Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

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

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Arbitrator Questions to Parties

This is generally aimed at people involved in this dispute. Please create your own sub-section underneath this section, with your answers to my questions. I do request that you only reply to me, not to other people's comments. The evidence page is not as easily set up for the back and forth that replying to others views (like a RfC) would require. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A) A common phrase we apply to accusations are that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claims such as accusing other users of being homophobic, or that another user is promoting a video showing activity judged as illegal in just about all jurisidctions as obscene fall under this clause, as they tend to lead to heated debate, battleground behavior and detract from a collegial atmosphere.

Question A) Have such extraordinary claims been made and if so.. have they been substantiated to the point that Wikipedia requires?

B) One of Wikipedia's policies forbids outing or harassment. One of the defenses against charges of outing or harassment is using a person's self disclosure. For example, if User X: posts "I am Joe Shlobotnick", saying "User X has previously identified himself as Joe Shlobotnick" with a link is neither outing, nor harassment.

Question B)What level of the criticism aimed at the parties in this case has been due to self-disclosure that would therefore have a higher burden of proof of being outing or harassment?"

C) One of the reasons the previous case was declined was that preliminary dispute resolution hadn't been done in the dispute. Since then, we have a Wikiquette Alert and (prior to the previous case request and this one) a Request For Comment on the direct parties. Wikipedia policies expect users to participate in dispute resolution, to answer concerns other users may have on their behavior.

Question C) Users are expected to behave in a way compatible with Wikipedia's norms and policies. One of these is to participate in Wikipedia dispute resolution when requested. Have the involved parties complied with this policy?

D) One of the problems we face in this case is that some of the users making these alleged attacks do not fall under the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction, as they do not participate on Wikipedia, either by choice or by having been formally restricted from editing Wikipedia. However, just because a user is feeling attacked by people they can not seek redress from, does not mean every person who questions their behavior should be considered as illegitimate, no matter how difficult that may seem in practice. How much extra care must be given to separate those with legitimate concerns from those that are just personal attacks? Do we grant extra leeway to users who are under such attack, and if so, how much?

Question D)How much leeway do we give users who are being significantly harassed by offsite users.. who do not participate on Wikipedia, either by choice or by having been banned from participation on Wikipedia (specifically where they are frustrated and fail to differentiate between those who are personally attacking them, and those with legitimate concerns)?

E) One of the issues raised in this case is differing views on the culpability of people who participate in an off-wiki criticism site, but do not necessarily directly participate in activity that may be considered in violation of this policy. Please note, there is no policy forbidding such participation in criticism sites, even if such sites DO have members (who do not participate on Wikipedia for whatever reason) whose actions would violate Wikipedia's policies IF they were on Wikipedia (see the failed policy Wikipedia:Attack sites)

Question E) Does mere participation in a site where violations of Wikipedia policy count as contributing to outing or harassment? Does participating in a forum thread where outing or harassment happen count as contributing?

F) In a recent finding, the Committee determined that a user was to be sanctioned because he had , persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?"). An example of this is "People A and B are members of the same group. Person A has committed personal attacks on me. Person B is a member of the same group, so obviously they feel the same". (Or in other words, they comment on the editor, not the edits)

Question F)Have the involved parties in this case attempted to use affiliations of other users as a platform to dismiss or discredit their views?

Reply to questions by User:MBisanz

A: I believe such extraordinary claims have been made by Fæ on several occasions. Cla68's evidence demonstrates what appears to be an appropriate sampling. I do not believe they have all been substantiated to the point that Wikipedia requires. I believe that some persons have commented in a negative light on Fæ's sexual orientation. I am not certain if they have done so on Wikipedia or in other forums as I see that other editors have researched that aspect of Fæ's conduct in greater detail. I believe that Fæ has used those specific attacks by specific individuals as grounds to broadly respond to those who generally question his on-wiki conduct in a manner designed to avoid responsibility for that conduct.

B: This question is unclear to me because it seems to have a slightly odd sentence structure. Responding more broadly, Fæ has used multiple accounts in his editing career and, as Fæ, has plainly disclosed his real-life identity on Wikimedia Foundation websites. I believe that Fæ does not understand that the intent of the outing policy is to prevent someone from introducing a person's real life identity into the publicly-available Wikimedia universe, when it is otherwise not known in that universe. Once a person self-discloses their identity under one account name, the intent of the policy no longer applies. Also, when a person has multiple accounts and discloses information under one account, it is permissible to link that information to the other accounts, as again, the intent of the outing policy is not implicated. The outing policy is not designed to permit individuals to retain personas or other artificial divisions in their existence. It is designed to prevent the involuntary introduction of personal information to the Wikimedia universe. Once a person self-discloses, the cat is out of the bag forever. I do not believe I have claimed outing or harassment in connection with my self-disclosure.

