if Michael is going to be banned, why DC isn't going to be, considering what DC did and has done for months is far worse than creating an ED page made up of images from Commons. Silverseren^C 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bielle here. Commons (or meta, etc.) is outside the committee's remit, but ED (or GNAA, or /b/, etc.) are within its remit? That seems kind of back-assward. (I don't think Fae should be banned either, but the principle and precedent so seem less than well thought out.) --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bielle, there are a couple of inaccuracies in your summary of the out-of-process deletions on Commons. Fæ is not and has never been an admin on Commons, so it was not "an abuse of Fae's admin status there". Since Fæ was not an admin, they were deleted by others, based on Fæ's questionable claims. Although Fæ has in the past argued against uploader-requested deletion of images, he has generally supported such deletions in more recent instances. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, DC. I have done a strikethrough in the sentence claiming admin status. It wasn't central to my argument, but I appreciate the correction. I have spent very little time at Commons, so I am hoping someone here can say how recently, with respect to the ArbCom case, the change to supporting deletions made at the request of the uploader began. If it was last year, for example, then I must make another amendment. Thanks again. Bielle (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

NYB's comment rings true for me -- Michaeldsuarez's claim that he created the ED page for honorable purposes is not credible, to put it mildly. --SparklingLemonMineralWater (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Admonishment

Should the admonishment include a reference to deceiving admins and/or the community? This has been a big part of the problem with the RfA and the Jimbo talk page ban. Failing to explicitly note this aspect of the problematic behavior in the admonishment would seem to be an oversight.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a compromise position possible?

ArbCom now has two positions on Delicious carbuncle, one a warning, one a six month ban, with the Arbs divided between them. And I think most of us watching agree that Michaeldsuarez's proposed punishment is far too severe. Maybe an intermediate position might try to find a basis in principle.

• As a principle, you could propose that it is improper, in a way faintly akin to both WP:COI and WP:NLT, for an editor to hound another in an off-wiki forum (at some level of severity) while pursuing processes against him here. This would be explained in policy as an interpretation of the text that off-wiki harassment is an "aggravating factor". (Admittedly that's a bit strained interpretation, but I don't think I've seen any very clear way to read that paragraph) So an editor could raise RfC/Us and AN/I's here, or lampoon his target on ED or WO, but not both at once.

• As a remedy, you could impose on both Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle the restriction that they not take part in any "conduct evaluation" processes against any other editors for a year. (RfC/Us, AN/Is and AfDs, I think) If they have a complaint, they could present their case to one chosen admin, but that admin would then have the discretion about how or if to proceed. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, there are two proposed remedies which involve me specifically, but one of those is a complete non-starter. I will, of course, accept whatever remedy ArbCom decides to impose, but any idiot most people can see that I am not going to be banned as a result of this RFAR. I do like your second suggestion, but the only person I would be willing to select as my chosen admin would be yourself - will you accept a nomination for adminship? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no sense being cheeky about this. Outing is a serious matter and "Whoops!" might not be enough to cut it. Don't be smug. Get your tail between your fucking legs, where it belongs. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedians really get irate, I guess, when their RIGHT to remain anonymous is threatened. Far be it from any of us to request personal accountability for our actions on a website that will probably go down in history as one of the biggest defamation machines in history (List of Gay Bathouse Regulars, for example). I guess I have no right to preach, however, since I don't use my real name as my account name. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's always bugged me about WR/Wikipediocracy. One of the big criticisms of WP is the anonymity and shenanigans associated therewith, but this comes at a site where anonymity is the rule rather than the exception. Stand up for what you believe in. One should state their name and their city of origin before they preach on this topic. Kudos to my nemesis Greg Kohs in this regard. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR //// Carrite (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WTF - The posting of WHOIS data was done when Fæ was dissembling on a Commons RFA as to whether he was previously Ash and Teahot, claiming that such assertions were mere speculation. The posting wasn't any form of harassment but simply put the issue to bed once and for all. Later Fæ on Commons posted WHOIS data for wikipediocracy, but in that instance he wasn't clearing up any confusion, but adding fuel to his "Supporters of Kohs" attacks on Commons Admins and other posters. So if there people contemplating site bans for one then they should also be contemplating site bans for the other, otherwise, to outsiders, they are going to appear as blithering idiots, or partisan. John lilburne (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I was being flippant in my comment to Wnt, but I was not being "smug". I have consistently said that I will accept whatever sanctions ArbCom inposes, up to and including a permanent ban. Stating the obvious -- that a ban will not be imposed in this case -- seems to have rubbed some people the wrong way, but I suspect that there would be little that I could do to satisfy those people. The posting of the address and phone information (although part of a freely available WHOIS record) was an oversight on my part which was quickly corrected by the moderators of Wikipedia Review and for which I have already apologized. Despite the wording used by ArbCom, it was not "outing" as WP:OUTING is now written. And as John lilburne has noted, Fæ posted a link on Commons to the WHOIS for Wikipediocracy which shows the address and phone information for Greg Kohs. I have asked Fæ/Ash to address their allegations of harassment through dispute resolution for literally years now. That the issue became the focus of this case and I was belatedly added as a party in, I believe, an attempt by ArbCom to put an end to a long-running irritant. It is unfortunate that Fæ chose to produce virtually no evidence, but I hope the ArbCom decision will bring some peace to us all. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that calling the arbitrator Courcelles an idiot was a personal attack you tend to be a little too clever about when you're saying something without saying it, like when you absolutely insisted that it was wrong for people to accuse you of making a biased statement about Fae for questioning whether we could have a WMUK official who engaged in "risky" sexual behavior, because you'd only posted (and re-posted) that it could be argued. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see now why some people may have been upset with my comment. For the record, I was in no way implying that I thought Courcelles was an idiot. And also for the record, I have no interest in rehashing that discussion with you yet again, Wnt. Perhaps you have a friend of neighbour who can read over the previous discussions and explain it to you using small words or hand gestures. If you bring it up again after this RFAR is closed, I will be asking for you to be sanctioned for it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that for Fae this is what some have called "failing to engage", or transforming legitimate concerns into personal ad hominem arguments against those raising them. How can you say that any idiot can see a proposed remedy won't pass, without suggesting that the arbitrator who proposed that remedy is an idiot - alright, I concede: not an idiot, but dumber than any idiot. Despite several concerns expressed here, you aren't making an apology, but a denial and a threat. And I'll admit, that threat is quite plausible - apparently lilburne quickly asked "who is that idiot?" about Courcelles on the Fae thread on Wikipediocracy, and been answered with various highly dubious deductions about wrongdoing (WO posters seem to assume that nobody ever edits as an IP before starting an account, so knowledge of policy is evidence of wrongdoing). Honestly, I really do think it is more likely that Courcelles will be sanctioned out of this than that you will, because WO (or rather, whoever they represent) seems to have accumulated a great deal of power. Perhaps like Fae he can apologize to you for his wrongdoing. But that's not the sort of Wikipedia I want to participate in anyway. Wnt (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point of this discussion. DC, I believe that your tone, choice of words, and attitude towards those who disagree with you hinder much constructive discussion on the project. This is probably an example of that, but it is also an example of Wnt's same issues. DC made a remark that was ill-advised, and then apologized and clarified it. Wnt, your insistance on pushing this point is unhelpful and unfruitful. DC could correctly argue that a person who voted for it could still realize that it won't pass. I voted for Ron Paul, but "any idiot" would know that he couldn't win the election. This conversation serves no point other than to ratchet up the battleground mentality. Can we hat it or just let it die?LedRush (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that this conversation illustrated several major issues under discussion, and how the problems discussed in this decision are continuing. I actually started off by proposing a compromise. I think that Courcelles would not have added a remedy to the proposed decision without intending that it could pass, and I have not heard DC apologize even for a poor choice of words, despite the at least "severe" admonishment that appears forthcoming. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The end of the discussion has illustrated only that you are as responsible for Battleground issues as DC is on threads to which you both contribute. Perhaps you can think things about Courcelles, but it doesn't make them true. Even if true, it doesn't mean DC called him an idiot. And your semantics on apologizing is in bad taste. DC struck his comments and told everyone that he didn't intend the meaning they were assuming. That's enough. As is this. Pleas stop.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've said what I had to say - it doesn't look like anyone is going for my compromise anyway. Generally I've stayed away from proposing penalties against editors because such proposals are "battleground issues" by definition. Wnt (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I apologize for my ambiguous choice of words when making a snide remark about your competency and track record in these matters. Courcelles, I am sorry if you thought that I was calling you an idiot. I was not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

apparently lilburne quickly asked "who is that idiot?" about Courcelles on the Fae thread on Wikipediocracy - Just what point are you trying to make with that sunshine? You have already acknowledged that you are incapable of following any points that I make, so DO NOT presume to import quotes from elsewhere and try to imply that you understand what they are about in any way. Just to be clear my remarks on WO are outlined in my comment above, and has nothing to do with any comments, struck or otherwise on this talk page, but is purely premised on comments made on the project page. John lilburne (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstentions to remedies

Why are abstentions and NO votes not being recorded in the remedy section? If remedies are to be sunk through lack of support, ArbCom members should be willing to put their opposition on the record; alternatively, they should formally abstain. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Carrite, I expect that some of the arbs are considering the remedies and will vote in the next few days. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of frustrating that everyone agrees on principles and that most all agree that there were problems, but that some are slow to step up to the plate to resolve the issues. Carrite (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

In my case, a delay in voting on findings or remedies (if it doesn't just mean that I'm real-world busy) usually signifies that I'm reviewing the evidence in light of the proposals, and/or that I'm reviewing comments on the proposals by my fellow arbitrators (on the case page) and by the community (on the talkpage). I expect to finish voting within the next 24 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding proof of Fae's personal attacks and ad hominem arguments

It seems to me that some of the difficulty in find the proper differences to support the two finding of fact referenced above is that the findings of fact are not as precise as the related discussion in the case. I would propose the following finding of fact (instead of the personal attack and ad hominem ones, uness more direct proof is found):

• Fae has made extraordinary claims regarding homophobia against certain editors and failed to provide evidence supporting such claims; such claims are deemed ad hominem arguments and personal attacks in violation of the WP:NPA and WP:Civility policies.

This is the main issue as I saw it, and it is the most likely area in which Fae may come into future problems. The diffs to support this finding of fact are abundant on the evidence page.LedRush (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and spelling

It'd be nice if Risker or another good copy-editor could go through some of the proposed text and clean it up. There's all kinds of strange capitalization and hyphenation throughout the page. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: are people aware sanction has the sense "approved" as well as "penalized"? - Amgine (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To the latter question, yes. It's a well-known paraadox that "sanction" is one of the few English-language words that can mean the opposite of itself (e.g., "the court sanctioned the lawyer's behavior"—this could mean that it condoned the behavior, or that it penalized it). Another example, though it doesn't come up in ArbCom decisions, is "cleave," which can mean "to split apart" or "to cling together." Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like the word cleave because it has those two opposed meanings. Same as fast. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The two meanings of "cleave" actually belong to two separate and distinct words which over time came to sound and be spelt the same. The words are still distinct in German, for example: "klieben" means "split", "kleben" means "stick to". JN466 00:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Another interesting word development is that black originally meant white in Old English. It is thought that the meaning changed when blacksmiths heated metal until it was white hot (they would "blaecen" the metal), but when the metal cooled it was black (it had been "blaecened"). It's one of those rare cases of genuinely arguing that white is black. Black still means white in some other languages - blanc, bianco, blanco, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I always learn cool new shit at Wikipedia... Carrite (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Very Disturbing

It's very disturbing that severe sanctions are proposed for Delicious carbuncle and not for Fae. Delicious carbuncle is the odd man out, not one of Wikipedia's ruling elite as Fae was. Despite this, however, DC has remained calm, level headed and civil through every step of the process. Meanwhile, Fae has broken just about every rule in the book, from sockpuppeting to probable copyright violations that the arbcom doesn't want to look into, to disruption (to say the least), to making false charges of homophobia, to engaging in the very 'outing' behavior (with respect to Gregory Kohs) that he dams others for. Nevertheless, despite DC's nearly superhuman self restraint the only thing the Arbcom can fault him for is posting of information on another site THAT FAE HIMSELF HAD PREVIOUSLY MADE PUBLIC. And yet the arbcom has proposed banning DC while giving Fae a slap on the wrist.

I've said this before but it bears repeating; Wikipedia's arbcom is a laughing stock.

For years the mainstream media has reported on Wikipedia from a position of ignorance, struggling with its basic concepts. We've all seen the endless media clips where reporters are barely able to explain what NPOV means. I believe when the mainstream media finally starts looking seriously into Wikipedia, cases like this are what will stand out; Fae gets to run wild soiling the project left and right while those who try to call him on it are threatened with banning. This is not an isolated case. Time and time again we've seen that Wikipedia is unable to police their own, and it falls to external websites dedicated to critical review before serious problems are addressed - this should be a 'finding of fact' here, by the way.

Speaking of the mainstream media, here's a quote by a reporter looking in Wikipedia's conflict resolution process;

“ Let go of my bag, you asshole," shouts the woman [being mugged].

"Well, I can't get involved in content disputes," says the cop, "but calling someone an asshole just isn't civil. Off to the lockup, dearie.

”

--SparklingLemonMineralWater (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to reinforce this, ArbCom, please try to look at this from the view of an outsider who, perhaps, has a larger perspective. If an outsider looks at this, they will see someone who violated several of Wikipedia's major policies, but is only being desysopped. In contrast, the person who blew the whistle on it, and briefly posted information that the offender himself had already made public, is considered for a site ban. Can you understand how ridiculous this makes Wikipedia's administration look? Look at the big picture, please. Cla68 (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Any reporter writing an article on any person involved in this ArbCom case could have a particular perspective. ArbCom needs to focus on what's best in these particular circumstances. I also think looking at the big picture from multiple perspectives is a good idea. I wonder if some people only see things one way even though this is a complicated issue. NewtonGeek (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Note that the discussion SilkTork links on his talk page appears to exonerate Fae. Introducing more and more files for him to consider is not the same as actually proving something. And sockpuppetry for personal privacy (rather than to improperly influence Wikimedia processes) is no offense at all. And I dispute the belief that commenting about apparent homophobia is really some heinous crime; it is no better or worse than all the other allegations of nastiness and wrongdoing on all sides. Wnt (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The quoted reporter wrote that quote off-wiki after being banned from this case https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bali_ultimate&diff=497164929&oldid=497162237. Courcelles had to block the user after that. This block could only be lifted with ArbCom permission. The name of the poster who quoted that reporter reflects the avatar a banned user is using off-wiki. NewtonGeek (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the Christian Science Monitor planning to publish an article written by the reporter banned from this case that covers Fae's personal and professional life? NewtonGeek (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Your question is unlikely to be answered here, since Bali ultimate is barred from responding on this page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think detooling Fae pending reconfirmation, limiting him to one account, and giving strong Don't Do It Agains to the other parties is right on the mark. As far as I'm concerned this whole mess was about a flawed RfA, in which there was no full transparency. That's fixed. Fae is well regarded by people who know him and that's fine. I've got personal advice for Fae with regard to appropriate and inappropriate content contributions and he's welcome to drop me a line off list if he wants to hear it. He probably already knows. MutantPop@aol.com. Carrite (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement

I see there is not a proposal for enforcement yet. Will this case be subject to standard enforcement? One restriction has already passed and other restrictions are proposed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Under a resolution we adopted a few weeks ago, the standard enforcement provision applies in every decision containing restrictions, unless we vote otherwise. I presume that someone (an arbitrator or clerk) should add it at the foot of the decision. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This really does need to be on the page template. It's too much to expect people to remember to add it manually each time,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger, I think you followed your own advice. Lord Roem (talk) 03:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the template should probably be changed to reflect that it is not a matter on which voting is needed. Of course, none of that helps if people inadvertently remove the provision while posting the proposed decision. :D --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Double jeopardy

One thing that bothers me a little bit about this case is that the community already had a debate on what to do about Delicious Carbuncle's outing of Fae's personal information on Wikipedia Review. (I should know, since I (re-)closed the discussion, as has already been entered into the evidence here.)

My close said, essentially, that what DC did was a very bad thing and he would likely be in serious trouble if he did it again. But I'm not aware of him doing it again. And while I stand by that close 100%, it should be noted that two editors felt strongly enough that my harsh but non-sanctioning close was too critical of him that they added a "dissent" to the close within the closed discussion. If ArbCom is choosing to sanction DC for behavior since that close, that's one thing (and I hope the arbs will make it explicit that they're doing that), but if DC did take the stern warning about outing seriously and refrain from that type of activity since then, it seems a little unfair to ban or (re-)admonish him this late in the game for behavior that hasn't been repeated.

On another note, I applaud SilkTork for taking the initiative to actually investigate the allegations of copyright violations. It is supremely unfair to Fae to include a finding in the vein of "Some say that Fae has violated copyright" without actually determining whether the allegations have any merit. If they don't have any merit, that needs to be reflected in the findings. If Fae's done nothing wrong regarding copyright, it's not right to leave an accusatory finding in place with the caveat that "somebody" ought to look into it. 28bytes (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I will second that point. It is clearly not fair for DC to be "tried" twice for the same matter, with both the community and arbcom wanting their bite at the cherry, while in the matter of the blatant interaction ban violation by Prioryman on this very talk page arbcom and the clerks seemed happy to leave the matter to the community, and the community seems happy to leave it to arbcom – with the result that DC does not get satisfaction from either the community or arbcom. The asymmetry of the situation should be evident, as was the fundamental asymmetry of allowing two interaction-banned editors to submit evidence and workshop proposals about each other – bearing in mind that only one of them was made a party to the case, and thus only one of them was a realistic target for evidence submissions and workshop proposals! This after all the preferential treatment that Prioryman has already had from this committee ever since he claimed the right to vanish in the middle of an arbitration case, only to return with an undeclared sock just hours later, and yet another account after that – behaviour that arbcom saw fit to condone (and DC uncovered, if memory serves).

Apart from the matter of DC's proposed ban, the decision looks fairly sensible. Newyorkbrad has made some admirable comments, and SilkTork is indeed to be commended for his initiative, as 28bytes says above – but the patchy clerking of this case, the double jeopardy aspect, and the asymmetrical interaction ban enforcement fall short of that high standard. JN466 04:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom, if you aren't going to act on the IBan violations that occurred during this case, would you please make that clear here so that WP's administrators will feel more free to act on it in other venues? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68, Dennis Brown has made it clear that the community feels free to act. He was also clear on why he decided not to. He's an easy to approach person so if you have questions, I think he'll answer them. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• We are not a court of law, so we don't operate a double jeopardy we use Wikipedia:Consensus can change. I am looking not just at the WR email incident, nor just at matters from Dec 2011 onwards, which is what the above ban proposal was looking at, but at the whole history of the interaction between DC and Fae - that is from both before and after that ban proposal. It can be difficult to assess and legislate for the precise sensitivities of others - the point at which legitimate robust questioning feels like harassment, is going to differ from person to person, and views will differ on why Fae closed down his Ash account - was it to avoid close scrutiny, or was it because he felt harassed. The more I am looking into this, the more I see harassment. Though I haven't yet finished my investigation of DC's original concerns regarding Fae/Ash's use of sourcing, and the seriousness of what I find may mitigate my finding against DC. I will offer here that I am finding this case difficult as a lot of the time there are just shadows and accusations with not much hard evidence. Matters have not been helped by the account moving and deletion of histories. I have gone from one one view to another as I work my way through the material, and I may shift my view yet again as I move forward, but as of now I am not comfortable with what I see of DC's interaction with Fae. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• As you peel the onion layers back here, keep one thing in mind that IMO mitigates issues of outing and what Fae has called "harassment"; the nature of Fae's employment/membership/status with Wikimedia UK. Outing is particularly bad when one is engaged in an argument here and actively goes digging for information on one's opponent, whether it is to harass or intimidate or simple revenge for motives. Here though (if I recall the chronology right) was a simpler connect-the-dots "holy shit that's him ?" moment based upon seeing a WMUK roster and recalling a piece of WHOIS data. There are people here who have serious reservations (reservations that have NOTHING to do with sexual orientation) about this particular person having a role in a Local Wikimedia chapter, one with paid staff positions, appearances before Parliament, and the like. It is not out of bounds IMO to expect some transparency (doubly so as it is registered as a non-profit charity) regarding exactly who is involved in public-face group, and to go digging when said transparency isn't there. You need to separate all of that rom other forms of legitimate harassment that Fae has received, i.e. the junk he dredged out of the archives and currently on display at his talk page. That has nothing to do with DC or any of this. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• My dot joining echoes yours, in that DC's interest was prompted by the interaction between himself and Fae over BLPs, and that it was reawakened by noticing that Fae was part of Wikimedia UK. However, where it looks like harassment to me is in the intensity, range and amount of interest (creating eight WR threads on Fae, for example), and the personalisation of that interest so that it goes beyond a concern regarding sourcing and becomes focused on the person and such matters as that person's comments on use of images on user pages. It also has to be borne in mind that we are responsible for the impact of what we say, so we need to take care regarding what we say about people and where we say it. Writing about a person so many times on WR and on Wikipedia creates a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation, in which negative aspersions are amplified to extreme results. One or two angry responses or mutterings is human behaviour, but extending it for so long and so many times is inappropriate and such attention has historically got people sanctioned. And my understanding is that Fae's role in that local organisation is an electable one, so if people are unhappy about it they can join the organisation and take part in voting. It is also worth stressing, in case anyone is still unsure, that WMUK is not part of either Wikipedia or the Foundation - it is an independent organisation which (though it has similar aims to the Foundation, has permission to use the Wikimedia logo, and has been supported by Jimbo in fund raising) controls and runs itself. Queries about WMUK board members here are misplaced, as here we deal with matters related to creating the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That may be true about here, but it is not true about external critics' sites, where discussions about movement governance and leading functionaries are a legitimate expression of fundamental democratic rights. Whether or not a high-ranking functionary of the Wikimedia movement edits a Wikimedia project or not should not have any effect on the public's ability to critique such a functionary, especially if that functionary makes representations to parliament that many, including myself, consider problematic, and speaks on behalf of the movement to the press. There should be no "Criticise our functionaries, and we will remove your editing rights" policy. Fæ has personally cited commercial porn sites as BLP sources, including a streaming porn site that showed an unauthorised video of the BLP subject having sex, and vigorously defended that sourcing here in Wikipedia. At the same time, he has said to parliament and the charity commission that Wikipedia has an effective BLP policy, and that Wikipedia's BLPs are fully consistent with a charitable purpose. I respect Fæ's opinions on many matters, and he has done very commendable and much needed work in Commons around issues of subject consent – perhaps in light of his own experience – but I fundamentally disagree with him here. Wikimedia, at its present level of maturity, did not deserve charity status in the UK, because our BLP content is often anything but charitable. (If you're interested, I submitted evidence to parliament in that regard: pp.483–493) It is my belief that Wikimedia would have been better served if Fæ had been truthful in his representations to the charity commission and to parliament, and the movement had been compelled to make much needed improvements before being awarded such status in the UK. Now, it would not have been my personal style to engage in the public exposure of Fæ that Michaeldsuarez or Greg Kohs engaged in. I winced when I saw it. But Wikipedians stand exposed as rank hypocrites if they give broad visibility to things like Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism on the pages of what purports to be an NPOV encyclopedia, but would restrict the public's right to engage in similarly trenchant criticism of prominent Wikimedia functionaries on sites explicitly designed to serve as a venue for expressing personal opinions. JN466 09:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• • The external Wikipedia criticism sites are moderated and posting there is a privilege not a democratic right. Bigoted or ignorant opinions can be expressed. It does not follow that those opinions are good ways of criticizing Wikipedia or any particular Wikipedia user or leader. Each person decides what to write. The writing on such forums allows others to judge the writers. What each forum tolerates also reflects the leadership of the forum. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference to the streaming video is very important. If you ban Michael Suarez for using off-Wikipedia pornographic content that Ashley van Haeften wanted suppressed and do not punish Mr van Haeften for linking from Wikipedia pornographic material that Karrine Steffans wanted suppressed then you are giving a message that Arbcom does not give a fuck about BLP subjects but instead applies a double standard that favours the rights of the Wikipedia in-crowd over those of BLP subjects. Is that the message that you want to give?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

How far apart in time did those events occur? Isn't there already a remedy regarding Fae's conduct? It was my impressing that SilkTork is thoroughly looking into the concerns Peter cohen raised. NewtonGeek (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A few months. Van Haeften was active on the Steffans article between April and July last year; he was voting to keep the picture on Commons of the alleged prostitutes in the Reeperbahn in September last year and they remained so described on Wikipedia until October when the picture was deleted on Commons. Michael Suarez created the ED article "Embarrassing images you uploaded under a free license" in November, moving it to "Teahot" in December and to "Ashley van Haeften" in January.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

@ Peter cohen, was Fae the only person voting keep on that Commons picture? If anyone else voted keep, how should those users be dealt with? Hasn't a remedy for the BLP confusion been proposed? I thought SilkTork mentioned something like that. NewtonGeek (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

By the end Fae was the only person holding out for keeping the picture. One person initially voted keep but changed their vote when they were reminded of German legislation on image rights and of Commons policy with respect to national legislation on image rights.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The threads on WR discussing Fæ are not echo chambers where I talk to myself. Fæ was a subject of interest to many WR contributors for a variety of reasons beyond the initial problems as User:Ash (involvement in WMUK, being elected Chair, dodgy copyright claims, patently false copyright claims through Flickr-washing, exhibitionist images, out-of-process deletion of exhibitionist images, hypocrisy about what images are acceptable on userpages, a failed RfA on Commons, overt plagarism of a map, etc). I am sure there are those who feel that WP:NPA and "comment on the contributions not the contributor" are a credo that Wikipedia editors will follow both on and off Wikipedia, but I believe that there is great value in being able to simply say something like "Editor X is as close to a pathological liar as I have ever encountered". I am persistant and patient. People here have drawn parallels to my comments on WR about User:Cirt. I invite ArbCom to review the stability of the Scientology area and the interactions Cirt and I have had since that ArbCom case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• SilkTork, when you refer to my interactions with Fæ, are you referring to WR discussions about Fæ, or to actual interactions between Fæ and I? If it is the former, then there was no interaction. If it is the latter, then Fæ needs to acknowledge his role in actively seeking out the comments that he finds objectionable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• By interaction I am including comments on Fae as well as communication with Fae, and including both Wikipedia and WR interactions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is what I thought. Please find another word to use as "interaction" is misleading to readers who will likely assume that there is some, well, interaction when in reality there is none. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• I meant interaction as Social interaction rather than intercourse or correspondence or dialogue - the sense that your actions have a consequence on the person you are talking about; it is the same sense as used in WP:IBAN in which "editor X is not permitted to:...make reference to or comment on editor Y". Harassing someone is an unpleasant form of social interaction - the other party does not need to respond directly to the harasser for them to feel the effects of that interaction. It is quite possible in all this that you are unaware what impact you are having on Fae, and you genuinely feel that what you are doing is valid, is within acceptable social parameters, and that you are being careful and polite. However, whether by intent or by ignorance, your cumulative attentions on Wikipedia, Commons and WP, have been excessive, and while I am finding that at least some of your concerns are valid - the manner of addressing your concerns, and the assumptions you make, are too strong. I agree with you that neither The Culture of Queers nor More dirty looks provide the support for the statements in Vladimir Correa that Fae felt they did. However, it's a jump to feel that his mistake was deliberate and fraudulent. I do feel, though, that it is a matter of concern that when the matter is pointed out to him, he continued to assert he was correct. I am continuing to look into your sourcing concerns, as it appears that they do have validity, and Fae's response to your concerns is inappropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, DC did not make the initial accusation that "Ash" had engaged in "fraudulent" sourcing/referencing. I did. The accusation was directed at a specific set of contributions by "Ash", where he 1) linked advertising/retailer pages as BLP references; 2) claimed those pages as support for otherwise uncited BLP claims even though the pages expressly identified the relevant Wikipedia articles as their sources for the information; and 3) systematically misidentified the citations as independently published editorial content in a consumer magazine, even though he had never verified the contents of the magazine. The ANI discussion broadened to a more general discussion of "Ash's" sourcing practices, where the cited comments by DC were posted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delicious Carbuncle never harassed Fae; he merely followed Wikipedia's rules, starting a request for comment regarding Ash's editing, for he had serious concerns about that. Fae/Ash could have taken the opportunity to explain his actions then and there and nothing of this would ever have happened. Or he could have chosen not to participate in the RFC, which would have been equally legitimate. Instead, he chose to lie and to deceive the community, abusing multiple accounts and claiming that the other users were bigots who were only out to get him. He continued to lie even when it was clear that his falsehoods has been discovered — with the added arrogance of demanding that we played dumb and ignored the fact that it was Fae who basically disclosed the fact that the Ash account and the Fae account (and many others) were operated by the same person. In all this, Fae never admitted that his behaviour could have been perceived as problematic by reasonable editors: those who criticised him were always homophobes, people who were against him for his sexual preferences. If ArbCom end up equating DC's conduct to harassment, they will basically reward Fae's lies and deceit; he could have stopped all this by simply accepting to engage with the community, but he never chose to do it. To say that DC should have stopped asking questions, only because it could upset Fae means that if you lie and deceive — and cry bloody murder — long enough then you get a free pass on violating Wikipedia's rules, which is a dangerous precedent to set, especially considering the fact that Wikipedia is not particularly good at enforcing its own rules against established users... For goodness' sake, Fae has consistently refused to even consider he could have been doing something wrong — this case has nothing to do with DC and everything to do with Fae. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish someone would fill in the history here. As I understand it, this all began with some people claiming it was improper to name a porn actor unless he had a blue-linked article, i.e., by egregious misrepresentation of the concept of WP:Notability. I haven't seen the original diffs, though. My impression is that this all escalated from these original wrong-headed claims that Ash was violating policy by good editing in one particular topic area, as repeated in the Ash RfC, spread to the RfA, and so on. This was echoed by the hatted thread about Crisco between Tarc and me. Wnt (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How about deleting all parts of your post that assert facts not in evidence? Or how about a clerk doing so? JN466 02:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asserting facts not in evidence, I'm requesting facts not in evidence. These things are mentioned in passing in the discussion surrounding the Ash RfC/U, but not in a way that makes it easy to find the original diffs. Don't tell me it's improper to do that when people keep bringing up new Fae uploads to investigate after the old ones (introduced after the end of the evidence phase) have already been cleared. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You are obliquely asserting facts. It's much as if you were to say, "As I understand it, this case began because Freddy beat his wife. Could anyone remind me of the evidence for that? I haven't seen any, but my impression is it all started from there." It's appalling behaviour on your part. If you want to request facts not in evidence, you can do it like this: "Does anyone have a handle on how this started?" Now, would you be so good and strike? JN466 16:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• SilkTork, since you seem to be spending time reviewing the history of this in some detail, please keep a question in your mind as you do so - why did the community not get involved in this matter in a meaningful way? I suggest that the twin tactics of implying homophobia and derailing rational discussions with allegations of harassment were very successful. Perhaps you could look into the history of Ash's user and talk pages to locate the threat which Fæ/Ash claimed caused them to fear for their safety and leave Wikipedia? Fæ has claimed that it was oversighted, but your comment about him jumping accounts specifically to avoid me has made me wonder if there was any such threat made or if that was an expeditious excuse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• I call bullshit. There are comments in the AFD and ANI debates back in 2009/10 involving Fæ/Ash where people were declaring that that they weren't homophobic, before making whatever point it was they were making. I wondered why one would do that unless there was a general issue of people being called homophobic for objecting to certain types of edits, or editors, etc. It seems that Bali's animosity towards Fæ/Ash stems from that period. Benjiboi was probably the main culprit, but Fæ/Ash was also there. Whatever or whoever was the main driving force the fact remains that a number of people got labelled as homophobic, and such claims may hurt them professionally. This AE case has been raised by someone who aims to be a lawyer, and Bali is a journalist. When Fæ/Ash reappears as a trustee of WMUK, and is then seen delivering spin and untruths to a Parliamentary Committee on privacy that is of public interest and it ought to damn well be of interest to WP too. He is not just part of a web2.0rhea site but is also part of a UK legal organisation that has connections to WMF. He says that he has been harassed and advised NOT to interact with his harassers, yet for the last 8 months he has consistently interacted with WR members: instigating a move to block links to the site on Commons, pushing for bans on prominent WR contributors on Commons, belabouring the same people at WP ANI, and Talk Wales, taking opposite views on AFDs and RFCs from WR prominent editors. All of which show that Fæ/Ash is a player, and in my opinion his claims of harassment is just part of that. He was involved, with others, in labelling up editors as homophobic when they questioned his editing. He avoided scrutiny on that behaviour when it raised by the Community by jumping accounts. He dissembled around the Commons RFA when his prior accounts were brought up saying that such were mere speculation. He presented spin to a UK parliamentary committee. No amount of complaining on the part of Fæ/Ash is going to cut it. John lilburne (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

DC. I linked below to Fae/Ash's comment (but it wasn't clear that I had done so) which stated that he'd had enough of Wikipedia because of your attention. I linked to the history of the page in which he talks about that - here is a link to one specific point in that page's history -[5]. My understanding is that you asked Fae/Ash to remove the specific mention of him (which would be appropriate because it is a personal attack), and he did so. My concern here is that we have two users who have taken up a lot of time over what is essentially a minor dispute. There is far more heat than light. The dispute between yourself and Fae is a significant distraction from creating the encyclopaedia. I can see that you are not the only one raising concerns about Fae/Ash in a robust manner, and there is a sense that you can get tarred with the same brush as some of the other commentators who use stronger language; however, what is also true, is that you have been there throughout this dispute, and are the backbone of it. At the very least, there should be an interaction ban between you and Fae coming out of this case - regardless of who if any gets site-banned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And you believe him? That's a serous lapse in judgment. That comment was just part of the setup for the fake retirement by "Ash", not a good faith response to what was going on. "Ash" also cites DC's "continued unsubstantiated complains at ANI" (in spite of the strong community support for the complaints, approaching consensus at the time "Ash" disguised himself as "Fae") and accuses all those who supported DC's complaints as "editors (who also turn out to be members of Wikipedia Review)." The comments that you link to are precisely the sort of "personal attacks" and "ad hominem attacks" by Ash/Fae/etc cited in proposed findings of fact, and to see them cited in this context by an arbitrator as justifying action against one of Fae's critics is quite disturbing, and stands ordinary logic and reason on its head -- particularly since it was part of that editor's campaign to dupe the community into believing he was no longer editing. Statements made as part of a program of deception should be treated with particular skepticism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, do you think there may have been word twisting by people with differing opinions in multiple matters tied to this case? Do you think people of differing opinions may have attempted to discredit others by purposefully and misleadingly stating a user did something the user didn't do? NewtonGeek (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That has exactly nothing to do with my point. Ash/Fae/AvH deliberately (and for some time, successfully) deceived the community about his faked retirement, in order to evade justified scrutiny of his editing practices. Statements he made to further that deception should be treated as dubious. There's no reason to believe that anyone else directly involved in this contretemps has committed a similar deception, and trying to minimize the significance of Ash/Fae's dishonesty is hardly helpful or constructive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

Nobody should imply a user attempted to associate another user with homophobia when no such association was implied. Likewise, a user should not accuse another user of homophobia if no reasonable person would ascribe such a motivation. I think the problem cuts both ways. That's one reason this situation is so complicated. NewtonGeek (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the situation is quite simple, and your comments are so far off the mark that it's hard to see how a reasonable person could advance them in good faith in this context. "Ash" deceived the community into believing he had retired in order to evade scrutiny and sanctions. As part of this pattern of dishonest behavior, he made various statements regarding other users, particularly DC. Given the underlying motive, to dupe the community, there is no reason to believe that Ash's statements regarding DC are true. None of this subthread has made allegations of the kind you suggest have been made, and your intention seems to be muddy the water and cast unfounded aspersions on editors whose positions you dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have not put forward the idea that Fae did not make mistakes. The extent of those mistakes is for the Arbs to figure out. Assuming good faith I assume you have not read all the comments I have in all the places they have been made on and off-wiki. I expect the fastest way to get this thread hatted is to introduce that material here. NewtonGeek (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek, the answer to your question is yes. You need look no farther than the evidence presented by Fæ in this case and the redactions made to it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, Fæ/Ash did indeed make that statement referring to me by name and stating that I had made personal attacks and "unsubstantiated complaints". As far as the "unsubstantiated complaints go, I am always careful to back up what I say, so they were not "unsubstantiated" and you have acknowledged that the complaints had merit. Let's make a timeline:

• Ash made that statement on 24 March 2010. At that point, Ash knew that I was preparing to file an RFC/U.
• Ash removed my name at my request, but the very next day, he posted the following: " After a particularly nasty personal attack against me I have put a pause to my work on Wikipedia. Congratulations to those involved, you obviously enjoy bullying your way into censoring Wikipedia. For any interested administrators that can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email".
• Ash did not leave Wikipedia he continued to edit and on 28 March 2010 he created the Fæ account.
• Then on 2 April 2010, he created the Ticaro account. The Speedo/Speedoguy account had existed since 2009.
• I filed the RFC/U on 5 April 2010.
• On 5 April 2010, Ash made the claim on Commons that his own upload File:Hogtied_male.jpg did not have proper licensing. The description was "BDSM scene. Man in hogtied position with restraints and chains" and the license was "Own work by uploader" (in this case User:Teahot).
• Also on 5 April 2010, Ash stated that he could not respond to the RFC/U because he was travelling and there had been a bereavement in the family. (It is a sad coincidence that another of Fæ's relatives passed away at the onset of this RFAR.)
• Despite the demands imposed on Fæ by this bereavement, he managed to make hundreds of edits as Fæ during the first weeks of April 2010.

My point, if it is not obvious, is that part of this case involves false claims made by Ash/Fæ about harassment and homophobia. It seems perverse to take those same statements at face value in order to pursue an agenda of imposing an interaction ban. If Fæ has an credibility left at this point, I do not understand why. I made best efforts to resolve the situation at that time using the dispute resolution processes available to me. I assumed that the RFC/U case would lead to ArbCom getting involved with the situation. Instead, the situation with gay porn performer BLPs was largely resolved by Ash's very unclean "clean start" and Benjiboi's timely departure. Absent these two editors in the topic area, the problems evaporated (although little has been done to improve sourcing in extant biographies). When I realized that this editor was still active in Wikipedia, of course I was concerned and continue to think that ArbCom is really missing the point here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The ideal clean start for an editor whose edits have been controversial is one in which an editor genuinely refocuses and shifts topic. Fae's cleanstart is tarnished by an overlap in editing, though that was itself disclosed during the RFA. But those edits in themselves were uncontentious, and Fae has not returned to the topic of Gay Porn performers. So "very unclean" is stretching a point, if Fae had returned to the topic that Ash withdrew from then it would have been a "very unclean" clean start and in that case, or of course if they'd moved into doing something else that was contentious, then the pedia would have benefited from linking the two accounts. In hindsight it is unfortunate that Ash didn't respond to the original RFC by simply making a public commitment in that RFC to shift topic. A clean start in such circumstances is a private commitment to shift topic, and we should judge the person making that cleanstart in terms of their success in discontinuing whatever they had been told was problematic. ϢereSpielChequers 21:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers, your comment was informative. NewtonGeek (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ's "clean start" is tarnished by the fact that they where already using two accounts (Ash and Speedoguy), created two new accounts (Fæ and Ticaro) for a total of (at least) four accounts simultaneously active, and did so while there was an active dispute resolution process. That Fæ did not return to the topic area in which Ash was so problematic is hardly the point. The issue that prompted this RFAR seems to have been forgotten - Fæ has continued a pattern of making allegations of harassment rather than attempting to resolve disputes through the existing dispute resolution mechanisms. That was an issue when they were known as Ash and it is an issue now that they are known as Fæ, as evidenced by the finding of fact and proposed remedies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That Fae did not return to the topic area that Ash was contentious in is absolutely the point here. One of the major reasons why Cleanstart exists is to enable editors to redirect their enthusiasm into less contentious areas. That Fae shifted from overly inclusionist editing on Gay porn, to articles such as the Hoxne hoard where I first had the pleasure of his acquaintance is to be commended. The overlap in editing and the Ticaro and Speedoguy accounts do indeed mean that the Cleanstart was tarnished, but tarnished and "very unclean" are very different assessments. ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispassionately reviewing the facts, good and bad, about all disputants is the only way to handle a situation like this. It's possible that each party to the case has done both good and bad things. In my opinion, that's likely. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork's comments in Proposed Remedy #6 are not supported by evidence

SilkTork has made the following statement in the comments section of Proposed Remedy #6: "DC crossed that line when it became clear that he was no longer interested in purely investigating the possible infringements, but was focusing on other aspects of Fae's life, some of which, such as his role in Wikimedia UK or where he worked or who his partner is, have no relation to the infringements he wished to investigate". For some time now, Fæ and one or two of his supporters have attempted to associate me with comments made by other Wikipedia Review contributors or actions taken by unknown persons. It appears that they have been feeding misinformation to SilkTork, who repeats the claims in violation of the rules of evidence here. I have no desire to be the scapegoat for the actions of others, and I have no desire to be banned on trumped-up charges.

• I cannot recall making any comments about where Fæ has been employed, but I welcome a diff or link to WR if I have ever done so.
• Fæ created an article on Wikipedia about his husband. That is first mentioned on 11 March 2010 by another contributor in this posting, although I did reference it over a year later on 27 November 2011 when I noted "using WP to display your vacation snaps or write a bio of your spouse is a time-honoured tradition on WP, especially among admins".
• I see no reason why discussion of Fæ's role in Wikimedia UK should be referred to as though it was some form of harassment. It should be noted that since discussions of WMUK began on WR, Fæ has been elected as WMUK Chair and, quite recently, appointed Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association. Discussion of WMUK and Fæ's role does not seem to have had any negative impact.

Statements made by Fæ or his supporters stating that I have started every thread about Fæ on WR or that I was the first person to mention something on WR should not be assumed to be accurate if they are to be considered as evidence in this case. There is a standard of evidence laid out for this case. I invite ArbCom to email specific allegations to me (or list them here) so that I may know exactly what is being said and have a chance to confirm or invalidate the claims made. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

My comments above relate to this comment, but in this comment, SilkTork makes the statement "The history of Fae closing down accounts on Wikipedia and Commons, deleting the file history of images he uploaded on Common, and later the deletion of images which later ended up on the ED page, all appear to be directly related to the sour relationship between the two" and "..it appears that much of Fae's conduct issues ... including misleading the community in his RfA, stem from his desire to conceal himself from DC". I do not know which other "accounts" SilkTork is referring to, but Fæ stopped using his User:Ash account with statements that threats had been made against him and he feared for the "safety" of himself and his husband. I strongly reject any implication that I was in any way involved with threats made toward Fæ or his husband. I have left a note for SilkTork and I will be asking the clerks to remove their statements until they are prepared to support them with diffs or links. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the comment "where he worked", as I conflated DC with another user as I was looking at the evidence. As regards Fae's feelings regarding DC's attention toward him - that is shown here. I have not mentioned any threats, as I have not yet looked into that aspect. But I have noted the timing of deletion of files on Commons after DC started commenting about Fae on WR. A reasonable observer would likely conclude that it was related given the acrimonious history between DC and Fae. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a reasonable observer would conclude that the exhibitionist images that Fæ posted on Commons and added to articles here were deleted became a source of embarrassment when they became associated with his real name. If you have a timeline that shows a correlation between comments I made about the images and their deletion, please post it. To do otherwise will expose the pretense that the stated rules of evidence are being followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the COI issue, while technically valid, seems out of place when Fae is involved, for example, in a project to put every notable object in Monmouth on Wikipedia. ArbCom may need to think about how to stop this whole sorry circus from pitching its tents on that article's talk page, and causing that person grief, which is what I see coming out of this. Wnt (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Newyorkbrad

Newyorkbrad would like me to reply to his comments, and I shall oblige.

I feel that the article is informative, and I can't help it if Newyorkbrad and others feel differently. I dislike Web 2.0 and social networking. The web used to be about sharing information, ideas, opinions, anecdotes, critiques, and fun. This was later supplanted by a culture of attention-seeking, even at the expense of one's own privacy, and moderation (i.e. the ability to delete or disable comments). Web 2.0 is about sharing without considering the consequences ("OMG. You found a photo of me wearing a diaper via Google!") and without accepting the validity of criticism due to hyper-individualism ("I can do whatever I want. I can wear diapers and drink piss. Don't criticize me. Criticism is hate speech."). ED is a prime example of why privacy shouldn't be taken for granted. The original purpose of ED's Fæ article was to show people why they shouldn't upload those sorts of images under a free license. I originally planned to include other images from other people, but I changed my mind one or two days later. I decided to change it to an article that informs people about Fæ. The article now shows you Fæ.

I was expecting the article to be expended, but I wasn't expecting non-WR members to be interested in it. I didn't expect people who weren't already familiar with Fæ to notice the article and add templates to it. There are many articles on ED, especially articles on individuals, that are basically never touched by anyone besides the person who initially created the article.

I haven't seen any evidence that Fæ was harmed or distressed. Prior to this case, Fæ's attitude towards ED could be described as cocky. How can a website that people hardly "ever pays much attention to" be harmful to Fæ? Fæ didn't sound distressed prior to this case. In addition, Fæ was reelected to WMUK's Board of Directors, and he was recently elected to Chair of the Wikimedia Chapters Association. It seems that the ED article barely has any impact at all. I'm sorry that the ED article appeared in search results for Fæ's real name, and I've renamed the article as a result. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think ED could help with the Google diaper phenomenon, if it photoshopped up a bunch of such images of people of varying degrees of fame. (I wish one of the Anonymous hackers would tell me, "there's an app for that...") The more common such things (true or false) become, the less people will let themselves be ruled by such foolishness. It's long past overdue for people to learn to stop being judgmental about silly pictures. Wnt (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't an app for that because there doesn't need to be. It's called Microsoft Paint. It's the poor man's way to make fake nude pictures of celebrities. If you want to do fakes of celebs wearing diapers, that's probably easy enough. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of uploader verus reuser

Picking up on what Hersfold said here: [6] (scroll to the bottom):

"Just because images from Commons are used here does not place them under our purview, as any editor can add any image to an article. Wikipedia wouldn't be sanctioning JoeSchmoe if he added a potentially infringing image to an article when it was BillyBob that uploaded it to Commons."

I don't think that is correct. Anyone who adds anything to an article, whether it be an image or text, is responsible for that addition. When adding images to articles, people should be checking that the license is correct and that things are OK with that image at the time they add the image to the article. Maybe not as thorough a check as when uploading images in the first place, but certainly there is no reason to assume that images are OK just because they have been uploaded to Commons, rather the reverse in fact. If there was an infringement that warranted such action, the rights holder and the courts would likely take action against the original uploader, but if another editor added the said image to lots of articles, it wouldn't be impossible that they would get caught up in proceedings as well. This is why it is important that central repositories like Commons that serve all the projects have rigorous procedures that all the projects can trust, but equally individual editors need to be sure themselves of what they are doing when they add images to articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

While perhaps technically correct, that's not a reasonable approach. A good faith editor who reviewed the instructions at WP:IMAGE would have no reason to question the license of something on commons and the logical assumption is that anything in the *.wikipedia.org domain space is compliant with WMF policies. The distinction between English Wikipedia and all of WMF isn't obvious to regular editors, and it shouldn't have to be per not a bureaucracy. I assume that inappropriate (not fair use) uploading of a copyrighted image puts WMF in equal violation of the law regardless of whether it's on English WP or commons? Nobody Ent 11:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the first part - otherwise, how often should people be checking? Every time they move images from one article to another, one section to another, give it a larger thumbnail? The whole point is that the Commons images, or the relevant WP file pages, are a resource WP articles merely link to, and they handle this stuff there. Editors merely type a line of text, a link, rather than uploading the content. (Yes, I know about the Dwyer case, but I hope to God the U.S. court system won't really accept such an anti free speech law, and there are also significant differences in the situations) Commons images all say they are legitimately licensed for free use. Editors should not be expected to go in and critically evaluate licensing details for an image on Commons when they use it in an article, full stop. Wikipedia should not be an encyclopedia only amateur lawyers can edit. If something looks like a clear and obvious copyright problem, then anyone, editor or reader, is strongly encouraged to report trouble. Wnt (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, why do review processes here on Wikipedia (Good Articles and Featured Articles and a few others) require independent checking of the image license and whether the rights have been handled correctly? Editors do need to take responsibility for images they add to articles. It is at least good practice to do this, even if we have all (at one time or another) added images without checking the details. I do now at least aim to click through to the image page and check it all looks OK before adding something to an article. The same way as we should all take the time to check an article is free of textual copyright violations before doing any major expansion work on it (as there is no point working on an article if you are just obscuring the presence of a copyright violation). However, it takes a while for many editors to realise this. Many don't realise that by not critically evaluating what is already present in articles they edit, or by not critically evaluating material they are reusing that has been supplied by others, they may be only adding to existing problems. Carcharoth (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously Good and Featured articles are striving to recheck standards across the board, on many issues. And I'm not denying it's a good practice. But there's a big difference between saying that and saying that editors should be sanctioned for failing to do this. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. But you would hope that if it is pointed out to an editor that they unknowingly added an infringing image to an article, that they might take more care in future. Even if something is not sanctioned, it doesn't mean people should continue doing it. Wikipedia editing is not a case of doing anything as long as it doesn't contravene policy or get you sanctioned. There are far too many editors who skirt close to various lines precisely because they know they are unlikely to get sanctioned and will get away with things. Driving up standards does involve discouraging borderline behaviour as well as sanctioning behaviour that is over the line. It also involves discouraging 'unknowing' edits and encouraging people to improve over time as editors (rather than a ceaseless churn of lower-standard editing). Wikipedia would be a better place all round if people would (in some cases) hold themselves to standards higher the sometimes minimal ones laid down by policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, unthinking and uncaring reuse of content is something ingrained in some areas of Wikipedia culture (see also the Web 2.0 comments above). Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

NobodyEnt, you say, "I assume that inappropriate (not fair use) uploading of a copyrighted image puts WMF in equal violation of the law regardless of whether it's on English WP or commons?" You are wrong. It amazes me that so many experienced contributors continue to be ignorant of basic facts pertaining to their participation here. The Foundation is immune from prosecution based on the safe harbour provided by Section 230. They are only a host, just like an e-mail service provider. They are not responsible for any content. If any of your uploads or edits breaks the law, you and you alone can be prosecuted for it. For example, when a German contributor embedded an old, out-of-copyright pornographic movie in a German article a few months ago, the police came after him, not Wikimedia; similarly, on the occasions when defamed BLP subjects have taken recourse to the law, they take the individual contributor to court, rather than the Foundation. The Foundation only becomes liable in very specific cases, for example when they have been served with a justified DMCA take-down notice and refuse to respond to that, as in the Loriot stamps case in Commons, or if they continue to host child pornography after it's been pointed out to them. --JN466 17:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, calling an editor with less than 1000 mainspace edits a contributor is a bit of a stretch. Secondly, my point was WMF is in equal violation of the law on English WP and commons -- so I am correct as long as zero equals zero. Nobody Ent 23:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a contributor? That's not terribly friendly. -— Isarra ༆ 17:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course you are a contributor, anyone with one useful addition in mainspace is a contributor to this project. Anyone with less than ten edits is not yet autonconfirmed, and for some elections we have thresholds in the hundreds, but nowhere near as high as a thousand edits. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The comment was self-referential; I was replying to a comment which addressed me by name. It was not intended to disparage any other editor. Nobody Ent 02:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Courcelles