C: I believe I have substantially complied with this policy. I have responded in all dispute resolution forums and expressed a willingness to participate in a variety of locations. I do not believe Fæ has complied with the policy. When I edited his RFC, he covertly contacted me in a manner designed to discourage my participation in that dispute resolution forum. He never commented at the RFC or participated publicly with others in that process. At the earlier RFAR I initiated and at WQA, he refused to continue engagement, citing the non-existent involvement of WMUK. When I brought up the signature issue at his userpage, he refused to address it and instructed me to not contact him again. When another user brought an AFD to his userpage regarding an article he wrote, he told that user to not inform him as it was harassment. When I registered an account on an external forum to discuss my cable bill, he made a post impugning my character and then blanked it, preventing me from responding. He has shown a complete unwillingness to engage with those who question his conduct.

D: I believe that we give them the leeway of assisting in preventing the introduction of that harassment through the blocking of sockpuppets, rev-del of comments, and understanding that their comments regarding those offsite users might be colored by the harassment. I believe that leeway ends when they fail to differentiate between those actually attack them off-site and those who raise valid concerns. If a person is so stricken because of off-site attacks that they can no longer properly respond to on-site comments, they need to re-evaluate their participation, as the community cannot accommodate them, given its structure.

E: No, mere participation in a site is not a violation as that is guilt by association. Wikipedians are real life persons who engage in any number of groups and activities. Attributing all aspects of those groups to the individual leads to a bizarre and untenable result. Participating in a thread is a slightly different context. I do not believe that mere participation in a thread is a violation. I believe that it becomes a violation when that participation is designed to achieve results that would be a violation on-wiki. For example, stating to a non-editor in a thread "I hope you keep calling her employer until you get her fired" would be a violation, even if the person making it is not calling the employer. However, saying "yes, she did submit a copyright violation" in the context of a thread on a user would not be condoning or encouraging the non-editor to commit a violation.

F: As stated above, on his userpage and in response to this RFAR, Fæ has invoked my participation in another platform related to my personal travel plans and cable tv bill to dismiss my comments. I do not believe this was atypical behavior on his part. I believe I have invoked his comments on another platform as an aggravating factor of his poor behavior, but have not insinuated his affiliation with that platform is per se a negative action.

Reply to questions by User:Wnt

A) (Previously discussed here and here) Broadly defined, anti-gay bias and/or homophobia are not at all rare, and therefore not unlikely for editors to display, as the ongoing debate on gay marriage and gays in the military makes clear. Allegations about it lead to heated debate and battleground behavior, but the same is true of allegations of BLP violations.

Now Fae has had the opportunity to observe that allegations that an editor has a pro-gay bias are treated very mildly indeed, in formal AN/I proceedings in which he participated. When User:Youreallycan said to User:Russavia, "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?", Youreallycan's block was reversed within hours by User:Salvio giuliano,^[1] who made a comment that "I hope this one doesn't come back to bite me in the bum",^[2] which Fae apparently perceived as dismissive of homosexual editors. Meanwhile, User:Tarc took the opportunity in that discussion to point out that Fae "actually pursues such an agenda". Though unsubstantiated, these things were permitted to pass without penalty, and proposals to topic-ban or otherwise limit Youreallycan's editing were rejected; Youreallycan's two subsequent blocks for other matters remained quite short.^[3] Nonetheless, Salvio giuliano warned Fae on the homophobia issue^[4] and blocked User:Niabot for one week for joking "too old - do not want" in a debate about censorship in which he was involved on the opposing side.^[5] And Russavia has now been blocked for one full year for posting a comic about a volleyball on her user page.^[6]

As for "promoting a bestiality video", I'll repeat my original response that I wouldn't have watched the video if JN466 hadn't called my attention to it, so I see that sentence as factually accurate, at least for me. Incidentally, I highly doubt the video is "obscene" in the U.S., as the authorities have gone more than a century without prosecuting it, and the Miller Test would appear to protect it. By comparison, consider that Fae endured a statement from User:John lilburne at the RfC/U, echoing a number of posts on Wikipedia Review: "It is quite inconceivable that an educational charity, other than WMFUK it seems, would have as a director someone that a few months prior was displaying a naked sexualized photo of youth, for whatever reason, on their business card (or userpage in WP speak)."^[7] Problem is, as I pointed out, the photograph^[8] was changed from a completely PG version on March 28, 2010, days after Ash left. As you read that section, you'll see that far from seeing the profuse apologies to Fae I'd expected, or signs of administrative action, there is a vehement defense that continues to fault Fae for making any reference to Wilhelm von Gloeden, a highly notable pioneering gay artist of the Victorian era.