Thread has become very off-topic and is leading into unproductive areas. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Courcelles comments in the proposed decision; "In addition to the outing, DC's creation of threads on WR, and forcing so much attention on Fae goes against the spirit of WP:HA beyond just the outing. It likely won't continue against Fae, because the goal has been achieved, but what happens next time DC gets it in his head that he needs to expose another editor?" Why would DC need to expose another editor? Why isn't Wikipedia's dispute resolution process able to handle its own? Why is it necessary that external sites, dedicated to critical review of Wikipedia, take up the burden of holding Wikipedia administrators to barely civilized standards? "[DC's] goal has been achieved". Courcelles, what exactly does that mean? It seems you are saying that DC's 'goal' is one in the same as the outcome of this RFAr. And yet your tone demonizes DC for his critical review, which you seem to credit for moving this case forward. If this 'goal' is unjust, then shouldn't you also be taking the arbcom to task? The arbcom should make a finding of fact in this case that Wikipedia is unable police its own, that insiders like Fea get to prance around soiling the project left and right, and that external sites dedicated to critical review have been instrumental in moving cases forward when the misbehavior of a Wikipedia insider is involved. The arbcom should make a further finding of fact that holding Wikipedia administrators to barely civilized standards is not the same as hounding, or WP:HA as Courcelles calls it. --SparklingLemonMineralWater (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC) "Prance around", huh? If you're trying to make the case that Fae's always "making false charges of homophobia" you might consider whether using phrasing like that helps or hurts your case. 28bytes (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Why, do only gay men "prance"? Do only homophobes use "prancing" to describe somebody who acts like a spoiled thoroughbred horse? If we can't speak normally because some guy is going to be looking for excuses for turning something into a homophobic comment, it's that guy's problem, not the community's. That's sort of the point here. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 20:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Tell ya what, if you can show me any diff of you, SparklingLemonMineralWater, me, any of the parties to the case, or any of the arbs on the case ever in their editing history using "prance" to describe any editor who's not openly gay, I'll concede the point and buy you a refreshing Coca-Cola. 28bytes (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC) What about phrases like nasty dramah queens, lithe, smooth skinned, delightfully gym bunny toned and spend the weekends working out as a podium dancer., or just another handbag clutching annoying drama monger.? That's what Fae dishes out, but say anything like it you're a homophobe. Takes three times as long to reply to anything involving him to allow for the Entmoot -- for each word: does "that" word have any alternate connotation? If yes, substitute another. Repeat until done. Nobody Ent 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Well quite obviously Fae shouldn't have been saying things like that either. Is it really necessary to keep score? Can I not suggest to someone that their words are ill-chosen without it being pointed out that other people have said worse? Look, I'm no fan of reading things into comments that obviously aren't there, but come on, let's not pretend that "prance around" isn't loaded language given the circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Call me naive, but I'm quite fond of AGF. You think the Iguana plays for the other team? Nobody Ent 21:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 28bytes, you're completely off-beam here. One minute's search delivers User:Kudpung, a Wikipedia Online Ambassador and sysop, using the term about 15-year-old admins: "The reason why we are not promoting many sysops is manyfold. This whole RfA process has become such a humiliating circus led mainly by a bunch of adolescents, and corrupt admins that few serious and regular contributors are prepared to go through it. There are fifteen year old admins prancing around slapping warning on talk pages and threatening university professors with blocks." Here are two diffs by another sysop, User:Dbachmann using it [7] [8]. Here is User:WhatamIdoing, opining "Wikipedia is a phenomenal, wonderful thing, but we sometimes make very strange choices, and then prance around saying that we can't do the sensible thing, because the prior discussion resulted in silly decisions." Obviously, everybody editing Wikipedia is gay, and she just insulted everyone because she is a homophobe. I am sick to death of people claiming, wrongly, that whole swathes of the English language are only suitable for insulting gay people. I call bullshit. --JN466 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Well, diffs are diffs. I will have to concede that other people have indeed used the phrase on Wikipedia without any apparent double-meaning. (Although not necessarily any of the people involved in this case, so you only get half a Coca-Cola.) 28bytes (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC) @28bytes, I'm glad you made that observation. At Wikipediocracy it was suggested that participants there and here avoid muddying the waters by using words and phrases that could predictably bring to mind gay sexuality. It's allowable to use words this way and a number of people think it's all right. I think it makes it difficult to separate legitimate criticism from other things. Being open to constructive feedback is worthwhile for everyone. NewtonGeek (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Well, I think whoever said that on Wikipediocracy was right on the money. 28bytes (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC) The contributor who said something of the sort over there is a person who is indef-blocked on Wikipedia (for personal attacks and harassment), and banned on Wikipediocracy, and claimed on Wikipediocracy that she was NewtonGeek's wife. ;) [9] --JN466 22:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Jayen466, this seems off topic and a bit like grave dancing since the user is retired here. I don't think Dennis Brown has any hard feelings and he shouldn't. The offer still stands to connect any people in authority at Wikipediocracy with experts in that field who were consulted about that matter. Others' questions about what happened haven't been publicly answered. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) I'm still lost on what prancing has to do with sexual preference. Is this some pop cultural reference I'm too old to get? If it is, do I need to look up every word I use to make sure it's not offending someone? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 22:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC) I think I can explain that one. From the 1913 Webster's: Prance, v. i. [imp. & p. p. {Pranced}; p. pr. & vb. n.{Prancing}.] [OE. prauncen; probably akin to prank, v. t. See Prank.] 1. To spring or bound, as a horse in high mettle. Now rule thy prancing steed. --Gay. I suspect that some people may not realize that "Gay" in this case refers to English poet John Gay and is not a reflection of the sexual preferences of the steed in question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC) @SB_Johnny both "flamboyant" and "prance" bring to mind sexual preference in situations in which a gay person is being criticized. I realize you said "flamboyant" is a common horticulture trade word. It shows your sensitivity that you are willing to make mental notes about the connotations of such terms. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 28bytes, I didn't intend those words to have the effect you feel. I'd rather talk about the meat of my comment and not some unintended slight. A response from Courcelles would be nice. --SparklingLemonMineralWater (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC) I agree this thread seems hopelessly off topic. I'll ask for it to be hatted. NewtonGeek (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Mfd'ing WP:PEACOCK would be pointy, right? Nobody Ent 23:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Remedies 6 and 6.1

Are remedies 6 and 6.1 being voted on separately or as alternatives? If they are alternatives (as the numbering and the use of 'first choice' and 'second choice' and 'equal preference' by some arbitrators implies) then by my reading, remedy 6 is better supported than remedy 6.1, even if both pass (8-2 versus 6-3). For the record, Casliber has yet to vote on remedy 6.1 and Roger Davies hasn't expressed a preference between the two remedies, and Risker and Elen of the Roads are the two arbitrators yet to vote. But it would be good to be clear on whether remedies 6 and 6.1 are alternatives or being voted on separately. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Personality rights

On consideration, it occurs to me that while neither copyright nor harassment policy in the usual sense has much at all to do with the ED page about Fae, the relevant issue is actually that of personality rights. Because they were deleted, I don't know whether the uploads of those images bore the Commons:Template:Personality rights disclaimer, but whether or not it was included it would likely have been good advice to reusers. Essentially, Fae released copyright to those images for use in a variety of contexts, especially educational; but when you put his IRL name on it and use it for a humor site and it becomes a major search hit for him, that probably is a case where they apply. Now, I still disagree with the very harsh penalty proposed for Michaeldsuarez, and he's made the important point that he didn't upload this material to ED under Fae's real name. Personally I don't believe in personality rights, copyright, libel, or any of that stuff, and I think that after some possibly painful adjustments we could make a much better society without them. I also don't understand personality rights, and I'm not sure if British, Swedish, or American law would be what ArbCom would want to consider in trying to define them. But I think it's important for ArbCom to root any reprimand in an appropriate principle, hitherto unelaborated - i.e. that in the here and now, intentionally violating another editor's personality rights off-wiki can be an extraordinary act that should be responded to, sort of like if you were in a dispute with another editor and decided to scan his textbook and post it to a bunch of pirate servers as a way to get back at him. It would probably be good to propose appropriate language in the harassment policy to cover such incidents in the future. Wnt (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the personality rights issue is certainly on the mark in regards to the use of the image on ED, but isn't that ED's problem? I absolutely disagree with your opinion on "personality rights, copyright, libel, or any of that stuff" (I mean, wow!), but otherwise appreciate looking at it from this angle. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant smoke screen. Fæ is in the UK there are NO personality rights involved. John lilburne (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in New York. Howell v NY Post:

The core of plaintiff's grievance is that, by publishing her photograph, defendants revealed to her friends, family and business associates that she was undergoing psychiatric treatment--a personal fact she took pains to keep confidential. There is, of course, no cause of action in this State for publication of truthful but embarrassing facts. Thus, a claim grounded in the right to privacy must fall within Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51.

The statutory right to privacy is not transgressed unless defendants used plaintiff's photograph in connection with trade or advertising. […]

http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes/new-york – I'm not violating Fæ's personality rights since I'm not advertising. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I live in the home-state of The New York Times and Gawker. I'm certain that I can publish these sorts of images legally. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I didn't like this idea much from the outset, and that does sound like a rather persuasive defense. Wnt (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing security risks to Fae

Sir Fozzie wrote that Fae indicated a concern with ongoing security risks, I find it believable that Fae may be experiencing that. I wonder if Fae could reveal any unnamed accounts to WMF itself, if WMF would be willing to do that. NewtonGeek (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent findings

In light of the committee's recent findings, would it be asking too much for the committee to cut the other parties some slack here? DC must have been at the receiving end of the same behavioral patterns the committee has experienced (variously described by committee members as deception, obfuscation, cover-ups, misdirection, stonewalling, dodging, and deflection) over a period of years – except that DC was throughout in a far more vulnerable position than the committee. On the whole, I believe DC has acted with admirable self-control in what must have been very trying circumstances indeed. JN466 07:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Fae has experienced many problems as a result of criticism that was not conducted the best way it could have been. I believe Sir Fozzie, Courcelles, and perhaps other arbiters alluded to this on the proposed decision page. I think this is likely a case of many wrongs do not make a right. NewtonGeek (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayen: while DC can be a bit over-the-top at times, the new findings do bolster his case in that Fae's attempts to hide whatever it is that he's hiding -- willingness to pull any number of strings to do so -- only encourage whomever is trying to do the investigation to push the issue further. While it's also true that DC wasn't appointed to an investigatory position, he at least has (AFAICT) done it in the open, which is a big step up from the s00p3r s33kr1t clandestine "sleuthing" that occurred in WP's not-so-distant past (which also came up with false positives, and that does not seem to be the case with DC). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ banned

Why are two allegations being referenced when the names of the people making allegations have not been stated?

Why are the allegations themselves not stated?

Why is the wording of this proposal for "numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies" when the proposal appears to be based on asking for help with privacy issues on Commons and for asking Philippe Beaudette for advice on a (Commons) privacy issue? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're asking for people to be named when you have maintained for all this time that revealing your name is a privacy issue? Haven't you got the message about hypocrisy yet?--Peter cohen (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, you of all people should know that arbcom has it's own way of receiving "classified" non-public information which they cannot disclose. Information such as the details of your contact with WMF would be considered "classified". Or the person(s) wanted to stay anonymous in order to avoid a barrage of insults from a nameless person that would undoubtedly follow in an attempt to further hide the truth. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering the praise ArbComm received during Wikimania for punishing the harassers rather than the victim - this is an incredibly disappointing development. My respect for and interest in encouraging those bullied to use ArbComm has dropped tremendously. Punishing bullied victims is really the message you want to send to those that have once again elected Fae to trusted positions? Very poor reaction and disappointing outcome. I will be encouraging people to avoid ArbComm if they've been bullied as they only further the damage and show no compassion. --Varnent (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Varnent, I am very concerned about any alleged victims. I hope all ArbCom members seriously look at anything related to this topic. It is a very serious issue. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The ban on Fae for seeking counsel from WMF strikes me as being more like retribution and preserving their own power rather than showing compassion or interest in helping a victim vs washing their hands of a complex situation they've grown bored with. I had hope they would set precedent on how to aid victims of harassment, this is the opposite and causes me to deeply regret my defense of them being an instrument for enforcing the WMF's resolution regarding harassment. I had been urging Fae to respect ArmComm and the process and now feel he was very justified in feeling it would fail him, as it clearly has. -Varnent (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears ArbCom feels Fae did more than seek counsel from the WMF. From their perspective I think whatever happened was a very unusual occurrence. I am still hoping that the Arbs will very strongly address alleged harassment which I think the evidence shows occurred. Many users could have prevented the situation from escalating to where it has. Sometimes in pursuit of something someone believes in, they use methods that go over the line. For instance, it seems clear the Arbs are very displeased with recent occurrences. Even now they handle themselves with composure and do not seek to cause needless harm. That is an appropriate way to criticize an action. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubts that ArbComm meant well and is doing what they feel is best with the information we are not privy to. If it was a WMF staffer who reported it, I'm a little unsure if I agree that protecting that person is the same as protecting the privacy of a volunteer, but I can see the other side as well and doubt that will be changed at this point anyway. Ultimately the outcome appears to an agreement that a user was harassed, no punishment for those that did the harassing, and punishment for the victim for feeling pushed to take unusual measures to seek a resolution. In victim advocacy I think this would be seen as a failure. I wish that ArbComm had used their composure and credibility to join the WMF board in standing against harassment rather than prioritizing the enforcement of procedures. Especially given the complexities of this case, not being transparent and providing this outcome makes it very difficult to convince ppl to trust the process. Ironically this will probably encourage more people being harassed to try to go around ArbComm. I cannot personally justify continuing my support of ArbComm as a reasonable implementer of WMF's anti-harassment policy. I concede WMF is not charged with enforcing policies on the wikis, but harassment can have very real and sometimes harmful effects. It's something too serious to just hope they'll do it right next time. In any case, I think it's clear where I stand, and I've said my two cents (maybe closer to five now). I apologize to Fae for encouraging him to cooperate with this process and will not make that mistake with future victims of bullying who seek my counsel. ArbComm does seem well suited to handle almost all other issues and I certainly respect the volunteers on it making very difficult decisions sometimes - a truly thankless role worthy of our appreciation - but harassment is a glaring and unfortunate exception to that norm, again, in my personal opinion. --Varnent (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not considering banning Fae in lieu of those who have been accused of harassing him, but in addition to considering remedies against the two identified persons. Being a target of harassment does not eliminate wrongdoing, and the majority of the committee is not convinced that Fae's actions are consistent with a reasonably appropriate attempt to avoid harassment. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the other sanctions being considered beyond a slap on the wrist warning? It appears the bans were voted down. Also, what can be shared about what was said between Fae and the staffer? Was it an attempt to get out of the investigation into images on Commns? I don't see any other remidies that he would want WMF staffers to weigh in on. Presumably the staffer felt it crossed a line, but I'm not sure where that line was and how to advise others to avoid it in the future without more information. Does this mean if someone were to ask the paid advocacy team to advocate for them it will be grounds for a ban? I'm unclear what the violation was exactly and how it varied from the behavior of others feeling as though they are under attack. I appreciate your response and effort to ease concerns of folks interested in the harassment aspects of this. I recognize in this case we have a bias and that you all have been put between a rock an a hard place, but I hope you can see where an "outsider" viewing this might see red flags. --Varnent (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, unless either of the other bans has 7 opposes (or fewer if there's formal abstentions), they haven't been voted down yet. Voting just hasn't completed yet. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is good to know, I misunderstood the status of the votes on those two items. Am I correct that Fae's ban has the votes needed already? --Varnent (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Varnent, yes, I believe that is correct and a remedy involving banning Fae looks as though it will go into effect in due course. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless at least two arbitrators change their votes, yes. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that at this time, DC's ban remedy is only short by one supporter to be passing and that Michaeldsuarez's ban needs 2 supporters to pass. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note here-- everything is fluid until the case is closed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I was not aware that ArbComm members change their votes occasionally before it is finalized. Perhaps there is still hope. If he is indeed banned for asking someone within WMF's advocacy department to advocate for him, perhaps ArbComm can suggest WMF rename those departments and positions to prevent future attempts to ask WMF advocacy staff to advocate for someone, rather than the whole (which given the word advocacy being in those titles does imply they may do advocacy for someone in need), doesn't occur again. I would find that to be a sad legacy of this case, but perhaps it will help avoid repeats of editors crossing the line ArbComm feels Fae crossed. --Varnent (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically any vote can change until the last second. I wholeheartedly agree that if there is a WMF advocacy department, the word "advocacy" in needs absolute, clear as a bell clarification. If this was an unfortunate misunderstanding, clarifying the roles and rules between advocacy department staff and an open ArbCom case is prudent and advisable. I hope that will be done speedily even if this is not an instance of misunderstanding. This is an opportunity to clarify that particular issue going forward. NewtonGeek (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There is no allegation in the finding or remedy that Fae "sought counsel" from anyone. The allegations are of two separate attempts to prevent an investigation into his past conduct, one of which involved a paid WMF staffer who was asked to convince ArbCom to modify a sanction proposed in the active case. However, since this was posted, another person has separately emailed the committee to attest to a separate conversation between Fae and a WMF board member; the allegations of what was said in that conversation are not relevant to the finding, because our correspondent did not allege any attempt to influence that WMF board member. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. The WMF either has the right to interfere with ArbCom decisions, in which case it is not improper for them to do so, nor for someone to ask them to do so - or else they do not, and so they will not and there is no reason for concern. I see no relevant principle proposed here - what would it be? That you must not talk to WMF people? Wnt (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see my post immediately above yours dated 16:33, 16 July 2012. If you don't understand that attempting to convince others to use their influence to interfere in a process to promote a desired outcome vs. working within the process itself is bad... I'm not sure where to go with that. It's not a matter of an "appeal" to WMF. The Appeal of Arbcom decisions is to Jimbo, has been forever. The fact that Fae has been banned from Jimbo's talk page *by* Jimbo doesn't change that--it just means that Fae may have pre-burned that bridge. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the TOS created some heretofore nonexistent right of appeal beyond Jimbo to the WMF. If there is such an appeal then it should be done 1) in an open fashion, not in a personal conversation absent scrutiny and 2) after the conclusion of a case and the appeal to Jimbo, rather than in the middle of a case. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If that "The allegations are of two separate attempts to prevent an investigation into his past conduct, one of which involved a paid WMF staffer who was asked to convince ArbCom to modify a sanction proposed in the active case" is regarding the sanction "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Encourage_review_of_F.C3.A6.27s_file_contributions" - well, I think that threads here on this page already question whether that is within ArbCom's jurisdiction, and I don't think that it is necessarily out of line that someone is asking the Foundation to consider looking into a remedy which has no basis in evidence except for an accusation. And I think that is a very serious accusation, which may very well not be true. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarified below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all either - does the ArbCom have a right to investigate the behaviour of an editor outside of en.wikipedia? According to my read of the ArbCom policy, as long as that is publicly available, yes, but they have no jurisdiction over, e.g., Commons to get data that is not disclosed. Does Fae have a right to make sure that the Foundation is not disclosing that information, yes. Is that 'intervening' with process - no. ArbCom does not have certain evidence available, that evidence is inadmissible, that evidence should be treated as if it is not existing, and make a decision based on the evidence that is existing. Yet again (what, they even do it in this same case - we have no proof of copyright violations but we make a FoF out of it that it has been suggested that there are), ArbCom is trying to say that because they do not see the evidence, that that evidence may be of a sort that is proving their statement that what Fae did was wrong, and hence, based upon that, they decide. Any wording on evidence that is not proven and maybe can not be proven (and maybe is not even true) is incriminating, influencing the view of the public, and of the members of the ArbCom, and influences the outcome of a case.

Regarding influencing. Fae has a right to talk to WMF board members, the Foundation, Jimbo himself about what is going on, to get more insight in the situation. It is unlikely that Fae is going to argue that the ArbCom needs to ban him - any line of conversation will be on the side of 'I think I am not doing what I allegedly did', and all that can hence be explained as trying to convince the specific person that they is innocent. If that member is communicating that information to the ArbCom, that appears as 'Fae was trying to influence the WMF board members, or the Foundation, to change the ArbCom's decision' - so in effect, although you have a right to talk to the Foundation, or to WMF board members, or Jimbo - you cannot, because it by definition means that you are guilty.

Regarding that WMF has a right to interfere with ArbCom decisions - well, yes, they have, but no-one can ask WMF to have a look at it, because that would be an attempt to influence the ArbCom, likely during an open case, and, obviously, the ArbCom would adapt the outcome of a case because someone tried to influence the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You keep characterizing Fae's actions as consultations or conversations. They were not; they were direct requests to intervene. You mention alleged copyright violations, but the specific request to the WMF staffer involved had nothing to do with copyright allegations, but rather the second sentence of Remedy 3: "This account must publicly link on their user page to any and all past accounts they have controlled." Hope that clears things up a bit. Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, indeed, that does. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So people think they have a right to create alternate accounts for privacy, but in fact, that right can be retroactively revoked - and in fact, the English ArbCom can retroactively revoke it on any WMF project? Also, a basic question: I seem to recall at one point this "sock puppet investigation" was limited in how far it went back/how far back supposedly records were archived, but is it now effectively unlimited time? Also: was there any provision in this for the privacy of Fae's friends or colleagues if one of them ever logged in from his house or work, to prevent them from being tarred with this whole sorry affair? Wnt (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"This account must publicly link on their user page to any and all past accounts they have controlled." - with that, Fae is de facto banned, unless they is disclosing all past accounts, which may be a request to out themselves, or a request to incriminate themselves. Anything you say will be used against you, and if you don't say anything, we will use that against you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How is that fundamentally different than a topic ban for an editor who only wants to participate in that one area being a de facto ban from the project? The community, either directly or through its elected user conduct review body in ArbCom, has the authority to limit or revoke participation in the project. Limitation to one account and disclosure of all past accounts are often conditions for reformed sockmaster returns, through the ban appeals process. Fae was being treated no differently than anyone else who has been found to use multiple accounts in a disruptive manner. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jurisdiction problems, yet again

At Proposed Remedy 7 several arbitrators raise the issue of jurisdiction. In effect, the en.wikipedia ArbCom has no jurisdiction to tell Commons what to do. This isn't the only place where the proposed decision has raised possibilities of violating jurisdiction.

At Findings of Fact 12 and 12.1 I wish ArbCom would stop messing with the numbering of open PD pages Findings of Fact 10 and 10.1, Fae is being found at fault for actions he took with respect to Commons and the WMF. ArbCom is free to consider behavior outside of en.wikipedia, but this finding casts a pall. In effect, it is equivalent to saying to Fae that ArbCom is God in this case, and how dare you address your concerns to anyone else but ArbCom. Further, ArbCom can not force Commons or the Foundation on any issue. If ArbCom has a 'right' to appeal to Commons or the Foundation for information, then the subject of that request equally has a 'right' to request that information not be released. ArbCom has no standing on Commons or the Foundation different from a regular editor on Wikipedia. To then sanction an editor for making such a request when ArbCom grants itself such a right is beyond the pale. ArbCom is seriously out of line here, and possibly in violation of "13. Disputes and Jurisdiction" of the Terms of Use, as it states "we encourage you to seek resolution through the dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms provided by the Projects or Project editions and the Wikimedia Foundation" (emphasis mine). ArbCom has no jurisdiction to prevent a person from contacting the Foundation regarding dispute resolution, and further is out of order for proposing a sanction against an editor for contacting them. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft makes a good point that Fæ should not be discouraged or punished for seeking help from the WMF, but I think that ArbCom has taken issue not with Fæ contacting WMF employees to resolve a dispute, but with his attempts to have WMF employees intervene in a dispute resolution process in order to avoid providing ArbCom with a full listing of accounts that he controlled (at least, that is my impression of what has happened). The quoted statement from the terms of use is slightly ambiguous. It may be saying that the Projects provide "dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms" and so does the WMF, or it may be saying that "dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms" are provided by the Projects and WMF collectively. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)If the WMF thus abrogates Wikipedia's autonomy, would that not have broad repercussions and "unforeseen consequences" on the applicability of (for example) disparate copyright laws for all Wikimedia projects? I would, in fact, suggest such a breach of autonomy would be highly detrimental in both the long and short term to the WMF. I suppose the WMF could arrogate such a position to itself, and would further suggest that such an arrogation would likely cause the demise of Wikipedia. The arbitrators seem reasonably attuned as to what is, and is not, proper for this project to do. Determining who is, and is not, permitted on the project is clearly within the remit of the committee. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely, but it does not in any way grant them the right to sanction an editor for acting on his rights under the terms of use. If ArbCom can vacate this section of the terms of use in pursuit of a case, what can they not violate? The section I quoted relates to dispute resolution only, not to all matters Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has the authority to sanction conduct that has an impact on Wikipedia. Several of the arbitrators feel that uploading copyrighted material to Commons and then using said material here has sufficient impact on Wikipedia (copyrighted content in our articles violates our licenses, no matter where it's actually hosted) and sufficiently violates our policies (license as mentioned, WP:NFCC, etc.) that it is sanctionable. More concerning (for most or all of the Committee, I believe), however, is Fae's attempts to hobble the dispute resolution process. I think DC puts it very well here. If he were simply contacting the WMF to resolve a dispute - which our policies do encourage/require when legal stuff gets involved - it wouldn't be an issue. However, this was an attempt to get the WMF to somehow enable Fae to avoid sanctions legitimately placed by this Committee through the authority granted to it by the community and (since you bring it up) the Terms of Use. He also attempted this with Commons administrators, asking them to refuse to provide us with information we needed to investigate the claims against him. The fact that these allegations were on the whole found to be unfounded doesn't mitigate this behavior, it only makes it perplexing. The bottom line is that Fae's attempts to undermine this dispute resolution process, and the severity of those attempts, results in an impact on Wikipedia severe enough to merit severe sanction. All editors are expected to abide by Wikipedia's policies and Terms of Use. Those who demonstrate that they are unwilling to do so will be removed. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Then kindly remove yourself. As I noted, if you have a right to demand this information of Commons and the WMF, Fae has a right to ask it not to be released. Asking for it not to be released is no more undermining of any ArbCom effort than ArbCom's efforts to demand the information of those bodies is undermining of Fae. You have no more rights than he does with respect to those communities. If you think you do, you need adjust your view or step down. What you can and should be looking at isn't what he uploaded to Commons, but the actions he took here to use that material. As an editor, you are more than welcome to raise a red flag at Commons regarding questionable content you discovered. As an ArbCom member, you have no remit to request any information of Commons any more than Fae has. Fae has this right stipulated in the terms of use. If you do not want him to exercise his rights under terms of use, then get the terms of use changed. Sanctioning him for exercising his rights under terms of use is unequivocally wrong. What you are doing is effectively convicting him of the 'crime' of asking another police force for help. You have your jurisdiction, they have theirs. You have no standing in theirs any more than Fae does. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• This makes me think of court cases. In essence, Fae made a motion for evidence to be inadmissible. The prosecution and judge in this case (here, ArbCom) have now added an additional charge and conviction for making such a motion. Really? Is ArbCom so afraid of someone trying to get help they have to sanction them for it? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hammersoft's points sound convincing. This is not an area I'm familiar with. I can also understand why Arbs want the ability to find out information they believe is important. I still wonder if the Arbs and Fae could select someone neutral to review anything still undisclosed by Fae. Finally, I'd like to point out that whether this last behavior on Fae's part is right or wrong, that does not negate any alleged wrongdoing by anyone else. This isn't about supporting Fae. It's about making sure that everyone's actions are held to account for how the impact the project and the participation of other users on the project. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would say you are grossly misrepresenting the situation, which going by what the Arcom members have stated is that Fae requested someone to intervene in the Arbcom deliberations. If you wish to remain in the realm of court case examples, this is like the defendant reaching out to a friend to use his influence to sway the judge, or if not sway then subvert. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• @Tarc, I assume you meant Hammersoft in your comment. This situation certainly looks problematic. I wish I knew what Fae states his intentions were. Perhaps Hammersoft has a point. This is not an area I have contemplated. NewtonGeek (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, it is my belief that what Tarc has articulated has accurately reflected how I, and probably several other arbitrators, interpreted Fae's plea to a WMF staff member to intervene in an active case. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• If that be the case, then the FoFs are extremely poorly worded. Both of them state "appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts", not an attempt to get WMF to intervene locally in this case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom is not the Wiki-God, Jimbo is. However he's essentially retired. ArbCom are the archangels and their jurisdiction is the English Wikipedia. Neither Fae nor me nor anyone else has any rights here -- it's a private website. WMF owns it and says "you guys run it" and we (collectively) have decided when we can't figure out what the heck to do, we're going to dump it on the fools who actually ran for the committee and were unfortunate enough to "win." I'm not always the biggest AC fan and I'll offer my opinion if I think they've misstepped (automation, anyone?) but to question their "jurisdiction" here is ridiculous. Nobody Ent 15:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hammersoft's analogy is incorrect. If this is a court case, Fae has requested that people in another county refuse to testify and that the court of that jurisdiction waive this court's sanctions, even though this court is neither superior nor inferior to that one. That is obstruction of justice. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• But. This is not a court case. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. The analogy isn't useful at all. But if someone else felt the analogy was useful, they would need to understand the flaw in the analogy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Analogies of the Arbitration Committee to a court, while useful on occasion, can at other times be problematic and misleading. As a lawyer myself, sometimes I can draw parallels in my own mind between the work of the Committee and that of a court (for example, comparing our case acceptance criteria with those of an appellate court with a discretionary jurisdiction). But we arbitrators shouldn't be self-important enough nor misled by the legalistic wordings we sometimes use into comparing the ArbCom with an actual court, or comparing the ways editors interact with us with the way parties and attorneys interact with a court. See also this principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of failed/unfailed analogies, the point remains that according to the FoFs, Fae made an "appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts". He has the right contact the Wikimedia foundation under the terms of use. Whether you want to call that a 'right' or not is irrelevant. The point remains it is in the terms of use. Sanctioning him for taking such action is a violation of the jurisdictional policies of ArbCom. I haven't read this case in full, but it seems to me there's plenty of 'blame' to go around without having to stoop to the level of violating the terms of use and violating jurisdictional policies in order to get a remedy passed. ArbCom is out of line here and needs to recognize they have no authority to sanction an editor who is exercising a right available in the terms of use. If they want to do so, they must...must...get the terms of use modified first to prevent editors from contacting the WMF regarding disputes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand what Arbcom are saying; they set out a remedy in which they will ask Fae to make a list of all of his accounts - one presumes that if he refuses to do so he will be blocked. I think they are entitled to do that; and indeed justified given the level of the socking. Fae asserts that this will violate his privacy; I presume for some as yet unknown reason (because the currently listed accounts don't seem to have that concern, and are publicly linked anyway). Arbcom apparently have not accepted this. Fae in response has gone to Phillippe and asked him to put pressure on Arbcom to rescind that requirement (and I think the distinction here is that the point was to influence the arbcom proceedings, not to restrict the release of these account names for example by checkuser or other means). If arbcom view that as attempting to assert influence, and wish to respond with a ban to enforce the view that trying to influence Arbcom preceeding via WMF contacts then that seems within their remit. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If this was a regular occurrence, as Hammersoft suggests, then when we followed up with the WMF person involved, when we asked if this was unusual, they stated that never before in their tenure at WMF had anyone under threat of sanction in an Arbitration case had attempted to ask WMF to intervene with the Committee. So this was not "sounding the WMF out about privacy issues". This was a deliberate, premeditated attempt to involve the WMF in the Committee's deliberations in an attempt to mitigate a sanction against a user here. If Fae had come to us with concerns, we would have reviewed the situation and come to a decision, which if it had gone against them they could either retire gracefully, or work within the bounds of the remedies in this decision. Once again, it speaks to a pattern that Fae has taken whatever situation he's been in that Fae's first inclination when confronted with good-faith criticism is to deny, attack, and attempt to cover-up his misdeeds. SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This is the pattern of behaviour that has gained Fae so many enemies over the past years. He's tried doing the same to Arbcom as he does to everyone else and they have reacted in the way that any other group of normal people would. Now can people top this nonsense about the victim being punished? Fae is only a victim in the sense that he likes to play at being in that corner of the Karpman drama triangle before side-stepping into the persecutor role or, as in this case, luring some rescuers in so that they can then victimise whoever he claims to be persecuted by. The WMF people did exactly the right thing in not letting themselves be rescuers turned perscutors of Arbcom and all the people questioning Arbcom on this need to see exactly how they have been lured in to play those roles instead.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has recently referred to the death of Fae's niece, I think that person or persons should think about their decision to do so. Again, the Arbs have set a good example of how to take issue with a person's behavior without saying things in an unnecessarily hurtful way. NewtonGeek (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so this was the first time that someone asks the Foundation to have a look at it (or as you interpret it: to intervene). Was that outside of Fae's right to do so. No, it was not. Was Fae wrong in not coming to you with their concerns, but go directly to the Foundation? No, it was within his right. You suggest, that Fae did not have the right to go to the Foundation, but should strictly have communicated with you. Still, you sanction Fae for it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no familiarity in this area. I understand Sir Fozzie has written that the WMF staffer has never encountered a similar situation. I assume this staffer has worked there for enough time to realize when something is unusual. Moving forward I think it will we useful to have WMF staff explain their roles somewhere in an easy to find and easy to understand way. Jurisdictional boundaries can be clarified between ArbCom and WMF so that Hammersoft's understanding of the terms of service can be clearly understood by all. If any misunderstanding led to what occurred, the situation can be clarified for any future situations that may arise. I understand that asking advice from WMF staff is not something the Arbs seem to frown upon. That is not what has been reported to have occurred. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In other words, let the Arbs do what they are doing, but prevent it from happening again by clarifying it afterwards? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is able to tell the Arbs they don't have the right to perceive the situation the way they are perceiving it. I have no way of knowing exactly what occurred. I assume the Arbs are being honest and straighforward. I don't see anyone as letting them do something because I don't perceive anyone as having the power to let them do something. If I understood policy better I might see things differently. If the best that can be hoped for is a bright-line rule about what a future person in a future situation is allowed to do and is not allowed to do, then at least that can come of this. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

From the Terms of Use (link at bottom of page), Section 10:

The Wikimedia community and its members may also take action when so allowed by the community or Foundation policies applicable to the specific Project edition, including but not limited to warning, investigating, blocking, or banning users who violate those policies. You agree to comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees); these decisions may include sanctions as set out by the policy of the specific Project edition.

I do not see anywhere in the entire ToU that says you can appeal to the WMF, actually. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"13. Disputes and Jurisdiction" of the Terms of Use, as it states "we encourage you to seek resolution through the dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms provided by the Projects or Project editions and the Wikimedia Foundation". Was he seeking Foundation help in a resolution? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No. He was seeking Foundation help in subverting resolution. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. One way to read that, the way you do, means "we encourage you to seek resolution through the DR mechanisms provided by the Projects" and "we encourage you to seek resolution through the DR mechanisms provided by the Foundation." The way I read it, it said "we encourage you to seek resolution through the DR mechanisms, which are provided jointly by the Projects and the Foundation." In your reading, Fae has the right to appeal to the Foundation. In my reading, Fae has the right to seek resolution through ArbCom, which is the DR mechanism provided by the Foundation via the English Wikipedia Project. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Given that Fae has an explicit right to contact the WMF regarding dispute resolution, any idea that he was attempting to subvert the ArbCom process is false on the face of it. Given that, I fail to see any reason for even mentioning Fae's interactions with the WMF in the FoFs. It's wholly unnecessary, breaches the terms of use, and violates ArbCom's jurisdiction. Offer a 12.2 that drops that mention. This isn't hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As earlier, you really have no idea at all what you're talking about here. A proven, disruptive sock-puppeteer does not have a right to keep his socks private, nor does he have the right to demand silence from other editors who may know who his socks are. If Fae truly to his core believes that revealing some of them jeopardizes his personal safety, then he is free to leave this project. Being here is not a right. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right, I'm a clueless idiot who shouldn't have any rights to post here. Unfortunately, I'm just smart enough to know that the terms of use on this site do not have a caveat on them preventing an editor from contacting the Foundation. Oops. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you need to drop the stick regarding "they are banning him for making contact" and pick up this newer, shinier stick that says "they are banning him for the nature and context of the contact". Tarc (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I can't do that, as I have absolutely no ability to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed decision FoFs 12 or 12.1 I wish ArbCom would stop messing with the numbering of open PD pages Findings of Fact 10 and 10.1. Only ArbCom and its clerks can do that, and they're the one using the stick I've outlined. All I am doing is spotlighting the highly inappropriate nature of their FoF. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• I read the term the same way Jorgath did, to mean: we encourage you to seek resolution through the DR mechanisms, which are provided jointly by the Projects and the Foundation. One can always go anywhere for a hearing. How well your request will be received by WMF depends upon the nature of the request, the parameters of the dispute process, their authority, and their willingness to intercede. It is clear from the results of Fae's appeal that WMF considers the appeal inappropriate, outside the parameters of the dispute process and they are unwilling to intercede. I think it important to keep front of mind that the ban proposal is NOT about appealing to WMF for advice. From the information presented, it is not even about a request to intercede on the unspecified side of justice in a on-going ArbCom case, which would be bad enough, but rather to intercede on behalf of Fae, to permit Fae to avoid complying with a specific WP policy on sockpuppets that applies to every other WP user; and, as a capper, to have tried to use Fae's position at WMUK -a complete non sequitur- to justify his special case. Bielle (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• These latest developments have happened with head-spinning rapidity. It would be helpful if the Committee would take at least a day more, to make sure that all the facts are correct, before making a final decision about the ban. It's not really clear to me exactly what happened. What have the Commons admins and WMF employees said to ArbCom about it (at least to the extent that can be revealed publicly)? Did they express opinions that Fae approached them inappropriately? Did they express any opinions that are inconsistent with the recent additions to the proposed decision, in a way that would make a reconsideration appropriate? Please understand that I'm not arguing that anything the Committee is doing is incorrect, only that it isn't really transparent to the community, and that it would be wrong to act precipitously if there were to be any mistakes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

These latest developments are in line with what we had been uncovering as we studied the case, and in line with the reason the case was called. The comments Committee members are making in relation to the most recent findings are a curious echo of what MBisanz wrote in the opening statement, and what some of his critics have been saying for quite some time. The recent findings have not happened in isolation, and have served to focus and exemplify concerns, rather than be the sole reason for the site-ban proposal - though some may feel they are reason enough. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'm hearing in your reply is a sense that this has been a pattern, but I can infer that the most recent events must have been a final straw, because the pattern didn't rise to this level until today. I'm also getting a strong sense that the Committee collectively is angry about what has happened. I'm not saying that you lack reason to be angry, but I am saying that it's never a good idea to make a decision in the heat of the moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, in light of recent events and now you see first-hand the kind of underhanded maneuvers some parties to this case have been subjected to, do you have any second thoughts regarding the DC remedies? Tarc (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To respond to both of the above:

Any time half of the entire committee can unanimously vote in favor of a remedy within 24 hours of when it's posted, it must be 1) very clear to us, 2) have been previously discussed off list, or 3) both. In this case, the answer is "both", because the difficulty in ascertaining whether the accusations had any merit stems back beyond today, and has been a topic of discussion amongst the committee throughout the case. I can't speak for anyone else, but my main emotion was that I was gobsmacked that anyone in a position of authority could have thought that this was a proper way to conduct business.

Tarc, the fact that DC has targeted people who were, in fact, targetable is no excuse for his methods or doggedness. We will probably never get to the bottom of Fae's copyright transgressions--or lack thereof--based on his attempts to exploit jurisdictional boundaries between Commons and Wikipedia to conceal his activities from scrutiny. Again, his tactics were noted in the Cirt/Jayen case, and even if the end result is that someone else is removed from Wikipedia, that does not somehow mean the approach DC took was proper. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Any time a large percentage of the Committee says anything all together in a short period of time, after previously being deliberate and unhurried, it can look to those of us observing that this happened in haste. Please understand that I am not saying this to you disrespectfully. Indeed, the facts may very well support the conclusion that Fae behaved very badly. But the Committee has done a poor job of making what is apparent to you, understandable to the rest of us. You make it sound like this was the outcome of lengthy discussion behind the scenes. Perhaps it was; I have no desire to dispute it. But there is an appearance, growing out of the combination of an outraged tone and the lack of public evidence, of Arbitrators being offended and possibly over-reacting in the heat of the moment. Telling me that any time the Committee agrees about something, they must be right, is not reassuring. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a constant throughout ArbCom cases and throughout our conduct guidelines that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of raising concerns. Do things appropriately and matters tend to get resolved quickly and cleanly. Do things inappropriately and matters escalate. Because of the disruption that can be caused by escalating a dispute, we tend to sanction users who act inappropriately, even if they both feel and do indeed have good cause to raise their concerns. I still haven't finished looking at the early days of the conflict between DC and Fae, and my thinking may yet be adjusted, but I have been dismayed by the amount of disruption arising from the dispute between Fae and DC. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, DC brings complaints about Fae's behaviours, with diffs usually in great numbers, to all the right venues. Fae prevaricates, misdirects, attacks and the sometimes refuses to participate. If these tactics are still not working, Fae has been known to changes names and duck out. There is a lot of drama here that, if the behaviours had been dealt with properly right at the beginning, would never have happened; that is likely true. Is the drama the fault of the one who starts the DR process or the one who drags it out? What has DC alleged that has not been supported by the evidence? Bielle (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, SilkTork, you must have forgotten what it is like to go up against a well-established – but rogue – admin as a lowly editor in venues like ANI. Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes do not work well in these situations. By the time the case ends up with you, you may pronounce yourselves shocked at the level of abuse and dysfunction you uncover, but the fact remains that editors who pointed out the same abuses and dysfunction for years harvested nothing but blocks and vilification for their efforts. I've seen it happen, and so have you. (By the way, I would hazard a guess that someone who really had nothing to hide would not go to great lengths to hide things.) JN466 01:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be the last one to say that we've gotten all the real problems right and dealt with all of them optimally on my watch, let alone what happened previously. At the same time, I have to say (without any specific reference to this case) that a well-crafted complaint is a rarity. Some people don't get justice primarily because they don't know how to ask for it: articulate a problem, back it with diffs, explain how this differs from policy, and articulate reasonable relief that would make the situation right. Among the other limitations we're approaching, there's a systemic bias against Arbitration-naive editors, who have neither the experience needed to file a complaint themselves, nor any way to get "representation", or even help preparing a complaint. I've yet to come up with any solution, but am certainly aware of the problem. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft is right about this one. JN466, you can talk about "rogue" admins, but I've seen you and your friends go on at Jimbo Wales' talk page and I know full well that you people regard Commons admins in general as "rogues", indeed, anyone not willing to sign on to the crusade to stamp out "porn", which as we have seen, tends to include a great deal of information relevant to the gay community. Fae is not unjustified to ask the WMF to keep the English ArbCom out of Commons affairs. Wnt (talk) 06:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting assertion, but irrelevant to the case or sanctions, because to the best of my knowledge Fae did no such thing. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no campaign to 'stamp' out porn on Commons, or indeed gay porn on Commons, at least not that I've seen. What is argued is that a pornographic image is not subjected to the same quality control as a non pornographic image, that the rights of the subject aren't taken into account, that the system leaks the porn into unrelated areas, and that the situation gets worse as more is added. John lilburne (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Did the WMF staffer actually attempt to intervene on behalf of Fae, or did he/she do the right thing and notify the Committee immediately about what Fae was attempting to do? If the former, the WMF staffer needs to be identified so the WMF can initiate formal disciplinary proceedings. That is, if the WMF actually has a disciplinary process on their books for their paid staff. Cla68 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow ... just .. wow. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(to Cla68) The WMF staff member acted properly. Nothing anyone has said suggests otherwise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(to Cla68) I actually wrote a comment predicting such a thing, but disposed of it in preview as over-the-top rhetoric... Seriously though, how could the WMF staffer do something wrong on this? It's their site, which we rely on them to run in a decentralized way when possible, which they usually do. Now you say ArbCom rules not only Commons but WMF too? Wnt (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• He's not out on the thin branches here. ArbCom's made it effectively wiki-illegal to exercise one's rights under the terms of use to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. The terms of use were established by the Foundation, and ArbCom feels itself capable of vacating those terms. The structure seems apparent. Top tier, ArbCom. Second tier, Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Or you're trying to drive a Mack truck through a textual pinhole in the ToS. If you think the terms mean to establish an extraordinary right to appeal to the WMF for intervention in an ongoing arbitration case, and that the committee is violating that right, feel free to ask the WMF to exercise its (in your view) stated right to intervene. Nathan ^T 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Wnt and Hammersoft, could you actually READ what Cla68 asked? Because s/he suggested that IF the WMF staffer did something improper, ArbCom should IDENTIFY them as having done so to the rest of WMF so that WMF could institute their own disciplinary procedures if they chose. And the two of you completely misinterpreted and misrepresented what Cla68 said. I mean, come on. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the Committee

The Committee may well be correct about what happened, but I want you to understand that you are not doing a good enough job of communicating your thinking to the rest of us, who do not have access to your internal discussions. Please understand that I am trying to say this constructively, not critically. From what I can make of the information on this talk page, here is what I think can be known, but it isn't easy. Fae had a conversation with Philippe in the hall at Wikimania. Multiple Arbs have said that this conversation went beyond simply seeking advice or seeking ways to achieve resolution, and instead crossed a line into seeking to get Philippe to interfere with the case on Fae's behalf. Fae, however, has explicitly denied crossing that line. Newyorkbrad has also said that the Committee agrees that Philippe behaved entirely correctly. But we still do not know whether Philippe contacted the Committee, or what exactly happened. We don't yet know what Fae said to Philippe, what if anything Philippe said to the Committee, and what exactly the Committee found out or how you found out about it. As for Commons, I'm aware of a discussion on SilkTork's talk page, where someone from Commons gave information that made it sound like there was confusion about some files Fae uploaded, some of the confusion probably avoidable and unhelpful, but nothing that the person from Commons considered out of policy or cause for concern. Beyond that, I don't think anything has really been spelled out about possible interference at Commons. What happened? How did the Committee find out about it? We have a very long Evidence page, with nothing about these events. We have a Proposed Decision with a general finding of fact that some bad stuff happened, but the community is left wondering what it really was. The proposed remedies include a ban based on that finding of fact. You need to spell those facts out much better. If you do that, you can make a lot of questions go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggest you add: "or any other such conversations with any other WMF staffers," too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Trytofish; your conclusions match what I had found, though I think you dug deeper than I did. Thank you for that. As for ArbCom being transparent about their supposed evidence; it won't happen. ArbCom is not required to use anything from the evidence page or the workshop page. Further, they are not required to show any connection between their findings of fact and evidence. They are also not required to show any connection between their remedies that supposedly correct the matters found in the findings of fact. In short, whether Fae did something wrong or not is irrelevant. He will be banned from the project without any evidence provided about his supposed interactions with WMF and Commons. This is how ArbCom behaves. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish. There needs to be a full statement from arbitrators. Put it in as a finding of fact or something and vote to endorse it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• At the time that I write this, Fae has posted his statement, and Sir Fozzie has said on the PD page that the statement is contradicted by information possessed by the Committee. At this point, I don't even care if there is a finding of fact – I'd settle for a thoughtful explanation on this talk page. And I'm not questioning that the Committee members know what they are talking about. But I am saying that there is a responsibility to communicate clearly with the community, subject to privacy issues, and there is an appearance that the Committee is having trouble communicating why Fae's statement might be unconvincing, if that is in fact the case. Absent clearer communication, you are all going to be plagued by claims that you were just circling the wagons when you felt challenged by some sort of efforts to contact you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sir Fozzie's explanation in #Please don't close the case, below, is what I was looking for. Obviously, I cannot speak to whether it is what others were looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alleged harassment and proposed remedies

I agree with Varnent that some very serious issues have been raised. NewtonGeek (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania influence

On re-reading the above, I noticed this, which included: "Considering the praise ArbComm received during Wikimania for punishing the harassers rather than the victim". May I ask who at Wikimania was discussing an open case that hadn't yet closed? Was this just chit-chat (bar talk) among those attending, or was it people going up to arbitrators and praising them directly (and hopefully being told to change the topic of conversation since the case hadn't yet closed)? It sounds like some people were assuming the case was done and dusted. It seems that wasn't the case. But it is disquieting to see actions or conversations at an event like Wikimania apparently having an effect on the outcome of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd put the person making the statement to strict proof here, because nobody said anything even vaguely like that to me. Risker (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Before my words are creatively used to create more unnecessary wikidrama - let me be clear. These were casual conversations between people observing the case and not engaged in it. I have no knowledge of anyone talking with ArbComm about it or any other potentially unethical behavior. The folks having the casual conversation were aware the case was not finalized and were more applauding the direction the proposed resolutions seemed to be taking at that time. --Varnent (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for clarifying that - it was easy to take "received" the wrong way in your initial comment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I too appreciate the clarification, Varnent. I can't speak to the experience of the other arbitrators, but my own experience was that the only comments I had from anyone not on the Committee with respect to this particular case were along the lines of "yeah, you've got a real tough case there, I don't envy you guys", and the information from the WMF staff member that is noted in the proposed decision. I was actually pretty impressed that nobody *did* try to press for "inside info" or to canvass; given that there were five arbitrators wandering the halls, the temptation must have been there, and this degree of self-control from such a diverse group might well be illustrative of increased maturity within the community. Risker (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Fae

I am going to make a statement about my conversation with Philippe, probably tomorrow as I have only just got home from the airport after flying overnight. I will say that "appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts" is untrue, I made no such appeal as I will confirm in my statement. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae, I think it will help if you provide a complete text of the email you sent Philippe, and if Philippe confirms that the text you provide is an accurate copy. Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no email, I had a personal and private 5 minute (or less) unplanned and spontaneous discussion with Philippe standing in a corridor on floor 4 of the Marvin Center in Washington DC on Friday afternoon during Wikimania. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

One other thing...the Committee is saying that you asked Commons admins to help you cover up image upload issues. Do you have a response to that? Cla68 (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will explain in my reply and refer to an email request from a Commons administrator that I received on 11th July (not at my instigation) and the prior actions by Commons bureaucrats which were not a "cover up" (I have no control over Commons admins and bureaucrats) but an attempt to deal with specific, very real, privacy issues and nothing to do with the Commons investigation by Arbcom members.

By the way, it always has been the case that the bureaucrats on Commons are prepared to explain their actions as trusted users, and indeed have been seen to do so in this case when requested. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This represents an intention to communicate. That's positive. I'd like to see positive behaviors mentioned when they are present. Noticing positive things helps calm down situations and tamps down less helpful tendencies. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The only acceptable view is ArbCom's view. You have a right under terms of use to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. ArbCom is violating that right by attempting to sanction you for exercising that very right. ArbCom itself is making accusations not backed up by any evidence presented. The more serious problem is that ArbCom is turning those accusations into concrete actions against you, with no possibility of oversight over their actions. It does not matter what statement you make Fae. It doesn't. The critical point to understand is that regardless of whether what you say is 100% accurate, you are wrong because you are not ArbCom. To further complicate matters; once the PD page is posted, ArbCom tends to be in a rush to get cases closed and moved out the door. Even though there's ongoing collection of evidence going on here, ongoing new statements coming forth, and ongoing debate, the decision is already effectively done. It has already been decided that you are banned. It has already been decided that you committed nefarious deeds in exercising your rights in contacting the Foundation. The more you protest these decisions, the more it will be used against you in any future appeal to have your ban lifted. As demonstrated in previous cases, if you do not demonstrate the proper amount of subjugation to their decisions and acceptance that you did wrong, you won't be unbanned. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What nonsense. The committee has made it abundantly clear that it is not the contact per se but the nature of this and other contacts – and their relation to a wider pattern of what they view as obfuscation – that they object to. For God's sake, if behaviour on non-Wikimedia forums and websites can be used to evaluate whether an editor is acting in good faith, then off-wiki behaviour much closer to home can too. JN466 14:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • ArbCom has presented no evidence to indicate exactly what that behavior is. They continue to maintain in FoF 12 and 12.1 I wish ArbCom would stop messing with the numbering of open PD pages Findings of Fact 10 and 10.1 that he made an attempt that Fae denies, and if ArbCom bothered to contact the WMF they could confirm that denial. No matter, it's passing anyway. The reality is ArbCom is sanctioning him for taking actions he is allowed to make under the terms of use. They do not need to include those actions in order to take action against Fae, yet they are determined to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Nitpick: They also maintain that WMF does not deny it, and in fact that WMF staffers were the ones who informed them that this was going on. Furthermore, ArbCom often has findings of fact based on evidence that is not disclosed publicly (or not fully disclosed) for one reason or another (usually privacy/anonymity of the evidence submitter or a party). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Nitpick 2: In response to your prior comment, it has not "already been decided that [Fae] is banned." That motion is currently passing. But arbitrator votes can and do change before the final decision. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: I have passed a draft version of my statement to Philippe Beaudette for comment, as it contains details of our private discussion, and as the UK Chief Executive is not available in the morning tomorrow, my review with him will have to be in the afternoon. I would hope to post the statement here shortly afterwards. --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS. Fæ: just shut up and present whatever you're presenting when it's all ready... anything you say right now is going to be interpreted in a negative light. Committee: please close this, it's already over, and it's only getting uglier. We are all of us only human, but you (Fæ and ARBCOM) have made a serious mess now. Close it down, come back in a week or few. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, after all ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I have no idea what the facts of the case are, but I think that anyone facing a site ban should be entitled to point out that they need a certain amount of time to present their side of the case, without being told to shut up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention Tryptofish. Whatever Fæ deserves or doesn't deserve, he's shouting into the wind right now. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the key sanction of the case is being formulated based on evidence that occurred no sooner than July 12, the Evidence phase should be prolonged to at least July 12, and the other deadlines pushed back accordingly. Wnt (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The case is already in voting, and will close about 24 hours after "net 4" arbs are convinced that everything is settled. Is there some specific and relevant evidence you're looking to submit? If so, I would suggest you email the committee about doing so expeditiously. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, to try to argue that the case should be extended because of the misconduct of one of the parties to try to affect the Committee's deliberations during voting is the height of chutzpah, similar to the classic definition of that word. SirFozzie (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the case is already in voting - but that has not stopped ArbCom from adding evidence to the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie:You haven't done much to convince us bystanders that there was any misconduct at all, let alone something worth banning somebody over. First it sounded like he appealed to the WMF (according to the finding of fact), then like he asked him to pass a message ... it sounds like a nothing. It's not editing, it's not against any policy I ever heard of, there are no obvious reasons why an appeal that is not permitted should be of any concern at all. Put it this way -- suppose somebody on the Russian Wikipedia posted to Jimbo's page and asked for help because the Russian admins wanted to reveal confidential data about him, and 24 hours later they're moving to close with a permanent ban on him for asking that. What would you think about that? I'd think, among other things, that the process seemed unusually abrupt. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, the community has given ArbCom the tools. Their cases are riddled with situations where there is no evidence, they do not give reasons before deciding to ban, here they even have Principles/FoFs/Remedies which are based on 'we have an accusation, we have no evidence, you guys should look for it'. The friggin' evidence period is closed, there is no evidence, so remove it. Oh wait, if it is in their ideas of their remits, we just add evidence, but others can not make a defense, because the evidence phase is already closed. There is nothing unusual about it, this is how ArbCom operates. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: confirmation bias. Tarc (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is not the first time that someone mentions that ArbCom has problems with confirmation bias. As I said, that is how ArbCom functionsoperates. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was referring to you and Wnt. :) Tarc (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I presume you are also referring to yourself.  :-D --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed by NuclearWarfare. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed by NuclearWarfare. Please do not modify it.
At this point, i'm just going to assume that Arbcom is more or less convincing themselves of something that didn't happen, considering they already seem to be going off of a secondary, maybe even tertiary account, of what happened. If Philippe and Fae were just having a normal conversation at Wikimania and Fae mentioned his concerns about his privacy being disturbed, then there's nothing actionable at all. It just seems like Arbcom is making a mountain out of a molehill and trying to convince themselves that of course what they are doing is right (which is nothing new). SilverserenC 04:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC) If you're looking for ArbCom to admit they are wrong, it won't happen. They've already started voting on whether to close the case or not, and Fae is being ordered to present his materials expeditiously. The case is becoming too hot for them to handle. The sooner it is closed, the sooner they can fully protect this page sweep this under the rug. It's happened before, and it will happen now. As I noted above, it's moot anyway. Fae will be banned even if he were perfection personified. No amount of material in his favor presented before ArbCom will stop him being banned now. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Because they can't handle someone trying to usurp their "authority"? Yeah, I already know that, I just thought it should be stated. SilverserenC 04:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Saw that coming. :) But it doesn't change my point that it doesn't appear as if Arbcom has gotten the proper information on what actually happened and they're acting impulsively before they obtain all the details. Silverseren^C 06:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's possible that this is not an abrupt overreaction, but rather a convenient pretext to make a decision that they've been looking for. I recall someone made a comparison to a PTA meeting before, which is a cogent one - because in school districts across America, administrators often tend to find that it is easier to trump up charges against the victim of bullying, to resolve the problem by forcing his expulsion, than to stand up to face it and admit the depth of the problem. In this they behave just as the students they regulate. Perhaps Wikipedia has found its way to deal with cyberbullying, a response which, more likely than not, will become an industry standard. Wnt (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to think that. You'd be wrong of course, but that doesn't stop most people. That in this regard we trust the word of a WMF employee with no reason to lie over a user who has consistently done so should not be that surprising. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Or, even more alternately; this case has had allegations of Fae working behind the scenes to avoid or subvert criticisms. But with a firm example directed at them they feel more confident with a finding and a response (i.e. Fae being the architect of his own destruction). Whatever; we are all coming up with views without the full facts. I for one would like to see more clarity from Fae and the committee on the sequence of events here - because on the face of it it does look rather bad. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-article space restriction 2