I should note that this also sounds very close to the sort of public allegation prohibited by WP:Child protection. Having opposed this part of that policy,^[9] I recall that User:Elen of the Roads said that "I don't think it warrants an instablock, I think the normal WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:DISRUPT etc are quite adequate to handle instances where the accusations are not good faith, or are persistent to the point of disruption, or include information that needs oversighting." This sounds like a more reasonable standard, and we might then ask whether those involved in the Ash RfC/U should have been considered whether Ash's user page really had a picture of a naked child on it throughout that process without it being mentioned there before making this allegation, but if CHILDPROTECT applies then this is not a factor.

My conclusion is that for some reason, Wikipedia's administration is producing highly disproportionate outcomes, and editors should not be faulted if they cast about for an explanation. If Fae made some comments generally indicating that he has suffered some anti-gay discrimination here, it is at least a parsimonious explanation for the disparate reactions to these "extraordinary claims".

B) I've discussed this at [10] and [11]. My interpretation is that when the name is disclosed, editors can say the editor's name, but it still violates WP:OUTING to use that name to drag in otherwise irrelevant information. A clean start should not carry the obligation to conceal one's identity perfectly, or else be at risk of administrative penalties that would not otherwise have applied.

C) Arbitration always requires attempts at previous dispute resolution, and never occurs unless they fail. As I've written at [12], I would expect by WP:ADMIN that Fae must respond to the RfC/U, if his administrative actions had been questioned. However, the RfC/U focused on the notion that Fae's RfA was illegitimate because an ArbCom member wrote that he ended his old account "after" rather than "during" an RfC/U. The only way offered for Fae to respond would be giving up adminship, which was not an option. I don't see what he could have done to help resolve the dispute, and I don't see his participation as mandatory.

We should also consider that Fae's participation would have exposed him to additional embarrassment and publication of private information. Consider, for example, in the AN discussion where that naked child was mentioned,^[13] where Prioryman was accused of making false and misleading comments. After I spoke in his defense, Delicious carbuncle told me, "You are making a number of allegations in your statements above. In order to show the inaccuracies in your statements and defend myself against your charges, I will need to discuss the "public sex" comments as well that images. I suspect these are subjects that Fæ‎ would rather not have discussed here. You have opened up a can of worms (again). I am giving you a chance to close that can. The choice is yours." Now, not being Fae, I did not strike my opposing comment, and so his name and details were posted there by DC, but I can see how he might have made a different choice, indeed in advance, by not participating in the process.

D) Based on some of his comments to User talk:Jimbo Wales cited in the evidence sections, I think that Fae has been somewhat rattled by persistent henpecking. His "fae gots"[14] and "Greg Kohs"^[15] comments were obscure and confusing, reducing his effectiveness and creating an opportunity for the argument in (F). Given his position in WMUK, I think it's important for him to not let himself be trolled, and make sure his comments remain clear and persuasive. These things do not rise to the level of culpable errors for which he should need to be excused; nonetheless, if they did, then he would deserve considerable extra consideration. It is fair to look at the history of a dispute, as I tried to do in small part in (A), and compare the treatment of one side against the other, to consider whether systematic inequities are occurring; when they have, excessive leniency toward one side might be atoned with some generosity toward the other.

E) Mere participation in third party sites should not be culpable. However, as described in WP:Linking to external harassment, it can be an aggravating factor in on-wiki interactions.