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Non-article_space_restriction – I never had my question answered, and I see that Roger Davies, Newyorkbrad, Hersfold, and SilkTork are expressing concerns. Perhaps one of the Arbitrators should make an alternative remedy that doesn't include the non-article space restriction. The Arbitrators who have expressed concerns would probably be less hesitant to vote in favor of such an alternative. I'm also still interested in learning the rationale behind that specific part of the proposed ban. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I had the same thought independently, and proposed two additional remedies before reading this. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=502822801&oldid=502822714 – I don't believe that that's a strong rationale. I only made 103 revisions to WP:ANI, Fæ made 274 revisions to it (107 revisions as Fæ and 167 revisions as Ash), and Delicious carbuncle made 890 revisions to it. I made 1031 revisions to the Wikipedia namespace, Fæ made 6301 revisions to it (3989 revisions as Fæ and 2312 revisions as Ash), and Delicious carbuncle made 3592 revisions to it. Judging from these numbers, I was involved in far less drama than either Fæ or Delicious carbuncle, yet I'm the only one facing a possible non-article space restriction. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but...can someone who's actually paid attention comment on the quality/content of those ANI revisions? (Not Prioryman in the case of DC, please). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any need - the links only show total contributions to those areas, not contributions that are necessarily related to the disputes which have been noted in this case. I used to be far more active at ANI, but made a deliberate effort to reduce my involvement there, as I realized that it was not a productive use of my time. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Office revision

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should WP:Office be revised to indicate that requesting Foundation action from an appropriate representative can be grounds for an immediate and permanent ban? Wnt (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hyperbole and sarcasm are always helpful. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC) It's not hyperbolic if it is what is happening. Fae exercised his rights under the terms of use and is now being sanctioned for it. If that can happen, it is not unreasonable to expect to be banned by ArbCom for taking actions under WP:OFFICE. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I would like to hear more specifics, but from what I've seen posted here, it sounds like this failed to be a WP:OFFICE action only because such a formal action was not actually requested. (But if that's true, then how was Fae interfering with ArbCom at all?) Wnt (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC) My current inclination is that bringing the issue of contact with a WMF staff member into the decision may not be the best course of action, although I'm waiting for Fae's promised statement before voting on the recent proposals. The WP:OFFICE policy and the Terms of Use are of no apparent relevance to the situation so far as I can discern. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) As I mentioned above about possibly renaming advocacy departments and titles to indicate advocacy by those folks is not permitted and requesting it will get you banned. Revising the office actions policy to specify punishment will be handed down if you misread that policy also seems to be a fair warning to prevent this from repeating in the future. --Varnent (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hear, hear. NewtonGeek (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) "Hear hear" what? Varnent's trolling? This is like a forced meme gone awry, the notion that anyone is being banned just for contacting the WMF. The Fae's friends here are beginning to go a wee bit overboard as the repeat and remix a claim that appears to be fundamentally untrue. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Indeed. Can anyone tell me why the rules in the big yellow box at the top of the page seem to have stopped being enforced? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC) My previous comments indicate I think ArbCom has given good reasons for their proposed decision in that matter. NewtonGeek (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If Fae had followed the Terms of use then he would not be sanctioned - the wording is: "we encourage you to seek resolution through the dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms provided by the Projects or Project editions and the Wikimedia Foundation". Fae did not seek resolution through the appropriate procedures or mechanisms - he instead spoke to a WMF member as a friend and asked him to intervene. Any reading of the terms of use that "dispute resolution procedures or mechanisms provided" includes asking a friend to intervene would be incorrect. The request in the conversation was that the WMF member pass on a request to ArbCom not to reveal details of an unnamed account (or accounts) due to privacy concerns. He was not appealing directly or officially to the Foundation as a body, he was making a personal request of a high ranking Foundation officer to pass on a message. I would be interested in hearing Fae's side of events, and if there has been a misunderstanding, then a rewording of the remedy would be appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, all this is a red herring. There is no dispute resolution procedure provided by EN:WP and the WMF that allows any kind of appeal to them. ArbCom appeals go to Jimmy. The TOS requires users to "comply with the final decisions of dispute resolution bodies that are established by the community for the specific Project editions (such as arbitration committees)".  Roger Davies ^talk 19:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a red herring, if a WP:OFFICE action is not intended to override the final verdict - which I think they are formally entitled to do, but probably would not choose to - but rather, to prevent improper breach of confidence of certain private information. I look forward to Fae's response on this matter, and I hope Philippe (WMF) will weigh in also. Of course, I may be at a disadvantage in not knowing the full particulars - but as quickly as this rushed through, I wonder how much anyone knows. Wnt (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, WP:OFFICE is for things not subject to community consensus: "These are removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints. Office actions are performed so that the end result is a legally compliant article on the subject." There's nothing in WP:OFFICE that applies at all to this situation at all. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In the comment you linked, Fae says that he "had a private conversation with Philippe as a friend about privacy matters, and I did not ask him to intervene." (emphasis mine). You're saying that Fae did ask him to intervene. That's a bit confusing. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. It implies that Phillipe, or someone else from WMF Fae spoke to, told the Arbs that Fae had asked them to intervene. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the communication was in the form of asking to pass on a request rather than asking directly to intervene or making an official complaint. My understanding - and we'll need to wait for Fae's full statement to get his side of things - is that it wasn't in the form of - "Would you ask the Committee to stop because of privacy concerns", it was in the form of "Would you pass on a request from me to ask the Committee to stop because of privacy concerns". I assume there will be some people who feel that such a request is harmless. My view is that it is inappropriate, and that it put the WMF member in an awkward position. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's informative, thanks. Based solely on what you said here, that sounds to me like it does, indeed, put the WMF member in an awkward position, but I'm having trouble seeing how it would interfere with the case. It sounds like Fae articulating a request, to which the Committee should have said "no". If Fae posed it directly to the Committee, I don't think it would have been seen as disruptive, just incorrect. Fae did put Philippe in an awkward position by involving him, but not to the extent that would seem to justify a ban. If, hypothetically, Philippe passed along the request to ArbCom on Fae's behalf, I think it would have gotten the same negative reply that would have been given to Fae directly, but I don't see how the Committee would have been impaired in its investigation. What am I missing here? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Has Arbcom asked the staffer concerned to comment on Fae's version of events? I think it makes a difference where this is on the scale from Fae clearly did to Fae clearly did not ask him to intervene. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork, your interpretation of the terms of use is just that; your interpretation. It's interesting, but not conclusive. I am far from the only one who finds ArbCom's heavy handed abuse of the terms of use and refusal to provide evidence supporting their findings to be appalling. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the terms of use is a bit of red herring (I agree it shouldn't be used to justify bans); it is perfectly possible to justify bans on other grounds such as long-established community policy and guidelines. My reading of this is that there has been obstruction and stonewalling throughout the case (there have likely been numerous e-mails sent on this matter behind the scenes, though that is only speculation on my part). However innocent the request made at Wikimania (and only those that were present at that conversation know the truth of the matter), it seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back. I do think that if a ban was on the table for Fae, it should have been put up for voting at an earlier stage, and not brought in so late (I hope he was given adequate notice of the new finding and ban proposal, and didn't find out after or while travelling back from Wikimania), but that's being said with hindsight. Hopefully there will be time for clarity to emerge and for voting to be completed on the case in a calm manner. It is really up to Fae whether he wants to fight this or make some last-minute plea for leniency. Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is not a red herring in any respect. ArbCom can not forbid someone from contacting the WMF. This is a jurisdictional and terms of use issue. Yet, Fae is being sanctioned and banned from Wikipedia for (in part) contacting the WMF. The sequence of events here might be problematic, but the burden of that lies squarely with ArbCom. As constructed, ArbCom prevents itself from acting in a professional manner, resulting in parties to cases being treated in rather negative ways. It isn't up to Fae at this point. Fae's ability to affect the outcome of this case is gone, if ever he had any. It's the 87th hour now. There is a unanimously supported remedy to ban him from Wikipedia, and he's being told by multiple members of ArbCom that additional material from him will be fairly considered? It's not even an issue of too little, too late now. It's a completely unprofessional approach. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jurisdiction is explicitly clear that AC has jurisdiction here and may consider off-wiki behavior in their evaluations. Saying otherwise n times can't change that regardless of the value of n. As a US citizen, I have a right to file suit against WMF (not clear whether I'd file in CA, FL, or federal court, but that's not important). I do not have a right to continue to edit English Wikipedia after being WP:NLT blocked -- in fact, I've never had a right to edit here, only an opportunity. Wikipedia is private property not the public square. Nobody Ent 12:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Nitpick: Actually, it is clear where you'd file: California. Says so right in the ToU. By using any Wikimedia service, you agree that any legal problem you have with them is to be dealt with in California court. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep your eye on the ball

Whether Fae sought to pull strings to fight the remedy of revealing all accounts is irrelevant. The bottom line is his effort at hiding this complete list of account names used now makes it imperative that the list is revealed so that the various edits of the various usernames may undergo scrutiny. This now becomes a question of potential sockpuppetry, in my opinion. There needs to be full revelation, guaranteed restriction to one account, and a review of past behavior of the unnamed accounts. There may be nothing behind this effort to make an end run around the committee to avoid scrutiny, but now it becomes amply clear that there is a real need for such scrutiny. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nooooooo!

Resolved

 – wording changed (thanks) Nobody Ent 00:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There you go again. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Editors_and_the_Arbitration_Committee says editors should be "complete" in their dealings with ArbCom without defining what the heck "complete" means. Automation? anyone. Truthful is cool, I can live with truthful, but "complete"? Nobody Ent 22:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be a contentious principle in any way. Suggestions for rewording are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"Editors are expected to be truthful in statements and evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee." I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the '"complete." Nobody Ent 22:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about "to be completely truthful, and to answer as fully as they are able" as an alternate? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "hand over all pertinent, requested evidence the user knows the user has?" NewtonGeek (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Since a user always has the option of not complying and accepting the appropriate sanction, which cannot exceed being banned, there is really no reason to accept a privacy defense to full, total, and honest responses to the committee's inquiries. Remember, the committee is elected by the community, requires "net 4" to even start a case, and has neither the time nor the inclination for "fishing expeditions". Many people have lied to the committee over the years, and I'd rather deal with a straightforward refusal to cooperate--it's more intellectually honest than approaching a WMF staffer, asking him to convey a message, and then insisting that 1) it wasn't a request to intervene, and 2) the elected chapter position had nothing to do with asking a staffer to do what could have just as easily been done with a direct message to ArbCom. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see my question to SilkTork above. How can I understand what you just said here in that context? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Fae's position at the WMUK created a situation where Philippe might have felt pressured by an employer-employee relationship? I thought the British chapter had no control over the WMF. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of any other reason why a message to ArbCom would have been sent through that channel? For some background: no one has ever asked a WMF staffer to contact ArbCom and intercede in a case, to the best of anyone's recollection. We have had chapter officers sanctioned by ArbCom before, for comparison. AGF only goes so far, and I am unable to come up with any other reason why Fae chose to ask a WMF staffer to convey a request for leniency to ArbCom, when he has every other means of contacting ArbCom at his disposal. My peers do not think his position as a chapter official matters in this instance; I disagree. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I agree with you that there is no valid reason why Fae could not express his concerns directly to the Committee, and I can understand your point in terms of a WMF staffer being seen as somehow carrying influence with the Committee, but that wasn't my question to you. Rather, my question was how Philippe could feel that his employment with WMF would be affected by someone at WMUK. To the best of my understanding, no one at the British chapter has any supervisory role over WMF employees. You seem to be arguing, but correct me if I misunderstand, that Fae used his WMUK position in some sort of leverage over Philippe, as though Fae had some sort of control over Philippe's position. I'm not seeing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Recollection assistance: Gerard and Godwin, and the motion was vaporised. That's why the hard push-back ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well before my time. I'll have to go read up on that, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you send a legal threat to Foundation staff?

What a strange question. No.

Bzzt. Wrong Answer. Please try again.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/the_end_of_the_wikipedia_good_old_boys_club/

Hope that helps ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

no reason to accept a privacy defense? Arbcom has leaked in the past, and unless I've missed something the evidence you store is available to current Arbs and will be kept indefinitely and made available to all future Arbs. This may or may not be relevant to this particular case, but it is bound to be relevant to some cases in the future. ϢereSpielChequers 23:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it has.... although, the leaking that was done smacked of some score-settling, and was certainly not indiscriminate. At any rate, if anything is so sensitive that it cannot be given to ArbCom, then really--why should anyone have allowed that to become relevant to a hobby website in the first place? Again, if privacy is that important to an individual under ArbCom scrutiny, I would welcome the straightforward "I'd rather be banned than tell you that", which is intellectually honest and reflects a mature assessment of prioritizing two incompatible requirements. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, those that are involved in matters at the level of being elected to positions with WM-UK (or other chapters) or who have paid positions with the WMF or one of the chapters, have likely taken things further than it being a hobby. Which is not to say I don't agree with your observation that the vast majority of editors treat Wikipedia (rightly) as a hobby and one of several interests in their life (though some do seem to take it a bit further than that). And Br'er Rabbit is right to point out at least one previous instance where intervention by a WMF employee caused rather a lot of angst. One more point, you said above: "We have had chapter officers sanctioned by ArbCom before" - I may have missed this, but are there many examples of this and are they obvious? I can't recall them immediately. Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket was what I was thinking of; I don't know of others. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Racepacket case was interesting though in that it explicitly forbade actions taken by the parties on other wiki/WMF sites. Is there a reluctance here to impose similar sanctions on parties? Obviously ED & WC are out of scope, but why are interaction bans on commons and WMF-related sites not on the table? (Clarification - 'If we see you interacting elsewhere, you will be banned on en-wp)Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Such a remedy would violate ArbCom jurisdiction policy, though interestingly ArbCom violated that very policy in the Racepacket case. If they were to hold to that policy (which doesn't seem to be of a concern), then they can take off-en.wp actions into account, but they can not forbid them from happening. This creates a large grey area of exactly what the jurisdiction is. This occasionally causes problems, as we're seeing here. A casual interaction in a hall at Wikimania results in massive kerfluffle here. ArbCom is watching. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Come now, 'casual interaction' is pushing it. When under investigation you dont discuss it with (non involved) people who have the power to affect that investigation unless you want them to use (become involved) that power. No matter how vaguely/softly you make the request. Even if you take the best possible slant on it, the fact remains its incredibly unethical. RE jurisdiction above, as in the Racepacket case, Arbcom have jusrisdiction over en-wp. Its perfectly within their remit to say 'If you take further actions elsewhere related to/that effect en-wp you cannot edit on en-wp'. I am just curious why they didnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• The fact remains that we don't know exactly what was said in that conversation and we don't know what other interactions Fae had with the WMF that ArbCom is using against him. He could have been talking about Manchester United for all we know. The appearance of impropriety is being used as a sledgehammer. ArbCom needs to come forward with the evidence they are using in this aspect. But, to date, they've refused. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Feuding?

The committee has added DC to the case and is now making findings with regards to feuding. When I see the words DC and feuding, Fae is not what comes to mind -- DC and Prioryman are what come to mind. To cite DC for feuding without addressing Prioryman's conduct -- especially here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive759#Possible_interaction_ban_violation -- seems incomplete. Hatfield would not have a Wikipedia page if it wasn't for McCoy. Nobody Ent 10:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. Hadn't someone previously said that Fae avoided interactions with one or more users? I think it's alleged that Fae avoided responding to constructive criticism as well. Not responding to constructive criticism would be improper. I think some Arbs addressed that in the PD. I could understand Fae avoiding someone who allegedly harassed him. Maybe that's why any previous issue with Prioryman hasn't been mentioned. I wonder if that's part of why the word fueding was used that way. NewtonGeek (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are the threads that I started on WR about Fæ's activities here or on Commons:

• 8 March 2012 Homophobia - it's not for everyone. - This relates to Fæ's mistaken accusation that another editor called someone homophobic. It is mentioned in LedRush's evidence in this case.
• 25 January 2012 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! - In which I attempt to start a betting pool about when the newly created RFC/U will be deleted and by whom.
• 22 December 2011 Ashley Van Haefton's double standard?, a stressful position - A user who had uploaded images of their penis to Commons and was asking for them to be deleted. User:Ottava Rima made the following statement "User:Fae had an image speedy deleted by user request. Hundreds of others have also. We delete both text and images. Just because someone puts forth a release does not mean that we are permanent host or that the material has to be hosted anywhere. I don't think you understand how Commons operates". Fæ took this as a personal attack and "deliberate and personal harassment". The image was kept, incidentally, despite the wishes of the uploader.
• 22 January 2012 Deryck Chan loses a fan, player vs player - Documents a Twitter-fight in which Fæ calls User:Deryck Chan a homophobe and tells him to "fuck off".
• 31 January 2012 John Vandenberg distances himself - Quoting discussion from the RFC/U in which Fæ claims that ArbCom vetted his clean start.
• 30 December 2011 Ashley Van Haeften caught copying a map and lying about it, (and while he's up for admin on Commons no less) - In which Fæ is caught copying a map and lying about it.
• 27 December 2011 Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin? - Fæ's RfA on Commons.
• 25 November 2011 Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face - The thread I started after I recognized Fæ's name in a listing of Wikimedia UK trustees.

I invite people to read them over and determine for themselves if this constitutes "feuding". It may be helpful to keep in mind that this was not on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia Review, a forum dedicated to discussing Wikipedia and its editors. So far as I know, Fæ did not participate in those discussions, so anyone looking for back-and-forth between us will find none. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm under the impression there's relevant context outside of those links and summaries. NewtonGeek (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be sure to tell people that when they ask why ArbCom banned me from Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad made a salient comment here: "Evidence of "feuding" may be grounds for an interaction ban or the like, not generally for a ban from the entire site for a year. To be justified in banning an editor from Wikipedia for off-site postings, those postings need to have crossed the line from "feuding" or criticism (even pungent, obnoxious, excessive criticism) into the territory of harassment, threats, bullying, and other really unconscionable behavior. I hasten to add that Delicious carbuncle's style of commentary on Wikipedia Review, about Fae and lots of other things, is very different from mine or from what I'd consider optimal. [...] But banning people here for what they've posted there is for extreme cases. At this point I'm not convinced that we are at that level of extreme.

Honestly, is it people's impression that Fæ's tone in discussions with his critics on-wiki was better or more civil than DC's tone off-wiki? It's not my impression. What's the worst thing DC has said over there, and how does it compare to the worst thing Fæ has said over here? To be clear, neither editor has in my view crossed the line where they deserve to be banned from the project based on a rationale of incivility. JN466 19:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes that Fae's conduct constitutes harrassment, while many believe that DC's does. Please see the evidence page for examples.LedRush (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A reminder of one of the issues raised by User:MBisanz when making the initial RFArb

I think that some of those leaping to Fae's defence need a reminder of something that the person requesting this case said right at the beginning. "As aggravating factors to his poor conduct, I cite his private canvassing of me regarding my participation in his RFC."

Fae was working behind the scenes to influence MBisanz, a user with advanced priveleges, and how he behaved in dispute resolution.

Now consider Fae's approach to one or more members of the Foundation, users with even more advanced priveleges, to make a behind-the-scenes approach to Arbcom.

People consider some of DC's activities on Wikipedia Review to be canvassing. However, it was done in the open on a site where DC's opponents can see what is going on. The membership of Wikipedia Review did nto consist entirely of Wikipedia critics but includes many defenders of Wikipedia.

Fae does his canvassing by email or in person and it is not visible unless the other party brings it into the open. And we all know how Fae reacted to MBisanz when he brought his canvassing into the open.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget this: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#How_many_messages_can_one_leave.3F. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an Arb suggested Wikipedia Review could be interpreted as hostile audience towards Fae regarding those concerns. Also, Lord Roem replied to the number of messages issue by stating it seemed "the notifications are neutrally worded." NewtonGeek (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS:

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them."

Fæ sent messages only to a group of users that !voted in favor of a certain position, and he sent nineteen messages (too many in my opinion). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that no one on WR/WC has ANI, RFA, RFC, Talk Wales or any of the similar pages on their watchlist, and are totally reliant on threads on those BADSITES to know what is going on. John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that without DC, this matter would never have become the subject of an arbitration case, and the same behaviour that the committee pronounce themselves so disgusted with now would be continuing unchecked. Doesn't this strike any of you as oddly inconsistent? We are having a case where basically everybody gets banned: party A gets banned for misbehaviour, party B gets banned for calling out that misbehaviour so long that it resulted in a case, and party C gets banned for poking (admittedly cruel) fun at party A (I am in complete agreement with Newyorkbrad in that regard).

Is this a hidden stratagem for reducing the number of arbitration cases? "Don't moan about misdeeds: for though we will ban the person committing them, we'll ban you too, for complaining about them so long that the matter actually came to us to put a stop to them." Basically it tells editors: don't speak the truth too often.

Any effective criticism can be interpreted as "harassment", regardless of how much that criticism is a function of conscience and personal integrity. I note that the arbitration committee itself now stands accused by some above of "having it in for Fæ". --JN466 15:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. DC and others had tried various avenues of dispute resolution regarding Fae within the Wikipedia, and all until this Arbcom were met with lies, deception, stonewalling, and obfuscation. So the Wikipedia Review was the only remaining viable outlet to bring a rogue admin to heel, since he could not use his influence to shutdown or slowdown discussions there. Think of it like a meta-invocation of the "ignore all rules" principle. This policy reads "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." The removal of Fae from this project will improve it, there isn't much honest disagreement to be had on that angle. Ultimately, this could not be accomplished within the Wikipedia bureaucracy; a form of external protest movement was necessary. Also keep in mind the old "bans/blocks are to be preventative, not punitive" wiki-axiom. If Fae is booted from the project, what is a ban of DC preventing? Tarc (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I still see no wrongdoing by Fae in the first place. He was accused of mentioning porn stars who didn't have articles, or telling how many floors a building had without a source, or giving sourced information about off-label uses of Crisco - nothing wrong. Of ducking out and neglecting mention of an RfC/U about this not-wrong behavior so he could start a fresh account - still not wrong. Of maintaining multiple accounts for privacy - not wrong. Of failing to answer a second RfC/U process he had good reason not to believe in - not wrong, not mandatory under any policy. And now this current situation, emanating from a principle suggesting an investigation of Fae's Commons contributions that did not pass, which ArbCom did not have the right to order, based on evidence introduced after the evidence phase was over, and on whose specific named files Fae had already been exonerated. There's no policy against people on Wikipedia asking a Commons admin not to help ArbCom, no policy against them asking WMF officials for help (let alone not asking them for help). This is all trumped up out of nothing, the finest culmination of WikiGaming in history. And now you're gleefully throwing away an editor whose contributions show he was frickin' living for this site and Commons, posting everything he could get his hands on, and commending the people who Wikilawyered this stuff up out of nothing. It's not a recipe for an honest or worthwhile project. The main question now is: how do we organize people to create rival projects that can reduce (not eliminate) the amount of money that will be paid in the future to whoever it is that will emerge to sell their services to redirect traffic, post ads, skew articles, reissue deleted files under their own copyright, or otherwise cash in on Wikipedia's death-rattle? How can we try to preserve some of what will be lost in the collapse? Wnt (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that your view, Wnt, of "wrong" is at odds with that of the community (such as it is) at large, and certainly at odds with ArbCom's view. As someone else has said elsewhere, you are entitled to your opinion, however. Bielle (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt's point should be taken serious. We seem to be dealing with an editor who edited without problems, but it was more the interaction in the various dispute resolution processes that seems to have escalated matters. The spirit of WP:IAR is to focus on actually editing Wikipedia for content. If an editor uses wikipedia as a vehicle to fight disputes then that is a much more serious matter than if an editor simply shows contempt for the dispute resolution process when there isn't a real issue regarding actual content in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a rose tinted view; there is ample evidence that Fae has been an active participant in disputes;; - I posted one recent example to the evidence page where he stepped way over the line (and others posted similar occurrences). The contention that this is purely a vendetta against an otherwise clean editor is not, I feel, an accurate view (even though I have defended Fae's positive contributions elsewhere). --Errant ^(chat!) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but it seems to me that the one year site ban is motivated by a lot more than that, and that "lot more" should actually not count for a lot on Wikipedia, at least if you take IAR seriously. Basically, you impose remedies that address the problems (e.g. desyssopping in case of abuse of Admnin tools), and only in severe cases where an editor really cannot contribute here should we kick that editor out. Count Iblis (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My view from reading through all of this is as follows; there have been allegations that Fae has used "backroom" methods to avoid scrutiny - but that until the last few days Arbcom had not seen any direct/firm evidence to sanction. But that over the course of Wikimania they became themselves subject to that behaviour. What stretches my good faith in this is that the case was quite calmly winding down until Wikimania - and then, over a period when a lot of Wikipedians were together in one place (a virile place for quiet conversations and collaboration), this happens. I've been 50/50 over Fae's behaviour in that respect up till now - but this worries me. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt is simply not telling the truth here. Wnt's description of the underlying disputes is greatly removed from the actual events.

The initial dispute Wnt mentions, centering on what is now the List of male performers in gay porn films article, was not a matter of "mentioning porn stars who didn't have articles." It was about, gross, systematic violations of BLP policies, where wretchedly referenced or wholly unsourced statements about porn performers were set forth, far too often linked to other individuals whose real names coincided with the performers' stage names, or redlinked, creating the real danger of future mislinks, which came to pass with unhappy frequency in related articles. See this AFD, and note in particular my identification of more than 250 citations with substantial problems. Note also the tag-team attacks by Fae/Ash on DC, including Ash's remarkable claim that describing DC as "lazy" was most civil, and not at all a personal attack.

Wnt also minimizes Ash/Fae's inexcusable patter of behavior of citing advertising as editorial content and related misrepresentation of sources. This was not a matter of "telling how many floors a building had without a source", the trivial example Wnt inaccurately described (Ash/Fae in that case cited a magazine advertisement as though it were a magazine article). It was systematic, long-term misrepresentation of sources. Just before the fake retirement of "Ash" short-circuited the relevant RFC, a previously uninvolved editor had begun spot-checking Ash's contributions[10] and identified a pattern of bad sourcing practices not limited to controversial subject areas.

To describe this as "nothing wrong" and say that "This is all trumped up out of nothing" is not behavior I would expect of an honest, reasonable person acting in good faith, and I am surprised that anyone thinks otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Well said. JN466 21:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The AFD was a "no consensus". The uninvolved editor described a maybe, a "could have explained more fully", and a quibble about regiving versus regifting, concluding with a "I am sure that Ash added this information with the best intentions". Calling that inexcusable is, well, not what I would expect of ... Wnt (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement

Note, I have posted without permission from Philippe to discuss our private conversation, he has had a draft of this statement for 24 hours and after noting an Arbcom member's apparent impatience, I have gone ahead. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, just 22 minutes after you posted this statement, at least one arbitrator has concluded you are openly lying, and voted to close the case. Of course there's no possibility their source is lying or misinformed. It must be you. Sorry to say and not to rub salt into the wound... but I told you so. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. And I thought better of SirFozzie. Clearly, this is a our way or the highway scenario and Fae appears to have already been condemned to the road in their minds. Silverseren^C 20:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have not been given the accusations that Arbcom are working from, it is impossible for me to explain any discrepancies that Arbcom members might see in their own private discussions and the basic facts of my private talk with Philippe and the work done on Commons by others to help me with privacy problems. Thanks Fæ (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yep. I seriously doubt that in the intervening 22 minutes, SirFozzie spoke with Philippe Beaudette to confirm or disprove what Fae has said in the above statement. Instead, they are trusting an unnamed, undisclosed source and have been non-transparent as to what their evidence is. Of course, a year from now when Fae can appeal to the committee to have his ban lifted, he will be required to accept he did wrong in contacting the Foundation and effectively admit that what he has said in the above statement is all lies. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fæ, I am to an extent on "Arbcom's side" in this - but I would like to see more public information from them in relation to what details they have. If nothing else to set things to rest. With that said, Hammersoft, you are commenting from a position of heightened ignorance, as am I, and yet you seem extremely certain Arbcom is misrepresenting undisclosed evidence or relying on meritless evidence from a dubious source. I appreciate Fæ's apparent candour & clarity in his statement, but there is only a certain amount of additional credence we should lend it simply for being public. The speed at which Arbcom members, as a collective, came to this state indicates a depth to the evidence we have not seen discussed. I would like to see that discussion. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Or it just as easily indicates that they are offended that anyone would try to "usurp" their authority and went into a blind rage, making it worse in a heightened conversation amongst themselves on the Arbcom mailing list (off with his head and all that) and there isn't any actual depth to the evidence, but the mere notion of a challenge to their power leads to...this. Silverseren^C 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Or perhaps Fozzie simply didn't notice the addition to this page at the time he posted that. Not everything done around here is a Machiavellian twirling-of-the-mustache, y'know. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• You will note in this diff from SirFozzie that he indicates he saw the statement prior to voting to close. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ahh, I misinterpreted the middle phrase in a "even if he did post something it'd be unbelievable" fashion. So proper reading of his comment is that Fae's response has been read and dismissed as so much bullshyt. Wouldn't mind seeing a detailed rebuttal on the specifics myself, if only for the lulz. But other than that, look like we're getting ready to strike camp here. Tarc (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a request for Philippe to confirm that my statement is perfectly factual with regard to our conversation. In particular to confirm that approaching Risker was his proposal rather than mine. I have nothing to hide here, my recollection of our 5 minute conversation is quite clear in my memory. See User_talk:Philippe#Your_help_requested_please. --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish Philippe would comment to ensure this isn't Rashomon territory. I entirely believe the Arbs are reporting truthfully. I'd prefer to hear it straight from the horse's mouth. It would also be more transparent and allow the community to see the issue for itself. NewtonGeek (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to post a full copy of my response tomorrow, which Fae has quoted in part above. It won't disclose any private or copyrighted information, but there are some qualifiers Fae has left out that result in a more negative light on me than the full email would indicate. MBisanz ^talk 04:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Below is the text of my response in the email Fae partially quoted above:

I did hear back from {name redacted}. And I do have an appreciation of the issues here. I'm bound by duty abide by certain limitations of the WMF and by U.S. law. Other then those, I have no positive duty to ensure your general wellbeing or otherwise respect/protect your actions or issues. I have met all my duties under WMF/WP policy and U.S law in this instance.

Please see your email of Jan. 26 for the claims you made.

Matthew Bisanz

MBisanz ^talk 10:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't close the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&curid=35967073&diff=503009848&oldid=503006425

This isn't right. You still have information coming in. Allow Fæ to defend himself. Have Philippe and the Commons bureaucrats examine Fæ's account. Fæ says that the Commons bureaucrats are willing to comment. I don't see an urgent need to close the case quickly. Let's get all of the facts straight before closing the case. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed 100%.LedRush (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean other than that Arbcom is wrong, but they don't want that to be revealed because it would embarrass them? Silverseren^C 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an urgent need to close the case either. To be very blunt, there is an appearance that the Arbitrators are just plain pissed off over what they perceive, perhaps correctly, as an assault on their authority in the form of interference with the case. It's like the evidence that accrued before was fairly bad, but asking someone to talk to the Committee, well that's over the top. You on the Committee need to understand that the community will still have questions for you, even if you close the case without answering those questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's far too late for that now. ArbCom's made their decision. It doesn't matter how wrong or right it is. Once decided, it's over. They will close the case..my guess is no later than ~36-48 hours from now, and this talk page will be protected. According to them, Fae is a liar. It isn't necessary for them to contact Philippe Beaudette. Their unnamed source and undisclosed evidence is accurate and beyond dispute. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the some of the above comments. The points made above seem to pertain to making the community confident in the result of the case. NewtonGeek (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

*snorts* Nice. Well, at least we know the two of us will probably be bringing this up a lot afterwards or I will be. Any chance I get. Maybe I should write a piece for the Signpost about how Arbcom has steadily been in decline. The Signpost appears to accept hatchet job articles now, after all. Silverseren^C 20:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Phillipe has been in conversation with the Committee previously multiple times about this issue, first to tell a fellow Arbitrator at Wikimania that Fae had asked him to intercede with the Committee to avoid having to list all his accounts, as it represented an ongoing security risk. The arbitrator in question followed up with Philippe on sunday that we had the story straight. Philippe then emailed the Committee after we had originally posted the finding that Fae had attempted to deceive the Committee and the community (as well as the ban proposal) to note that Fae did not overtly use his position in WMUK in his appeal to Philippe, which is why the version that does not include that bit is currently passin. During this conversation, we asked Philippe if any other user, under threat of Arbitration Committee sanction, had EVER appealed to him asking him to intercede in an Arbitration Committee hearing to avoid sanctions. Philippe responded that during his tenure at the WMF, no other editor under threat of sanction had ever appealed to him to intervene in the workings of ArbCom. Fae's statements (amongst others, that Philippe spontaneously volunteered to attempt to intercede with us) are so far different then what we've received, that I find it impossible to chalk up to honest discrepancies. SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't a better question be did you ever have a spontaneous chat in person with someone undergoing an Arbcom case? Seriously, we all talk with a lot more candor in a personal conversation. And maybe Philippe himself doesn't want to get in trouble (which he would be if he was the one that suggested the intervention). Silverseren^C 20:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, and this kind of thing is why I never have spontaneous chats with parties involved in an Arbitration Committee case. Please note as well, at no time during this case had Fae communicated any concerns about listing any of his accounts, as one would expect if it represented an ongoing security risk. The only conversation we had with him prior to the decision was a complaint against one of MBisanz's statements in this case , a complaint that was rejected.) SirFozzie (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly; yes I don't understand why Fae had to talk to Philippe rather than Arbcom - if the issue was really as worrisome to him as it seems then a more pro-active approach would have been more fruitful right? But that aside the key missing piece from here is that Fae claims the idea of Philippe contacting an Arbcom member was Phillipe's idea. Although no specific comment from Philippe to this effect has been noted by Arbcom members. Certainly my view of this event hinges on this critical factor. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• You (ArbCom) forced Fae's hand to post his statement before Phillippe has a chance to respond to his request for review of his intended statement. Now, he posts it and you (SirFozzie) conclude he's a liar. If there were even a few minutes with everyone around a table talking about this, the dispute on these points would be over. I am not at all surprised there are points of disconnect between the various accounts. Nevertheless, you are bound and determined to believe that Fae is a liar, and everyone else's account is absolutely 100% accurate. Patience is a virtue. Nothing is served by rushing this. The house is not burning down. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• My reaction is that the fact that no one contacted Philippe in this way previously is not, in itself, such a big deal. But I take the rest of what Sir Fozzie has said very seriously. Unless something else from the Committee or Philippe comes along to contradict it, it's pretty hard for me to reconcile it with any conclusion other than that Fae has lied right here in his statement. If that's the case, a site ban is fine with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, any sort of comment from Philippe would be nice. Where the heck is he? Silverseren^C 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And the fact that 15 (less inactives/recused, so 12) people entrusted by the community have the same evidence, and not one of them has disputed the public version of events, should give the community plenty of confidence that this is, in fact, the right decision. Newyorkbrad, who has opposed the banning, has not contradicted the evidence: he disagrees with the majority that the sanction is warranted, as is his right. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there wasn't a public version of the events prior to Sir Fozzie's explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean the evidence that you apparently jumped on and voted for banning without even starting any sort of conversation with other parties first? Silverseren^C 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Like Tryptofish I don't find it troubling that Fae was the first user to approach Philippe in such a way. This could be a Rashomon like situation. Barring that, someone is lying. Assuming there is no conspiracy to lie is the most rational approach. I hope this isn't a Rashomon type situation. NewtonGeek (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Telling lies, assuming that this did happen, is not grounds for a site ban. At most, it could be another argument for desyssopping and removal from other positions of trust. But any IP editor who we don't know anything about, who hasn't been stress tested to see if he/she can resit the temptation to tell a lie, can edit Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie above mentions Philippe's email of 16 July (Subject:"Attempted to use his position"), I forgot to mention it in my statement, a result of being rushed and then delayed waiting for Philippe to reply to emails. Philippe stated:

• "I feel it necessary to clarify something. Fae did not in any way use his position within a WMF-related charity in conversation with me. He came to me in his individual capacity, and I agreed to carry a message that providing one of the account names could compromise his personal security. I made clear that I couldn't promise any resolution, and I specifically asked not to know what the account name in question was. So while I can not speak to any other part of that finding, I can very clearly say in his defense that he did not attempt to misuse his position within a charity."

This did not contradict the fact that it was Philippe that proposed that he talk to Risker, not me. The word "agreed" here does not mean that he agreed with my proposal, as I did not have a proposal. When I read Philippe's email, I assumed that by saying "agreed", Philippe meant a mutual agreement as to his proposal with the understanding that I have already explained in my statement. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, is this the email you're speaking of? Because, yeah, that doesn't contradict anything about Philippe being the one to come up with the offer. Silverseren^C 23:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Motion for a 1 week recess

Perhaps I was a bit to subtle and/or flip yesterday. I really think the Committee should temporarily suspend this case, figure out whatever the fuck happened between Fae, people at WMUK/WMF/Wikimania/etc., and see what they think after a week. Lock down all the pages and talk pages associated with this case (those who insist on debating can do so on one or more "off-wiki" forums to their hearts' content), call a recess to let things cool off a bit, then come back to it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support There's nothing happening now that waiting a week is going to make worse. The house isn't burning down. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'd even settle for a couple of days. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support This really seems like the best option. Silverseren^C 20:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support As long as SB Johnny thinks this a good idea, I continue to support it though I have now read and accept Sir Fozzie's explanation. The downside is the Arbs have to wait. It's possible this would also waste their time. The upside is the community will know everything that could be done was done. NewtonGeek (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I would favor that the evidence phase be extended to at least 18 July (later if Philippe doesn't make a statement today; that and Fae's recent statement should be added in summary form to the evidence); open Workshop discussions continuing to 25 July, with a proposed decision to be posted on August 2. Either that, or ArbCom confine itself to the original facts presented in this case, and ignore the chat by the elevators for the innocent irrelevancy that it is. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Such a "motion" has no effect on ArbCom, which is not bound by the ramblings of others <g>. I am concerned, hoever, about exactly what it was that Fae was "talked in to" and suggest that those who are "talked in to" torts are still guilty as far as courts are concerned, and I rather think that "being talked in to" is a fairly weak excuse for any actions of any sort at any place or time. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• True, I suppose suggestion would be the better term. Legalese seems to be the local dialect. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 09:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think being talked into or not is really an issue here. I still don't get why this conversation Fae had is a big deal. Silverseren^C 20:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• In which case why the strange sentence: Philippe proposed an action to take and sought my agreement which I initially refused to give but was talked in to.? It does rather pique one's curiousity as to exactly what Fae was "talked in to" to say the least. My main opint, moreover, is that it is not up to us to dictate whether or not ArbCom should delay here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support modulo, for some time for reflective consideration of public evidence concerning Phillipe and related findings, and separately the Commons e-mail chain. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No, close the god damn case already

No, close the god damn case. VolunteerMarek 22:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why? Getting tired of insulting Fae (and others) over at Wikipediocracy? SilverserenC 22:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Go away. This kind of (unsubstantiated and vacant) trolling, antagonism and escalation of bad blood is exactly what's going to happen if you keep this case open for no reason. Seren, thanks for illustrating my point.VolunteerMarek 22:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Just look at the discussions above and on other pages. It's quite clear that the "trolling" is being done by Wikipediocracy members, who have been involved in this entire case trying to make sure Fae gets banned. SilverserenC 22:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC) The longer they keep this case open, the longer it will be before you can get started on the next one. What a pity. Wnt (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is your one and only warning, Silver seren. Knock it off. NW (Talk) 05:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• What, we should allow Wikipediocracy members to take over all the discussions? Silverseren^C 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Seren: your comments are not advancing the conversation. You are clearly getting uncivil, and the case clerk just gave you a warning. You can of course reply, but name-calling (true or not) does not progress it positively, and is strongly frowned upon. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is priceless. This belongs on 4chan or someplace where humor is appreciated. Volunteer Marek is so above the law here, ArbCom is so abjectly obsequious to WO's overweening power, that even when he repeatedly^[11] addresses you in vulgar terms, even he dismisses Silver Seren's mild rejoinder as vacant trolling, your only response is to join Marek in telling Seren to go away with an official warning. This is the culminating triumph of years and years of "civility enforcement" on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt you know much about 4chan other than to name-drop it, honestly. None of what has gone on here is particularly lulz-worthy. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

We generally do not condone posts such as that. However, NW (one of the case clerks) and I agreed that some comments on this page as of late has been rather volatile (this includes HJ Mitchell's post below, as well, due to the intensifiers being used). Note that Seren did not actually comment on why the case shouldn't be close. There's that thing called "don't comment on the editor, comment on the merit/content/etc instead". Attacking someone, in this case, is uncivil, and making any RFAR pages into a battleground generally gets you nowhere. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet, the clerk omitted action regarding DracoEssentialis' comments below, while acting on the material immediately below it.^[12] Interesting. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Critical missing piece

Breaking this out so it doesn't get missed. Fae says he chatted with Philippe & the latter suggested he talk to Risker. Arbcom have been unclear if Philippe, in his communication with Arbcom, has given this same viewpoint. I don't think I am alone in thinking this is the critical aspect of the situation; if Philippe specifically denies this then it is far far more damning than if he agrees.

In addition more detail of the events that happened would be helpful. And finally Risker appears not to have commented at all, despite this involving her. I don't think this is something that cannot be laid out fully and publicly (obviously with care taken to avoid detailing Fae's specific privacy concerns). A failure to do so would be extremely disappointing. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand Sir Fozzie's explanation to indicate that Philippe told the Committee, and repeatedly verified it, that Philippe did not initiate the idea that he make contact on Fae's behalf, but rather that Fae initiated the idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't Philippe just respond on this page? Silverseren^C 21:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because he isn't under subpoena? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? He's under the jurisdiction of the committee. Hipocrite (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@Tryptofish; Somehow I totally missed that, thabnks. Taking Sir Fozzies comments in that light; I've always found Philippe to be forthright and honest in our interactions. Which presents a pretty damning situation for Fae. @Silver seren; I agree that it would be useful for Philippe to make a direct statement, although I could see what would put him off. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if two people have an informal communication and you ask them some time later exactly what was said, who first suggested something etc., you can get wildly diverging accounts. We tend to mix up what we wanted to say with what was actually said. We are not walking taperecorders. Count Iblis (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It could just as easily be that both of them are misremembering what happened to their own benefit and not even doing it on purpose. The brain does that a lot, make certain events seem more in your favor or that they were better than what actually happened. Especially considering it was a five minute conversation in the middle of the Wikimania convention. Easy to forget or not remember well. Silverseren^C 22:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggested Philippe should comment yesterday, but the way I see it, it's irrelevant. If Fae came straight to Philippe, commented out in the open on his user page, asked him to intervene in an office action - that should be perfectly acceptable. We are trusting the people who do the office actions to do them when they are necessary and not to do them when they are not necessary. Every day they probably have a thousand wackos coming in the front door telling them to delete articles or document the communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all our precious bodily fluids. Asking them to do that is not a crime - not for an outsider, not for a novice editor, not for an experienced editor, not for an admin, and not for the head of WMUK/WCA. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Guess what? Arbcom secrecy is the problem again

• Release all the emails that do not have personally identifying information, including Mr. Beaudette's.
• Stop accepting emails except for information that is private. In the event the committee receives an email that is merely attempted back-room confidentiality, as opposed to private, release the email.

Seriously, how many times are you all going to get tripped up by private emails before you stop accepting them willy nilly? Hipocrite (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When I'm on ArbCom (someday!) I'll be so transparent it'll make you blind. Seriously, I can perfectly understand the dilemma here. It's always a trade-off between protecting the whistleblowers vs. explaining stuff. The fact that we've gotten to this point says something about the general ineptitude of Wikipedia. It *would* be a good idea for the people in position of authority on en-Wikipedia to take steps to isolate themselves from these kinds of accusations/influences (Sandstein, back in the day, had it right - ask him).VolunteerMarek 23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If by "tripped up", you mean "harrangued by community members who don't trust us to evaluate private evidence in privte", I think the answer is... indefinitely. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think trust in Arbcom was lost a long, long time ago. For a multitude of reasons everyone already knows. Silverseren^C 22:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Articulate.VolunteerMarek 23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

An interesting essay that I hadn't come across before. Someone should remember to ask me what I think of it, once this case is over. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gawd, where've you been then. That was a clever piece. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom has lost some people's trust, and yet incumbents often get reelected and sometimes top or nearly top the poll. If the community was to lose trust in Arbcom we'd see a much stronger anti-incumbancy vote in Arb elections - I seem to remember that did happen one year. So I don't agree that trust in Arbcom has generally been lost, even though its winding to a close that I personally consider to have moved from preventative to punitive. ϢereSpielChequers 06:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For someone to unilaterally announce, "The Committee has lost the community's trust" could be perceived as being somewhat presumptious, could it not? The implied nosism comes through fairly clear. It's a problem that many of us have, including myself at times. Cla68 (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is more the system, not per se individual arbitrators. The system being as it is, the community may find that an incumbent should be re-elected. Count Iblis (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the problem was contained to the Beaudette secret but not confidential email, but it turns out that the committee has also been having secret but not confidential discussions with NewtonGeek. Why does the committee further burden itself by having secret but not confidential discussions? Perhaps the next time someone brings you a secret but not confidential matter, you post the email for all to see, because it's clear that you're all being worked (as in conned) by people emailing you. How many of you ran for arbcom with a transparency plank in your platform? Are you fulfilling that plank? I think not. Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some comments for ArbCom to ignore

I'm going to leave these comments here even though I have no expectation that arbs will drag their heads out of their arses for long enough to listen to reason (albeit reason expressed with nothing but the utmost contempt for ArbCom) because I feel compelled to say something. I should preface this by saying that I am heavily involved with WMUK and that I know Fae in real life, and consider him a friend as far as is appropriate for a relationship between a volunteer and a trustee.

I rarely come across him on-wiki, which is why I've largely stayed out of this show trial (and let us not pretend that anything but a show trial can result from a witch hunt once we've found our "witch"). Now, I'm not going to come here and defend everything Fae has done. He certainly isn't perfect and there are parts of this PD with which I disagree but wouldn't lose sleep over, but the proposal to siteban him is grossly disproportionate to the nature of his "crimes", even for this ludicrously hard-line committee. Fae has been the victim of a sustained campaign of harassment, the likes of which nobody should have to endure, and arbs should hang their heads in shame at the pathetic FoF #3. In fact, every arb who voted to siteban WillBeback (of whom, for the record, I'm no fan) and voted on that FoF should resign in disgrace.

It seems you're rushing to get the case closed so you can dodge awkward questions about why you condoned his RfA or why you refused to act on the harassment when it was first brought to your attention. And now you want to ban him because you think he undermined your authority! NEWSFLASH: you have no fucking jurisdiction outside of the English Wikipedia, and Fae is as within his rights to request Commons admins withhold information as ArbCom is within its to request the disclosure of such. Similarly, ArbCom's jurisdiction does not extend to what editors do in real life, even if the most recent accusations against Fae are true.

Let us cast our minds back a few months. Before this case and the events leading up to it, Fae was a good editor and a well-regarded admin. He was a net positive to the project and nobody had a bad word to say about him. This was the case for almost two years, for about a year of which he was an admin. The only on-wiki misconduct with which he has been charged is conflating legitimate criticism with the harassment he has indisputably suffered. This justifies a desysop, maybe an admonishment, and possibly some restrictions but a siteban is so completely over the top that I was genuinely shocked to see it even being considered.

I guess the above could be summed up as: WAKE THE FUCK UP, ARBCOM. THEN GROW THE FUCK UP, GET OVER YOUR FUCKING EGOS AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACTS.

I would also, much as I don't like to say it, urge you not to judge Delicious carbuncle too harshly. Much as I detest the way he's treated Fae, I get the impression that he thought he was doing the right thing for the project, much like WillBeback, and I don't think he intended his actions to make Fae's real life as difficult as they did. While I think a six-month separation from the project is necessary for him to regain perspective, an indefinite or longer ban would be disproportionate to the mens rea (though not the actus reus).

I know the current ArbCom likes to take the hard line, but consider what these two editors still have to offer before you throw away the key. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with that finding of fact? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with FoF 3 either... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 06:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for completely missing the substance of my post. The problem with the FoF is that it is so tame as to effectively ridicule Fae and implicitly condone the harassment to which he has been subjected.

However, my main complaint is that ArbCom is far too willing to hand down severe sanctions and is completely overreacting to something that is outside of its jurisdiction, apparently because arbs feel he undermined their authority. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

HJ, I think you are misrepresenting or misinterpreting what the Committee members said was their full rationale. Cla68 (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell that what Fae's "constructive critics" have done is inexcusable. The real life consequences could not be less than terrible. Since HJ Mitchell has considered what value one of those critics could bring to the projects, I think HJ's ideas on how to address that critic's behavior have merit. My hope is that any such critic will not repeat things such as what went on with both Fae and according to on Arb, Cirt. I also agree that losing Fae from the project permanently is harsh. At all times maintaining constructive editors is a good idea. Perhaps after being gone from the project Fae could choose a mentor who would be willing to suggest responses to constructive criticism and help him ensure his contributions are up to specs.NewtonGeek (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mentorship isn't a possible route. In another recent case, ArbCom had previously ordained two mentors for an editor. Those mentors failed in their assigned duties, and ArbCom failed in their self assigned duties in following up with the mentors. Regardless of this, ArbCom banned the editor in part because of failed mentorship. ArbCom never accepted any responsibility for their abject failures in the case. I have no reason to believe ArbCom would act any differently in the case of assigning a mentor to Fae. In fact, if history is any lesson, it will be used as a bludgeoning tool against him in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This comment is at once too extreme and not extreme enough. I agree that "Before this case and the events leading up to it, Fae was a good editor and a well-regarded admin. He was a net positive to the project and nobody had a bad word to say about him." This, however, is reason to reject all sanctions, not just the site ban, and to reject the improper investigations into activities on other projects from which the site ban was originated. But I'd prefer not to adopt the vulgar tone that those on the other side have introduced into this conversation. Wnt (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharing and discussing information and opinions isn't harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Copy of the email to the Commons admin

This is the email I sent:

You were the admin who deleted Fae's previous accounts in March 2010 - Teahot (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Teahot), Ash and AshleyVH.

I'm trying to trace the history of the harassment of Fae across Commons and en.Wikipedia as part of the current en.Wikipedia ArbCom case.

The reason you gave for deleting the accounts was "Information being used for personal attack", so I would be interested in any information you can provide.