F) The Will Beback decision was one I disagreed with, but the principle voted there still differs from this situation. Consider at one extreme, a conflict of interest based purely on philosophical affiliation, e.g. accusing a group of Catholic editors of voting against an article about a blasphemous sculpture due to religious zeal - there, you know the Pope is not ordering them to do so, and it would be very hard to picture tangible evidence of a meaningful COI. The next step, Will Beback's, would be accusing members of a small "new religious movement" of working together improperly to skew an article. In a small religion with more dedicated supporters, members are more likely to know each other and work together, but proof is still lacking. But the next step is a large one - to consider members of an offline site about Wikipedia who you know to be discussing you, as a person and as a Wikipedia editor. At that point, considering the editors' affiliations is no longer using "affiliations [of others] as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", but can be a reasonable response to the perception of off-site harassment. But there is still one more degree of separation to consider: when these sites are known to be actively coordinating actions on Wikipedia in violation of WP:CANVASS. AFAIR I first expressed my concern about this here, when I noticed a thread [16] that started by linking to a Commons deletion request. One participant there asks "So, what are the odds on some inclusionist nutter pointing out that there are WR readers following John around and supporting his deletion proposals? There must be some potential for amusement to come out of that." and two others (including SB Johnny) say it is a certainty. Now of course, I don't know how many of the people voting against that request, including some names we recognize, were actually drawn in by Wikipedia Review. Many people, including myself, respond to canvassing at User talk:Jimbo Wales which seems to lie in a grey area or loophole ("Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He does not consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing."); this works in much the same way and involves many of the same people as the external sites. But to say that no canvassing occurs at the external sites, by anyone, seems most implausible. Once a site or group begins to have a concerted, deliberate effect on Wikipedia, it should be unequivocally permissible for Wikipedians to discuss the affiliations of editors with that group. I believe ArbCom's decision in respect to Scientology [17] reflects such thinking, even though editors of one religion would not normally be treated in this manner, due to evidence of their impact on the overall editing environment.

Reply to questions by Fæ

A) Have such extraordinary claims been made and if so.. have they been substantiated to the point that Wikipedia requires?

Such claims have been made, sometimes foolishly in an emotional outburst by me, for which abnormal behaviour I regret (others have linked below to my views against ad hominem attacks) and can partially ascribe to being distressed from hounding off wiki for the last six months, and by allegations from canvassing discussions on Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy being brought on to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] I would like to point out the following cases, I am prepared to address specific cases where there are claims that I unfairly portrayed another contributor as homophobic as I can only find two instances that may be seen this way, neither of which resulted in a dispute resolution process against me at the time or by the people involved:

• In this ANI discussion the highly inflammatory statement by Youreallycan against Russavia was reviewed. During that discussion I stated “No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse...” I recognized that I jumped to the wrong conclusion by assuming an apparent homophobic statement could only be made by a homophobe. I have apologized to Youreallycan by email for this unnecessary ad hominem attack, and he has been kind enough to accept my apology.

• This AN notice was raised by me in relation to this statement by ErrantX. I read this at the time as a general allegation that the LGBT community are annoying and objectionable and by responding in an inflammatory way I only made the situation far worse. Before this RFAr started, I had privately apologised to ErrantX by email and reiterate that apology for creating unnecessary drama.

• in the 2012 RFC/U created against me by Delicious carbuncle in January this year, it was claimed by Peter Cohen that there was “a continuous pattern in his cavalier attitude towards people's privacy in BLPs when using the old accounts on Wikipedia and his Fae account on Commons”, this has not been demonstrated. Thanks to then Arbcom member John Vandenberg’s advice in the months before and then during my RFA (I had previously approached Arbcom member Newyorkbrad for advice but he was not available), I agreed to avoid interacting with contributors to the 2010 Delicious carbuncle 2010 RFC/U about edits in 2009, and to avoid editing any gay porn actor BLPs for 12 months. This was an agreement that I closely followed. It should be noted that Youreallycan, a key critic, stated the opposite view to Peter Cohen [27].

• In the 2012 RFC, DracoEssentialis claimed that I had made “vicious attacks”, unnecessarily speculated about threats, and made claims about exactly how and who took the photographs that Gregory Kohs has published or that Michaeldsuarez has posted on EncyclopediaDramatica and are now part of the “Faggotry” and “Homosexual deviants” series.

• On the talk page of that 2012 RFC/U it was claimed by John lilburne that “[I was] someone, that a few months previously, was invading the privacy of others by building a list of gay bathhouse attendees”[28] when the list in question was restricted to the dead apart from Scott Capurro, and was well sourced to quality published biographical and autobiographical sources. There was no evidence of invading the privacy of others. Part of the parallel campaign on Wikipedia Review, was to change the byline of the whole website to “"List of gay bathhouse regular Wikipedia admins?” and link to the discussion about my Commons RFA, though I have never commented about going, or not going, to gay bathhouses. Though I did not take a screen capture at the time I did cut & paste the title text as used here and it was referenced on Commons:AN by a Commons Administrator as evidence of off-wiki canvassing.

• On ANI, Delicious carbuncle stated (quoting their own post on Wikipedia Review) “I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk.” when no evidence has been produced to substantiate a case that I engage in sexual practices that may result in health, safety or legal risks.