You can either respond to me or directly to the Committee at:

arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org

I will ask him if he is willing for me to provide his response. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• In other words, as noted above, you're just trawling for information. You don't know what information you're actually seeking, just looking for dirt. I would venture to guess that this Commons admin has an account here on en.wikipedia. If the Commons admin fails to comply with your request, will you "take note of his off en.wikipedia actions" and sanction him here for failure to abide by your orders? ArbCom seems to feel it is within their jurisdiction to take note of such actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• The key aspect of this email is that it is a polite request for information. It is not a subpoena. It does not say that the Commons admin must oblige, nor does it say that he should not ask Fae whether he should oblige or not. It is up to the Commons admin, as a trusted figure in their independent WMF project, to weigh the circumstances and decide whether this would be an acceptable or unacceptable divulgence of information. Wnt (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hammersoft...firstly, what Wnt said. Secondly, you're now just trolling. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jorgath, I grant my query is deliberately abrupt. However, I am not trolling. There is a very serious issue of jurisdiction here that ArbCom has, to date, refused to address. There is an ongoing investigation on en.wp. If a Commons admin refuses to cooperate with that investigation, could they be held accountable here for that lack of cooperation? It's an open question, seemingly with an obvious emphatic NO for an answer. However, ArbCom's actions speak very, very clearly otherwise. It isn't so simple either to have them just say "of course we wouldn't". The issue of jurisdiction must be formally clarified on an abstract level. ArbCom claims they can "take note" of off en.wikipedia actions. But that can not and should not given them carte blanche to do whatever they like here because they don't like what someone did elsewhere. This needs to be clarified. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The admin has done nothing wrong. Nor has there been a suggestion as far as I am aware that he has done something wrong. Quite the reverse, I have been impressed with his consideration of Fae's feelings in this. The issue in this is not that the admin said he wouldn't tell us why he deleted the user pages (after all, user pages can be deleted by request of the user so there is nothing wrong with doing so), but that Fae had asked him not to assist us. It is Fae's actions as part of the pattern of his unhelpful conduct that is the issue. So, short answer: No, the Common admin will not be sanctioned. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

If it is within the Commons admin's rights to consult Fae, then he must be able to do so. By punishing Fae's answer, you are interfering in Commons' administrative process just as you have accused Fae of interfering in yours by talking with Philippe. The difference is that an office action can legitimately override ArbCom (and has), but en.wp has no right of supremacy over Commons. Wnt (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Fae if he would be willing to provide a copy of his response to the admin. And I will set up an email discussion between the three of us to see if the whole email correspondence can be provided here so we can see what went on. It is possible that there has been a misunderstanding. Though the wording of the response I received from the admin and passed on to the rest of the Committee (with his permission) was very clear. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• SilkTork, the thing here is that Fae should not be compelled to assist you. It has been made clear that ArbCom has no interest in protecting Fae, and in fact won't do so if it interferes with their work. If you won't assure Fae of protections, then finding fault with him for failing to work with you is flat out wrong. If I were in his shoes, I would be doing everything in my power to prevent you from gaining access to off en.wikipedia information precisely because you refuse to assure his protection. Refusing to answer your questions is an option. Trying to get information that you HAVE NO JURISDICTION over suppressed is an option. He doesn't have to incriminate himself, and he sure as hell doesn't have to aid you in gaining access to private information when you refuse to safeguard that information. ArbCom should be censured for its actions here. If ArbCom were instead an editor, there would be hell to pay for that editor. Just because you are ArbCom doesn't make you right, and it sure as hell doesn't make you right off en.wikipedia either. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting the ball rolling on full disclosure of the facts in this issue. Less any privacy redactions which may be warranted, the entire rest of the e-mail sequence should be in the record. Only then can reflective, reasoned consideration occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Response from the Commons admin. He has pointed out that he is not a native English speaker:

Statement

When SilkTork asked me per private email on July 11 for details about my March 2010 deletions of 3 old user pages and user talkpages of Fae, though somewhat unprecisely worded by SilkTork as "deleted Fae's previous accounts in March 2010" as accounts cannot be deleted by admins, I asked Fae per private email (without disclosing the username of SilkTork) whether he would object against providing the available information by me.

I did the latter 1) as this was the first time that I received such a request, and 2) as - in late 2011 or early in 2012 - I have become aware of the massive harrassment of Fae on Wikipediocracy and by some of its members off-wiki (esp. a character-assassinatory article by some G. Kohs) and also on-wiki (Commons). However, the above mentioned userpage deletions in 2010 were totally uncontroversial for me, as they were requested by the respective user himself and at that time I didn’t have and didn’t need any additional background information, as per our policy (commons:COM:D) we regularly delete userpages on request of the respective user.

Somewhat to my surprise, in his email reply from July 12, Fae objected that I would provide information to the requester.

Due to the above mentioned special circumstances and to the fact that I do not withhold any relevant information (as IMO there is none from this deletion process), I decided to comply with Fae's request, as I have then communicated per private email to SilkTork -- well aware that it would be rather easy for arbcom either to ask one of its own members who also has admin-rights on Commons or any other Commons admin to provide the deletion rationales from the deleted pages to arbcom.

Túrelio, July 19, 2012

Fae has said he will make the email available, so we can clear this up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you also post the text of his first reply e-mail to you (absent any needed redactions)? He says: "I do not withhold relevant information (as IMO there was none from this deletion process)." He seems to be saying he gave you all the relevant information, so nothing was in fact withheld. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

He is on holiday, and has asked not to be disturbed further so I will respect that. His response to my request to publish the email here was the statement I posted above, so I don't want to go further than that, though he has previously given permission to pass on the essential points to the rest of the Committee (there is one paragraph he had marked as being private - it is a neutral paragraph, though as it was not about the correspondence and was not important, that is fair enough, and that has not been shared with anyone). The wording of the email is fairly similar - almost word for word in places. The sentence "Fae objected that I would provide information to the requester" is a good summary - though with "ArbCom" rather than "requester" in the original. The admin has not sought to conceal anything, and Fae is working with me on producing a fair and accurate copy of his response to the admin that doesn't betray any confidences. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify. He gave me no information about the deleted pages. What I think he is talking about there, is that he is not withholding anything, as any Commons admin could look at the deleted page to provide information on what was on them. So he is saying he is not preventing any enquiry into the deleted material. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Did Turelio tell you that he performed an out-of-process deletion of an image uploaded by one of Fæ's accounts? If not, then he was withholding something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything remotely unreasonable, much less "insta-perma-ban" worthy, in that. I've come across Túrelio on Commons and hold him in high esteem, and I can safely say that, were I in his position, I would have done exactly the same thing. Or perhaps not so safely—contempt of ArbCom (even hypothetically and on another wiki) is apparently a bannable offence now! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for being a commentator

User_talk:NewtonGeek#Not_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia – They blocked NewtonGeek without warning for commenting here too much. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If a user is a regarded as a nuisance and banned by both the Wikipedia and the Wikipediocracy, chances are that such disparate sites agreeing on something means it was the right call to make. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that ArbCom should formally base its decisions about who to block or not to block on Wikipediocracy's decisions? Wnt (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly come to that assessment of what I said. It was simply a form of the old "if my opponent and I agree on something, it must be a good idea" axiom. e.g. if myself and an WP:ARS member voted the same way on an AfD. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept that and strike my response, but your reasoning is still fallacious. It's like saying that if the scientists and the astrologers both agree about global warming, it must be right. Wnt (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm FFS Wnt, my reasoning is not fallacious just because you extend it into a realm (science) where it was not intended to go. Stop with the damned pedantry. We're dealing with opinion here, and my original point was that two oft-times diametrically opposed opinion-holders agreeing that a particular user is a net negative...esp when each sides tend to value the type of user that the other bans/block...there may be something to it. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm saying ArbCom's opinion is --- or at least should be - far more valuable than that of a troll site run by a banned user with an agenda. You're yoking an ox and a partridge. Wnt (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Michaeldsuarez that this surprise indefinite block of an editor, based not on any offense, but solely on the overall statistic-count of his contributions, is unprecedented and unjustified by any policy. I understand that when a new contributor heads straight to ArbCom that there can be some suspicion that something untoward is going on; however, it is entirely possible, even likely, that a contributor who has done a great deal as an IP will register an account solely for the purpose of editing where an IP editor cannot. WP:AGF requires us to take that innocent-until-proven-guilty explanation seriously, unless WP:SPI can deliver tangible evidence of an other explanation. Risker's talk page comment makes it clear that the block is based solely on Newtongeek's choice of activities within Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPA's are routinely blocked if it is deemed that they are not here for any sort of constrictive constructive purpose. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do hope you meant constructive rather than constrictive :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Constructive commentaries on wiki-society and issues are just as helpful as any revision to an article. NewtonGeek's comments were meant to be helpful. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• WP:SPA and WP:HERE (which it references) are essays, not policy. But if we treated WP:HERE as policy, then its prohibition on use of SPA's for "social networking" describes "A primary focus on Wikipedia as a social networking space (resumes, MySpace type pages, etc.) (see WP:NOT#MYSPACE)." Risker makes a comparison to Twitter and Facebook on his talk page, and says that NewtonGeek is "treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website." So he appears to be attempting to enforce this particular term of WP:HERE. But the thing is, WP:HERE does not say that giving relevant commentary about an ArbCom case, within the ground rules, is "social networking"! It does not say that new editors must keep their "opinions" to themselves! So this block isn't based on policy, not even essay, it's just without any basis at all. Wnt (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. ArbCom had an opportunity, as involved administrators, to take this issue to WP:AN/I and seek uninvolved administrator opinion/action and have failed to do so. It might be common for SPA accounts to be blocked, but not by involved administrators. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That is about a tenuous of a stretch of the of-abused "involved admin" shtick that I have seen lately. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hardly. Risker is unequivocally involved. As I note below, is there some compelling reason he could not approach WP:AN/I with his concerns? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• You know what I consider this? I consider it a spectacularly bad case of biting the newbie. NewtonGeek and I disagreed on some things, but they weren't disruptive, and they seemed to me to be someone who was drawn to Wikipedia by this case, but would have stayed to edit. TERRIBLE BLOCK, Risker. Please undo that. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have read up on mythology, and know the ancients believed Minerva could spring fully-armed from the head of Jupiter. This does not mean, however, that when an editor springs forth fully-armed as a "newbie" into an ArbCom case, and acts conversant with Wikipedia jargon, that I quite accept that they are like Minerva, but I fear I quite agree with the concept that they likely have been here before. As a result, I quite understand Risker's block, and would be exceedingly surprised if there had not been discussions prior to the actual block. Placing a case like this at AN/I is about as drama-inducing as one could wish. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Drama inducing or no, that is what is supposed to be done. Risker's actions most definitely have introduced drama here. Avoidance of drama isn't a reason not to do the right thing, most especially since it didn't avoid drama here. If Newton is the SPA people claim him to be (frankly, I don't care) then getting a block via WP:AN/I should be a trivial matter. Yet, Risker made the abjectly poor decision to use his tools while involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I am willing to AGF that Risker did not intend to bite a newbie, and in fact, he might not have; but I also AGF that NewtonGeek was editing appropriately. Sure, he might be a "sockpuppet", or maybe a "meatpuppet" drawn in out of personal feelings, or any number of things. And ArbCom might be blocking him to suppress dissent, or out of favoritism for one side, or any number of things. People at the AN/I forum keep saying "WP:DUCK", but that should apply only when there is no plausible way to assume good faith - not simply because an allegation is potentially true. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Waste of time requires that users spend some time editing articles, but this policy is rarely enforced. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Is there any doubt that Risker's block is in violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest? Is there a compelling reason why he could not approach WP:AN/I with his concerns instead? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you have a winning issue with the conflict of interest, since Risker's "involvement" is as a neutral arbitrator. The block is simply wrong. It should be reversed, and if there is further disagreement, it should be argued from scratch at AN/I. Wnt (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quoting the policy, "Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved". Risker is involved. Look at this section above. Is there some compelling reason that Risker could not have instead approached WP:AN/I with his concerns? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Risker is not involved. But apart from that, let's not pretend that either of you two are advocati8ng honestly for this SPA; you're doing it because he has been generally Fae-supportive, as you are. If this guy was hot and riled to get Fae banned, making dozens upon dozens of posts to that effect, neither of you would be carping about it at all. Tarc (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please don't attribute emotions to me, thank you. I have no particular interest or lack of interest in Fae. I have a strong interest in the fairness of the process. An involved administrator blocking someone when they could have gone to WP:AN/I is just wrong. If there's no compelling reason to not go to WP:AN/I, the block is bad regardless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I disagree with this speculation about what I would have done, and I resent the suggestion that I would be giving my opinion other than honestly. I think that had an anti-Fae editor been blocked in this way I would also have commented; I have spoken in favor of a few abused newbies in the past without political context. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

I have opened an AN/I discussion regarding this matter. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This block is being discussed with the user on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What to do... and what to say

I've been thinking about this for some weeks. I do try and spend most of my time trying to fulfil the mission and I therefore I don't spend as much as time as I might on pages like this. I have spent hours reading who said what to whom and why this is secret and that is deleted, and why this person or that person has a COI. Obviously I havent even scraped the surface of this levantine creation. I've contemplated having a rant about this but I realise that those who believe in following the process will obviously follow the process.

I was thinking about what one should do when you see the court making a wrong decision. Should you argue that the accused should be given eighty years rather than life? We are short of editors. Can anybody say that if they were offered 1,000 editors like Fae then we'd ban them immediately to prevent damage to the project? I'd like you to ignore all rules, but I see that you won't. So, to amuse Fae, I'll tell you that the 7 June 1954 was a very sad day that saw the death of an imperfect and known criminal Victuallers (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ isn't being punished for being homosexual. He's being punished because ArbCom decided not to wait until they have all of the facts before voting to ban him. I hope ArbCom realizes that what they're doing is wrong. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing was persecuted because he'd broken the law - the court didnt consider ethics. I'm not suggesting that I want to take apart my metaphor word by word (thats what got us here in the first place). This is MY emotive reaction to what I see as a very unfortunate result for the project. I wasn't talking about the loss of Turing (or being gay) per se, but the loss of justice. Victuallers (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Victuallers. Thinking about Alan's life makes me deeply sad, nobody should ever be in a position where ending their life looks like a solution, particularly someone who had so much potential ahead of them. --Fæ (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting, but let's move this to a user talk page before it sidetracks even further please. NW (Talk) 19:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 Prof Copeland believes the alternative explanation made at the time by Turing's mother is equally likely. Turing had cyanide in his house for chemical experiments he conducted in his tiny spare room - the nightmare room he had dubbed it. He had been electrolysing solutions of the poison, and electroplating spoons with gold, a process that requires potassium cyanide. Although famed for his cerebral powers, Turing had also always shown an experimental bent, and these activities were not unusual for him. But Turing was careless, Prof Copeland argues. The electrolysis experiment was wired into the ceiling light socket. On another occasion, an experiment had resulted in severe electric shocks. And he was known for tasting chemicals to identify them. Perhaps he had accidentally put his apple into a puddle of cyanide. Or perhaps, more likely, he had accidentally inhaled cyanide vapours from the bubbling liquid. Prof Copeland notes that the nightmare room had a "strong smell" of cyanide after Turing's death; that inhalation leads to a slower death than ingestion; and that the distribution of the poison in Turing's organs was more consistent with inhalation than with ingestion. Sad either way, but... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion along the same lines about this issue here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And such discussion was rapidly closed. Perhaps not the policy sub page but village pump itself? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The closer had a fair point: if you're going to go to the policy pump, you should propose a solution, not just describe the problem. For example, do you want to modify WP:IAR or WP:BLOCK to say that an editor who has been doing good editing should not be banned because of bureaucratic issues? Wnt (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As those following the proposed decision know, I have opposed a siteban of Fae. (At the moment I am the only arbitrator to have done so.) Nonetheless, I find this analogy to be, to say the least, ill-founded and lacking in any sense of proportion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fae may well be a swell guy when interacting with his Wiki UK buddies in person, but his latest reply to Peter cohen’s legitimate concerns on the Signpost talk page shows that he hasn’t learned ANYTHING from the current dramafest he and he alone is responsible for. And Victuallers, sorry to disagree with you, but if given a choice between 1,000 users like Fae who was mainly doing bot edits, playing fast and loose with BLPs (Fae trying to use a streaming commercial porn video as a reliable source for Karrine Steffans’ BLP is not something he did in the distant past, but less than a year ago, after becoming a WMUK trustee) and shouting abuse at anyone who dared disagree with him, and 1,000 Peter cohens writing exquisitely-sourced articles and defending the neutrality of the project, I know which option I’d prefer. Fae should be ashamed for going after a genuinely valued content contributor like Peter Cohen, and he isn’t fooling anyone outside of his circle of WMUK friends. Banning Fae for his inexcusable behavior and general bellicose attitude toward good-faith editors should be a no-brainer, even for someone like you whom I can’t fault for wanting to express his loyalty toward a WMUK colleague, albeit in very unfortunate terms. Believe it or not, there are WP contributors who experience bereavement and manage to keep it to themselves without making their departed friends and family members pawns in their self-serving game. There are people on here who have happy unconventional sex lives without ever feeling compelled to overshare by posting pictorial evidence to Commons. There are editors like Peter cohen and Delicious carbuncle who consider sex workers and former sex workers fellow human beings worthy of the same kind of respect we should accord to every BLP subject (not that we always do, but that’s another story). Fae may be a nice enough person to share an office with, but apart from all the abuse he heaped on good-faith contributors who tried to hold him accountable for his actions, he has shown a fundamental level of disrespect for the people we should care about the most, whose WP biographies are likely to come up first in any web search for their names. Fae’s statement to the UK Parliament’s Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions was a masterclass in deception. Even you, Victuallers, as a loyal friend of Fae’s, should see that this person’s consistently self-serving and immature attitude is not helping your cause in any way whatsoever. Draco^E 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Peter Cohen is entitled to anything from Fae. I trust we're all aware of [13], where, after Fae gave general testimony to Parliament about how Wikipedia works, Peter Cohen followed up with pages and pages of written evidence about picayune concerns about the old accounts' supposed flaws in editing of articles and made a point to go on about the images Fae contributed that some have used so much to mock him. Peter Cohen wasn't just making publicity trouble for Fae; he seemed to be doing his level best to sabotage Wikipedia by encouraging intrusive legislation that would interfere with our operations. You people worry that Fae undermines ArbCom's authority by talking to a legitimate advocate for WMF, but ignore this? Wnt (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, really, this is getting painful. You're not doing yourself or Fae any favors here. Why don't you go and update your user page on Encyclopedia Dramatica with a nice rant about what you and your ED buddies refer to as "moralfagging"? Or even better, go and give NewtonGeek a pat on the back for superior trolling. You two seem to have a lot in common. Draco^E 02:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment from a Commons bureaucrat

Accusations thrown blindly is not something that applies to this case. Let's focus on what's actually on the PD. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This comment, on the talk page of Túrelio, the Commons admin who handled Silk Torc's request, by User:Russavia], a Commons bureaucrat (and an admin here), may be of interest: "Very well handled Hi Túrelio, I just wanted to say that you have handled yourself impeccably in the way that you handled the English Wikipedia Arbcom drama. Asking Fae for his permission to release details to a third-party demonstrates that you have the privacy of our editors at heart, and in mind, when dealing with such things. You may be interested to know that I have contacted enwp Arbcom on numerous occasions since an RfA on Fae on enwp with some non-private information and comments, and with an offer to provide confidential information (with the consent of those involved), and have reiterated this on numerous occasions. SilkTork's explanation of enwp Arbcom wanting to investigate harassment and the like on Fae doesn't stand up to scrutiny, when at no stage has any Arbcom member seen fit to contact myself to ask me about background and information I may be able to provide, and have offered to provide. This appears to be a case of enwp Arbcom going on a witch-hunt, and they have found their witch. And it appears to me that several of these Arbcom members have moved beyond expected norms and are treating this case to settle personal and wikipolitical scores. Beyond that, you should be commended for the way you have handled yourself. russavia (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)" Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not an admin here. He is, however, currently blocked for a year on en:WP. --JN466 23:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Not here but he is and Admin there. Count Iblis (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I never said Russavia wasn't an admin in Commons. But Johnbod said Russavia was an admin here, and he was obviously mistaken about that. --JN466 00:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, I was, I just looked at his user page, which doesn't mention the block, and links to his old RFA. I did remember seeing a case but didn't follow it. Apologies - struck above (I'm taking your word for it). Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've addressed the injustice done to Russavia previously; an editor attacked him for a "gay agenda" and told him to "fuck off" and received virtually no penalty, but Russavia was blocked for 13 months over a silly "Polandball" cartoon which I have yet to figure out what offensive quality it has apart from being a very poor attempt at comedy. The problem we have here is that as each editor in the gay-friendly faction is declared an unperson, their arguments are deemed invalid or indeed counted against those they support. In this regard the witch-hunt or McCarthyist comparison is justifiable. Wnt (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Wnt, your comment here could be read to carry the implication that administrators or arbitrators are deliberately singling out members of the "gay-friendly faction" for sanctions. Any such suggestion is false and is very highly offensive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I said no such thing. I can observe, however, that in the often-mentioned AN/I thread about Ash's referencing of some articles, that Benjiboi and Cirt were seen in support, and now all of them have suffered sanctions following disputes with Delicious carbuncle. In keeping with the ground rules here, I will avoid speculating about the motivations underlying this phenomenon, and observe only that as these editors, and Russavia, and others have been severely sanctioned, it seems increasingly difficult to find people who have supported these quite reasonable positions who are not subject to the same criticism that JN made that they are banned or otherwise disgraced editors. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) So in effect you won't come out and say that the underlying motivations are anti-gay, you'll just whistle nonchalantly as you walk by the neon "Here There Be Homophobes" signage pointing in your opponents' direction? Charming. Perhaps the more reasonable explanation is that their position wasn't all that reasonable after all. Tarc (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Just because several people have supported Fae's diligent work in organizing our information about gay adult films doesn't mean that, if they were targeted by someone, the reason for this targeting would be homophobia. For example, the reason could be that their opponents don't like the idea of Wikipedia delving deeply into the history of pornographic cinema, or many other things. I can't speculate here, and you should not do so on my behalf. Wnt (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC) If Fæ had been doing "diligent work in organizing our information about gay adult films", he and I would not have come into conflict over BLP concerns. There is work to be done in that area if anyone cares to do it. I would suggest that improving the sourcing on biographies of gay porn performers would be a good place to start. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Overreaction

Firstly, I'll state upfront that my point has nothing to do with Fæ's alleged sexuality or any reaction to it - ArbCom don't care, it's not actually material to the case, and I don't think we should either. The key is proportionate, "preventative not punitive" responses to situations that arise.

We narrowly escaped a desysopping of an impeccable admin with an unimpeachable 5½-year record on the Perth case, due solely to one arbitrator's principled stand and the unanimous opposition of the community - it took a great deal of effort by all concerned to convince three arbitrators ultimately to change their mind. With specific regard to the "banning" proposal in this case (I do not oppose the desysopping, and think it warranted in this instance), I ask ArbCom if their desire is to be seen as the 800-pound gorilla, called over to investigate a matter and stomping on all concerned, driving productive contributors away for comparatively minor infractions. Additionally, I'm concerned by some fairly insensitive and unprofessional cross-site behaviour by User:SilkTork in this case. ArbCom has already accepted that Fæ was harassed, and one of the other proposals rightly deals with and siteblocks one of those responsible. So what is to be served by banning Fæ, or dragging up stuff which is not central or material to the case? If we're looking to prevent future issues, interaction bans and removing adminship achieves that. Orderinchaos 08:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to strongly object to the intimation of Wnt implicit in this comment from the closed section above: "The problem we have here is that as each editor in the gay-friendly faction is declared an unperson, their arguments are deemed invalid or indeed counted against those they support." This is NOT about a "gay-friendly faction" against, it is implied, and "anti-gay faction." This is about a flawed RfA, lacking transparency, for a multiple account using or abusing individual who has STILL not identified all his accounts so that a determination as to the kosherness of the multiple account use may be determined. This person was subjected to an ED attack page by another party and multiple, arguably excessive, interrogative or accusatory threads off site by another party. The supreme lack of judgment in multiple instances by the main party in terms of BLP editing or graphics contributions comes into play in the flawed AfD, for sure, and with respect to the multiple accounts or socks used, perhaps. His sexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. Anyone who contends otherwise is playing the same accusatory games that the main party has used on multiple occasions with regard to his critics and owes opponents of the main party in this case an apology. Carrite (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the side issues, I'm interested in getting what I see as fundamentally an overreaction by ArbCom set aside. There are questions about his judgement as an admin and some of his actions - so he is losing the sysop bit. That's fair. Some who think he shouldn't have passed RfA in the first place (as Michael further down has done) put forward that that undoes what they saw as an injustice. I have no opinion on that, as I didn't vote in the RfA and his editing is in a very different area of the encyclopaedia to mine. There are also other penalities which address behaviour. The ban, IMO, doesn't, and is disproportionate. Orderinchaos 13:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronoun

Note the appropriate third person singular pronoun for Risker is she. Nobody Ent

Philippe

Did Philippe ever responded to Fæ's statement? I'm not sure if he did so in private. I don't believe that this case should be closed without a response from Philippe. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think wisely he is staying away from this cesspit. Anything he needs to say will have already been said to the arbs. And if he feels the need to clarify anything, he can do that directly with them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) He has not responded publicly yet. Is there a "don't" or "not" missing in "I believe that this case should be closed without a response from Philippe"? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks the case should not be closed without a public clarification from him. Obviously the case as a whole has been dragging on for ages and everyone is sick of it, but this episode only happened less than a week ago, and has been dealt with in great haste, without any public evidence from those directly involved except for Fae's statement. Johnbod (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Fixed. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck on that one, Michael. I could never get him to post publicly after asking me and TCO to keep quiet about efforts to get JSTOR (most of which work TCO had already done), how he so badly fumbled the snap on that with the result that WMF still hasn't gotten JSTOR for editors. He ignored my emails until I posted publicly on his page asking for permission to publish his emails, then he--emailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators and evidence: Phillipe's silence means Fae is uncontroverted

If Phillipe does not respond, than the fair thing would be to take his silence as agreement with Fae's version. Not optimal, in my opinion, but given that Fae has said that he sent his version to Phillipe before posting here and Phillipe has apparently not responded to requests, including my own, to see if there is in fact any discrepancy, than that's where this arbitration is. It can be understood why Phillipe would not wish to become involved any further when a "true" and "full" version is already in the record. Whether or not deeming Fae's version changes the arbitrators' rationales, they should still address the current state of the evidence in them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. "Silence == consent" has never been a fundamentally sound principle, either in wiki-relity or in real life. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an "ancient maxim of the law", in Thomas More's reputed word's, so it has been found sound to many; but mine is a more narrow point on the present state of the evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

However, Silence does equal uncontroverted, at least publicly. And if he will only contest it privately, that is suspicious in and of itself.LedRush (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Are better outcomes available?

I'd like to take this opportunity to address ArbCom directly. I will say up front that I'm a trustee of Wikimedia UK, and so my perspective is influenced by having observed Fae performing the role of Chair of the Board with skill and diligence, and you will understand that I don't recognise the picture painted of Fae in this ArbCom case at all. I am dismayed at the course that the case has taken over the last week and would like to explore with you the possibility of seeking better outcomes.

Let me outline my understanding of the scenario, which I accept may not fit with you own interpretation. As I understand it, one of the principal issues is that Fae does not want to publicly disclose his previous accounts. As an openly gay man, he has been the subject of considerable harassment on-wiki, and I suspect that his past accounts would contain more ammunition for the homophobes to bash him with, rather than anything that deserves sanction. I think we can agree he has been the subject of attacks, and I believe that he finds them hurtful - perhaps you are willing to concede that?

You have a motion requiring him to publicly link on his user page all previous accounts, and he has found himself in more trouble by discussing with Philippe how he could avoid making these other accounts public. I think he was mistaken to have that conversation with Philippe, but I do understand how concerned he was about his privacy, and perhaps you might be able to sympathise with that to some extent?

You clearly feel his previous accounts should be subject to scrutiny, but I must ask why you feel it necessary that the scrutiny should be public - given his very real concerns about providing more material for his attackers to use? I would like to suggest that Fae might be allowed to disclose his previous accounts privately to a mutually-agreed, respected member of the community, who would be willing to examine them for evidence of problems and make an assurance to ArbCom if he/she thought the accounts were "clean" - or disclose any relevant problems that might be found. I would hope that I could ask one of our Bureaucrats to help out in that way if such a course of action were allowed.

I should also like to echo Brad's contention that properly crafted restrictions would be much more likely to produce better outcomes for an editor who actually has a decent track record of gnomish work and vandal-fighting. If it is any help in considering any clemency you would be willing to show, I would be happy to give you my guarantee that I am prepared to help Fae with any problems; to lend my ear when he feels frustrated; and to give him whatever counsel I can to ensure he can once more contribute constructively to the English Wikipedia at the earliest opportunity.

I am grateful for any consideration you are willing to give to my suggestions here. Respectfully, --RexxS (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would contend that Fae was not harassed, but I would like to clarify something for you. A lot of the demonstrated negative behavior on Fae's part appears to be that they (respecting Fae's pronoun wishes) seem to have felt (and/or been) so harassed that they responded to legitimate criticism as if it too were homophobic harassment. I believe the current findings of fact support this. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't harass Fæ. Displaying information isn't harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Moral sentiment

MichaelSuarrez posted free images likely to embarrass another editor on a webpage.

He did this to Fæ, an editor who had argued vigorously for including a barely-reliable embarrassing nickname in a Wikipedia BLP, despite obvious discomfort to the subject. I'm not sure about the details of the image of a presumed prostitute, but it seems to involve the same degree of moral blindness or lack of concern.

So we have two acts that are qualitatively equivalent - something the subjects made public that they later regretted; and an editor decides to put it on a web page.

We post humiliating, shameful, embarrassing things in barely notable people's BLPs all the time here, so I understand the committee isn't going to even mention such behaviour on Fæ's part in its findings. I'm struggling with the committee's apparent hypocrisy, though, in banning one editor for behaviour that it does not even see fit to mention when the target is a BLP subject in a Wikipedia article.

Of course Michael's purpose was educational. He was teaching Fæ empathy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated, I was considering adding a proposed BLP-related finding and remedy to the decision, and have refrained only because a siteban is already passing. The need for all contributors to be sensitive to BLP and related issues in all of their contributions is a fundamental precept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the Karrine Steffans edit, linking to a commercial porn site displaying a clip from a video of her having sex – a video published without her consent – alone deserves a finding of fact. This is not how BLPs should be sourced. I see no reference to that edit, or earlier BLP edits using similar sourcing, in Fæ's apology. This gutter edit alone encapsulates what is wrong with Wikimedia. It is the single most appalling BLP edit – and defence of an edit – I have ever seen. And it was made by someone who a few months later told parliament, in Wikimedia's name, that Wikipedia has an effective BLP policy.

Everyone from Wikimedia UK here who is defending Fæ out of friendship, I would like you to ponder that one. Fæ is a nice chap, absolutely ... and his online behaviour sucks, and lacks responsible judgment in too many ways to count. Unfortunately, Wikimedia is all about material made available online. — I am sorry, Fæ. JN466 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I should note here that Fæ said he was sorry about the Steffans edit yesterday, on SilkTork's talk page. [14] I was unaware of that when I wrote the above; I have only just gotten round to catching up with posts there. --JN466 17:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should have had a FOF but it fell through the cracks. (It received hardly any weight on the evidence page and only passing reference on the PD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Davies (talk • contribs) 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) So this is the difference in reality we're dealing with here. The main problem I have with Fæ's behaviour is his apparent lack of concern for the feelings of article and image subjects. Sure, he should have resigned his adminship as soon as it became clear that he had misled his RfA—that he didn't immediately see the appropriateness of resigning then is worrying. Claiming that any criticism is harassment, and implying his critics are just homophobic is very problematical behaviour. Approaching Philippe seems to have been inappropriate. But these are nothing compared with fighting to include a trivial but embarrassing and humiliating nickname in a BLP despite the obvious distress it would cause the subject (never mind the very poor quality of the sources he was using). I can't speak for them of course, but a can say with some confidence that this is the problem Jayen, Michael and DC have with him too. That is, the core problem with Fæ for me and these editors is his seeming unconcern for the feelings of our subjects, for the real impact our choices have of the lives of others.

Thank you for considering adding a finding about Fae's editing of BLP content, but I disagree with your implication that it would be pointless. By the committee effectively ignoring the core issue, you (pl.) have missed an opportunity to correct Fæ's understanding on this crucial point, and demonstrate that you seem to have missed what this whole thing was about. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony, when someone violates BLP, it needs to have a finding, as it is one of the most serious, real-world-effecting, violations that a WP editor can commit. Cla68 (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Can something positive be wrung from this unpleasant episode?

Images posted on Commons by accounts controlled by Fæ played a small but important part in this case and their reposting on another site lead to ArbCom's decision to ban Michaeldsuarez. Fæ posted those images himself, gave permission for them to be used, and, in most cases, added them to Wikipedia articles. When others made the connection between Fæ's real life identity and those images, they became a source of embarrassment. Fæ was able to have those images deleted out-of-process because of his position in the community and his relationships with Commons admins. Further to that, Fæ was able to have other images deleted and replaced with nearly identical versions so that the connections to a now-closed Flickr account were obscured.

Imagine if the uploader had not had the connections that Fæ did. Their images would more than likely still be on Commons. Take, for example, File:Peyronie's disease shown in flaccid penis.jpg. The uploader asked that the image be deleted, but the image remains on Commons even though we know the person pictured does not wish it to be there. Perhaps someone has made the connection between the real life identity of this person and their username and they find themselves in the same situation as Fæ.

I know that Wikipedia has no control over what happens on Commons, but editors here are often involved there as well. I feel strongly that all editors should be given the same ability as Fæ to remove images that they have uploaded to Commons upon request. This does not mean that the license changes, only that Commons will not longer host the image. This may be inconvenient for projects that use Commons images, but I do not expect that this will happen frequently. I will leave it to others to argue about the qualifiers added to this, but we should not have a situation where someone comes to Commons saying that an image they uploaded is being used to harass them and are told "Sorry. You should have thought of that before you uploaded it". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(Commenting on the general issue and not any particular instance.) Although I have no role or participation on Commons, I agree with the thrust of this comment. Wikipedia (both En and Commons) is far too dogmatic sometimes in enforcing the precept that "once you've licensed it and uploaded it, it's ours and may never be removed." This is particularly true in the case of files that aren't even being used in articles, and where the uploader or subject of a file has come to the belated realization that privacy issues are involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Irresponsible dodging of obligations

It is your responsibility as elected officials to cast your votes, or at least note that you are choosing not to cast your votes. 11 of you have voted somewhere on this page, however, Pri 12, FoF 5, FoF 10, FoF 10.1, Rem 2, Rem 6, Rem 7, Rem 7.2, Rem 7.3, and Rem 8.1 are all failing not due to expressed "no," votes, but rather due to pocket "no" votes (members voting "present" are counted as voting no, not as voting abstain). Further, Elen of the Roads, who is listed as "active" on the case, and is active on wikipedia, has yet to vote, and could be the deciding factor - alone - on Pri 12, FoF 10.1, Rem 2, Rem 6 and Rem 8.1. How is it even remotely responsible to move to close this case at this time? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC) PD page link at time of above comment for math checkers - [15] Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, I'm getting off the fence. Damn hard though....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Members of ArbCom that are considered active on cases routinely avoid voting on specific elements of a case, and even sometimes entire cases. Right or wrong, that's the norm. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I'm calling it out, because the obligation to vote, especially if your vote counts, is a primary obligation of elected officials. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fully agree with you. However, it is not at all uncommon in the "real" world for elected officials to be absent from voting. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Absolutely true. For example, when a congressperson in the US misses a large percentage of votes, it is noted, as I'm doing here. When a congressperson declines to vote and votes "present," they often write big pr pieces about why. I am merely asking why Ellen has not moved to "not active," and those who have voted "present," which is, in effect "no," are doing so. I'm not alleging malfeasance, just a failure to fulfill the standard obligation of elected - to vote. The redress that editors can seek is merely to vote against absentee arbiters. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is far from the most egregious lack of participation we have here. Not saying that it being mild by comparison makes it ok of course. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I make it that we're down to FoF 5 and 5.1 being in the air and that, if everyone piled in, Remedy 3.3 could be voted up above 3.1. Otherwise everything is determined unless people take back votes that are already cast.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Remedy 3.3 now has it and it would need people to change their votes to alter things. That leaves FoF 5 and 5.1 as the only motions whose results could be changed if more people voted.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Even in an apology you are incapable of actually learning from what has been said over and over again by your critics. 'Misunderstood legitimate sock accounts' is far from being a truthful and accurate description of the facts. 'I'm sorry for my actions, I wont do it again' is an apology. 'I'm sorry but the bad people made me do it!' is self-justification. No matter how you dress it up in flowery speech. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I see both 'I'm sorry for my actions, I wont do it again' and 'I'm sorry but the bad people made me do it!', which is legitimate, IMHO, seeing as the level of harrassment that Fae has endured. As one of the aggrieved parties who has been highly critical of Fae, I accept his apology.LedRush (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuance of case

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=503289368&oldid=503288410 – Can the Arbitrators please consider allowing this case to continue to order to discuss this new remedy and Fæ's apology? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I concur. However, ArbCom's structure as this point prevents this from happening. Unless the clerks receive specific instruction not to close the case, there is a 7-0 vote to close the case. There has been a net 4 support votes to close the case now for about eight hours, and we're heading into a weekend. I think it unlikely that Remedy 5.1 (let's hope the arbitrators don't change the numbering in the middle of a case, yet again) is going to be fully considered. At a minimum, when an arbitrator proposes a new remedy (and possibly a FoF or Principle), the votes to close should be invalidated until the arbitrators who have voted to close have had an opportunity to review the new remedy. But, ArbCom doesn't work that way. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I do find it confusing that new motions are being adding without their proposers voting for a delay in closure to allow the motions to be voted on. But at least this drama is drawing to its close.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

At least one arbitrator changed his stance on the closing. At least three others, myself included, reiterated our belief that continuing the closing was the more appropriate response to the new proposals. Feel free to ask any of the individual arbitrators who took either stance for our reasoning in doing so. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Roger did vote for a delay after my post you are replying to. This means that my confusion has been removed. What I find peculiar with respect to a vote involving you is how a non-vote is not equivalent to abstention. On FoF 5.0 you have indicated in a comment that you didn't support it initially because the examples selected aren't appropriate. In saying that you might have been inclined to abstain or to vote against in the absence of a rewording. Now the voting has reached 6-4 with 12 active arbs, things have reached the stage that if you now materialise your comment into an abstention it passes the motion which strikes me as rather odd. Similarly if an Arb knows that they are going into hospital for a while and informs the list that they will be inactive, that will work out effectively as equivalent to their abstaining on future cases, whilst if they are hit by a car and end up in hospital for a similar length of time with the list not being aware, that counts as a non-vote.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right Peter, in understanding the effectual distinction between an abstention and not voting. However, I think you slightly misunderstand why saying "I abstain" has the effect it does. An abstention is an affirmative statement that an otherwise active arb will not vote on a question. It's not the same as not voting, but literally "I have decided that I don't want to choose a side/position". So, in your example with the hospital-stay, the first arb made the active decision to abstain while the latter (who was a no-vote) could have abstained...or supported...or opposed. We just don't know. So, unless an arb makes the call to 'be out', we should give them the chance to cast their vote. Otherwise, a reading that a no-vote should cause the same thing as an abstention could (theoretically) lead to the passing of a finding that only a few arbs support, but no one else has commented on.

At least... that's my understanding of the distinction. :) Lord Roem (talk) 04:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So, I guess a more concise answer is this: Roger's comment didn't stick him to any particular point of view, so characterizing it as an abstention, and thus changing the necessary majority, wouldn't be appropriate. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The way votes are currently tallied, a majority of active arbitrators must support an element for that element to pass. "Active" excludes inactive, recused, or abstaining. Thus, an arbitrator who opposes and an arbitrator who doesn't vote at all have the same net effect on voting, except in certain tiebreaking situations, and obviously since opposing arbitrators often make comments that non-voting arbitrators do not. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding: "Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ"

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Delicious_carbuncle_posted_identifying_information_on_F.C3.A6 – I agree with Jclemens. The finding should be reworded or an alternative should be proposed. I argued against similar proposals at the workshop: [16], [17]. As I've stated there, such a finding would've made exposing Essjay's deception a policy violation, since the smoking gun was a Wikia userpage, not a Wikipedia userpage. Ironically, since the finding says "Wikipedia" and not "Wikimedia", it means that SilkTorn shouldn't had been snooping around Commons. Adopting this finding as it is now will have terrible consequences and prevent accountability. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#27_January_2012 – In addition, Fluttershy would never had been exposed as a sockpuppet of a vandal if it weren't for information disclosed outside of Wikipedia. Some sockpuppets are clever enough not to leave enough on-wiki evidence for a SPI. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the proposed finding, this revision by SirFozzie would be considered a WP:Outing violation since Fæ didn't disclose those accounts on-wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So that's how it's going to be

So, as usual, the concerns of multiple members of the community are going to be ignored and the case will be closed in an attempt to stop rightful concerns and criticisms of the case from being voiced. And, somewhat surprisingly, the case is also going to be closed without, apparently, a real attempt to get all the information on what happened and to have remedies be voted on impulsively because of a "we have the power and no one can go against that" scenario. Silverseren^C 00:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it, even though you're horribly wrong. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Arbcom's vow of transparency about case proceedings? Silverseren^C 01:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, we are as transparent as we can be and try to balance privacy issues, without making many of these situations even more upsetting, ugly, and stressful. SilverSeren - SirFozzie is right. Posts which generalise like this are unhelpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it will be hard to convinvingly claim that Silk Tork wasn't trying to make "a real attempt to get all the information on what happened" but he got criticised for that too.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do any of the non-party, non-arbitrators have a right to expect "all the information on what happened"? Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Slight correction, the parties do not have "all the information on what happened", as I made clear in my statement above. --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you're sort of describing what Arbcom's purpose is: To resolve conduct problems the community has been unable to resolve by discussion. Usually it's that both sides have enough community members that it isn't possible to establish a clear consensus as to what should be done or, even if there is a consensus, some people refuse to admit it has reached a conclusion and seek to continue debate. All the votes have been done publicly (well, except for the one concerning Fae's complaint about one of my edits to the case, but I'm willing to let that one go) and if the Arbs are satisfied they have enough information to stop the disruption, that's really all that matters. MBisanz ^talk 15:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Fæ

Can I just say that I believe it is appropriate that Fæ lose their admin tools because we expect admins to exercise good moral judgement. By moral judgement I mean awareness of and concern for the feelings of others, and ethical discernment. I have heard them say they regret persisting with the Karrine Steffans edit, but nothing about the hurt such an edit would cause our subject. And there is no acknowledgement that they should have handed in their admin tools when it became clear that they had misled the community at their RfA.

But people seem to like them and they seem not to be an idiot and may be doing valuable work elsewhere on the project that I haven't heard about, so I can't endorse the ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"Last-ditch effort to avoid sanction"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Proposed_decision&diff=503326226&oldid=503325575 – I don't believe that it's appropriate for an Arbitrator to question Fæ sincerity.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision#Statement:

[…] or by asking Arbcom to amend the wording of the related proposal in the case against me requiring that all past accounts are publicly listed, permanently, on my user talk page without regard for an expectation of privacy.

It's unfortunate how ArbCom didn't see the flaw with Remedy 3.1 until there were already enough votes to close the case. I'm not sure if Fæ complained about the proposed remedy to ArbCom prior to speaking to Philippe and Túrelio. That remedy probably caused Fæ to believe that ArbCom didn't care about his privacy.

I don't believe that Fæ should be banned. Retiring his sysop rights in order to finally settle the RfA with undisclosed accounts issue was enough in my opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

They very clearly don't care about his privacy, and several have said they don't believe his concerns there are real, which is remarkably insensitive given the evidence they already have. The attempt (whoever suggested it) to further explain his concerns to the committee in confidence was immediately interpreted as an attempt to "subvert" or "suborn" the committee, and provoked the ban that is now passing. Johnbod (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's ironic coming from an officer of WMUK when your committee seems to have just such a close-minded attitude when other people raise their concerns. If WMUK had acted more responsibly when concerns were first raised about Fae, then he might have issued his apology months ago and Arbcom would not have had to hear this case.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

John is a trustee, not an officer. If you would prefer the Chief Executive to publicly publish the correspondence between yourself and the Chapter, please let him know. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fae appears to do a huge amount of good work on- and offline; let's not see him banned, enough punishment already, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that all users need to be formally warned not to post any information to Wikipedia that they do not wish to be permanently and publicly associated with their real name, and to understand that any use of alternate accounts, IPs, etc. to present photos on delicate matters, such as sexually charged topics, will not be respected. Despite prior representations to the contrary, there is no privacy here. ArbCom should consider in the future requiring those going before it to turn over passwords to their Facebook accounts to facilitate investigations - it's what all the bosses are doing to their employees nowadays. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

s/to Wikipedia/anywhere on the Internet./ That part is basic and common knowledge, and has been for years. The rest of the hyperbole can be safely ignored. Cheers, Jclemens-public (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Full revelation before conclusion

This case should not be closed until Fae reveals ALL accounts that he has used on En-WP. What I am seeing is a lot of stonewalling on the provision of this information. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I assume that Fae's ban won't be lifted until he reveals all his accounts. Cla68 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You will note that in my apology, I stated "since at least October 2010 I have only used my main account and my declared doppelgänger account Faelig and bot account Faebot". The one account I am concerned about is a legitimate sock account created for privacy reasons that has not been used since well before that date, and a long time before my Wikipedia RFA started. If Arbcom make it an official condition, that to contribute to the Wikimedia movement I must now publicly associate a previously anonymous part of my gay life against my full legal name and capacity as a charity trustee, then I am prepared to do that. It will provide a useful case study on how Wikimedia handles privacy issues, especially for other LGBT editors with a personal life dependent on internet social websites where it becomes impossible to remove personal information about yourself and your life years later, even if the accounts and websites are long since deleted. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"with a personal life dependent on internet social websites"? I am completely befuddled. Bielle (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Many LGBT folks manage their social networks on gay.com, gaydar, grindr etc. This does not mean they are happy to see what they put on those sites, often with an expectation of anonymity, publicly associated with their full legal name and those of their employers, friends and family. Fæ (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise. However, remedy 3.3.3.3, added yesterday and passing, looks like it was designed to address that concern. JN466 17:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still bewildered as to how anyone (and this has nothing to do with LGBT) can have a social life dependent on an anonymous web site. Anyway, likely off-topic. Bielle (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Grindr. In a nutshell, it is for gay men with anonymous profiles, finding each other locally, to chat online and often arranging to meet up in real life. Sometimes for just making local gay friends, mostly for anonymous local no-strings-attached adult activities.

It is of course, in this general area about a matter relating to my gay life and information on Wikimedia Commons (not Wikipedia) that I had a private and confidential 5 minute personal and informal chat with Philippe last week with no particular action in mind, and he proposed he take the initiative to have a confidential discussion with Risker (not my idea), while assuring me, several times, of confidentiality, as I mentioned in my statement above. Sadly, this has directly resulted in Arbcom finding it necessary to indefinitely ban me, as before Philippe's apparent action, nothing so severe was under consideration. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I say this with profound sadness, but I believe the Arbitrators when they say that Philippe has repeatedly made it clear to them that what you just said about it being his proposal is untrue. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall the 5 minute conversation perfectly well. I don't know Risker, so I would never have suggested approaching her. In fact I determinedly avoided any Arbcom members at Wikimania as more than one of my fellow attendees can verify. I did not ask Philippe to take any action, his approach to Risker was his proposal which I initially disagreed with as I thought it was a bad idea. I have no idea what has been said to Arbcom or by who, as I have not had the privilege of having that shared with me, so I can only relate the facts of my informal conversation. I realise that Arbcom has said I am lying, but what else can I do but repeat these basic facts? Philippe did not disagree with my summary by email, or suggest any corrections, as sent several days ago and copied to the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. I remain perplexed as to what Arbcom has been told that varies to my account. Fæ (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I prefer to believe what Fae says he said over what Sir Fozzie says the strangely silent Risker says the strangely silent Philippe (with the WMF breathing down his neck) says Fae said. But then I know Fae but not the others. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the Arbs would do themselves a favor by responding to those concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Prohibited

My apologies if this has been addressed above. (I haven't been online for several days and am just now reading this.)

But I have to agree with Risker (proposed principles #5) that the word "prohibited" should not be used for anything which Wikipedians may accept under certain circumstances, or to which IAR may apply.

We tend to use "should be avoided" in policy. If there is a better way to phrase it, I'm all ears.

But as the reading of the text of an individual's comments can be subjective, creating a false "black and white" dichotomy is a VERY bad idea imo.

The word "prohibited" should only be used for very clearly defined things like copyright policy. Not broad, potentially vague things like NPA.

Yes, YMMV on this, but that in itself is the inherent problem.

My apologies for the quote, but using the word "prohibited" towards subjective interpretation of editors' comments in this way is one step towards "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". And is a step towards stifling open discussion/debate. And I say this as someone who strongly supports Wikiquette.

With all this (and more) in mind, I request beg Arbcom to please remove the word "prohibited". - jc37 17:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps ArbCom cases need a "Workshop with Arbitrators heavily involved" phase in between the "Workshop with Arbitrators barely involved" phase and the "Proposed decision" phase. This case is almost over and there are still flaws. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Going forward

I want to point something out, by way of what might perhaps be learned from this case going forward. This isn't about Fae or about the details of the case, but rather about the bigger picture. I think everyone should read what SilkTork said in Principle 14, about feuding and about correcting mistakes, because that gets it exactly right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but then you have to wonder why ArbCom itself choses to violate the spirit of that very principle by imposing a site ban based on issues that have nothing to do with being able to edit Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Au contraire - I was sat in the middle of the row conducted entirely onwiki, where Fae was accusing an editor who is an out gay man of homophobia because he disagreed with Fae. When it gets to that point, it has a significant effect on being able to edit Wikipedia. I sympathise with Fae, because in his earlier incarnation as an editor he did a few stupid things that came back to haunt him very badly. But his later attempts to intimidate people on wiki, to keep the stupid stuff under wraps, affected the project. A bit more dignity and honesty a la Michael Portillo and it would never have come to this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the bit in the green box? What more are you looking for? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Privacy

I thought the privacy discussion above about how Arbcom has not taken up Fae's offer of telling them about his other accounts privately is interesting. It would seem to me that there are very obvious parallels between that and how Arbcom refused to respond to NewtonGeek's question on whether there would be privacy on the matter that was being discussed. (Apologies to Fae for not focusing on you, but I feel like this needs to be discussed.) Of course, at least some of NG's privacy was already given away by Secretlondon way back when at the Factseducado SPI event. Now, it can't be confirmed whether the bureaucrat NG was in contact with was Secretlondon, but it can be highly assumed. Especially considering that, when asked by the bureaucrat whether certain information could be revealed in the SPI, NG said no, but then suddenly Secretlondon is at the SPI revealing said info anyways. Nice bureaucrats we have here.

Onto the current events regarding NG. It seems that because of the past information leak regarding NG and Factseducado, members of Wikipediocracy found out the real identity of NG and Factseducado (in part thanks to Jayen, though Elen fixed the leak Jayen had purposefully made). Soon after, spam emails started arriving, computer viruses, and worse computer issues began happening, not to mention continued discussion on Wikipediocracy about NG's real identity. Thus, for the past few weeks, NG has been in email contact with Arbcom about the issues in relation to WO members and the continued referencing of personal information on Wikipediocracy (mostly because of Kohs and HRIP7).

Now, as for the block. The reasons are interesting. Trolling is the main one given, primarily because NG was advised to stop commenting on the Fae case, considering the involvement of certain Wikipediocracy members that then have a negative involvement with NG. But NG didn't stop commenting and NG didn't have to. There's no rule for that and Arbcom could have quite easily just kicked NG out of the talk page if they wanted to. Instead, they indefinitely blocked NG. Now, ignoring the block reason and all the stuff before it became an Arbcom block, that's all a sideshow, why exactly was NG blocked? Because "trolling" definitely doesn't fall under Arbcom block standards. I'm sure someone will bring up checkuser data, as was commented on at the ANI discussion. But this must be wrong! Because the results of a checkuser are already well know, in fact, that is related to the private information that was leaked. The relationship between NewtonGeek and Factseducado are well, well known and were already discussed far in the past. So what checkuser data could there possibly be? If there was socking issues, that would have been pointed out, but it wasn't.

So, what exactly is the background for such a block? "Trolling and competency"? As has been pointed out by multiple users, NG was one of the most coherent commenters on this talk page, making very pointed and accurate comments. And, regardless, neither of the listed reasons fall under an Arbcom block at all, so it should be up to the community on whether the block is kept. So what really is going on here? Silverseren^C 22:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Very simply ArbCom have gradually come to the habit of exceeding their authority. They have also been, as a group, failing to adhere to the policies of WIkipedia, the basic standards of human decency, and principles of modern civil society. Adding in failures relating to process, competence and a history of severe problems going back to Mantemoreland, leaked information, illegal activities by ArbCom members and so forth the communities faith in ArbCom is waning. Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

Small note

On top of the page it says "For this case, there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 2 who are recused, so 7 support votes are a majority."

But then in the little table at the bottom where all the votes are summarized it has "Delicious carbuncle banned 6 6" with a check. Since all 12 arbs voted here and 7 is the majority, this one should be a big red X.VolunteerMarek 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The implementation notes get messed up when the casenav/data for the case in question is removed. So, ignore those notes. The final decision is posted on the main case page. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)