• In the 2012 RFC/U that Delicious carbuncle created, there was the extraordinary claim that "This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already. Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Wikipedia activities is absolute and clear BS... It is obvious it is, because they made a point of including a photo which Fae had taken at this beach in their statement; obviously hoping to play in homophobic feelings which some editors may hold. It is absolutely atrocious and disgusting behaviour to be engaging in..." Despite this being an extreme and extraordinary statement a total of 30 people examined the evidence and supported this view (including the person making it). Supporters include well established and trusted users such as Jayen466, Johnbod, Blue Rasberry, Bidgee, Bearian, Modernist, Secret, Victuallers, WereSpielChequers, OlEnglish, Peridon, Marek69, Causa sui, AniMate, Orderinchaos, Tryptofish, Lankiveil and Nick-D. If this statement has any credibility, then the outcome of this RFAr, where the 2012 RFC/U in question has been a key focus, should reflect this context and the viewpoint of so many users well established in our community.

In the question preamble there is reference to a video, it is probably fair to assume this is intended to relate to the discussion (here) about a sexual video hosted on Commons that Jayen466 has complained of in various forums and that there was discussion about on Jimbo’s user talk page. Jayen466 and myself made peace during that same discussion, in fact we are not on opposite sides of this debate and I have helped Jayen466 with some highly problematic files on Commons that he brought to my attention for deletion. We remain in amicable email contact about these difficult and emotive policy matters in a way that I hope makes progress and benefits the Wikimedia projects (I have his permission to mention this email dialogue here). I am prepared to indefinitely avoid Jimbo’s talk page as per his request and I have privately apologised to him by email. This is a debate that should be held on Commons and relates to Commons policy rather than Wikipedia. It was a personal error of judgement for me to be drawn into and inflame such discussion on Wikipedia, for which I apologize to Jimbo and Jayen466, and will instead use whatever influence I have to help encourage all parties to engage Commons policy debate on Commons and stick to that approach myself.

B) What level of the criticism aimed at the parties in this case has been due to self-disclosure that would therefore have a higher burden of proof of being outing or harassment?

Delicious carbuncle (DC), rather than relying on my self-disclosure, used a pseudonymous personal email that I sent through the Wikipedia email user function with the subject "Speculation", which asked them for their help to avoid publicly speculating about a matter that had been reported to Oversight. This email was sent to them on 26 March 2010 and posted on Wikipedia Review on 30th December 2011 in a thread titled "Ash's email to me, the smoking gun". I did not disclose my identity in that email but DC analysed the email header data to then investigate website domain ownership records. The order of events was as follows:

• On 26 December 2011 I put myself forward for admin status on Wikimedia Commons[29] DC started a Wikipedia Review thread, "Ashley Van Haeften, Commons admin?", about the Commons RFA 24 hours later. The RFA was subsequently heavily disrupted by sockpuppet accounts and users banned from the English Wikipedia.
• On 30 December 2011, I received an anonymous threat.[30] At 18:49, DC acknowledged that a threat had been made against me.[31].
• Using information from the "Speculation" email sent to DC by myself over 18 months previously asking for help, DC obtained an out of date website domain record that included my real name, home address and home telephone number - information that I have never disclosed in connection with Wikipedia or Wikimedia UK and remains ex-directory. At 19:07 on 30 December, DC posted on the full text and header data of the private email and the record with my name, address and phone number. DC has acknowledged these facts but has called the posting "an oversight" on his part.[32][33]
• On the same day as the threat and "in order to avoid this smear-campaign" I was advised by email from a Commons Oversight member to withdraw my Commons RFA, which I did shortly afterwards[34] (email available should Arbcom request it as evidence). Oversight automatically passed on details of the threat to WMF legal for attention, only informing me of this afterwards. The email on Wikipedia Review was later restricted to longer term users on that website to view.
• 28bytes stated in closing a discussion of this incident on AN/I: "The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor."[35]

The policy at OUTING (and as often interpreted by Standard offer) does not cover the use of publishing personal emails to identify the past accounts of a Wikipedian, it states “Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.” This same evidence was the starting point for identifying me in the 2012 RFC/U. The rationale that I might be a “problem user” was used retrospectively after the outing.

I do not believe that the policies of clean start or outing were intended to encourage or protect this type of datamining using personal emails and off-wiki public records to out Wikimedians who, up until that point of being outed by off-wiki datamining based on confidential and private material (over 18 months later), had no relevant complaints or issues raised against them. I am ready to stand corrected if this is not the case, but recommend the above policies are clarified in their wording if I have misunderstood them.

Ash stopped contributing to Wikipedia for the stated reason of ‘’“After a disturbing personal attack and sustained wikihounding, I have decided that I do not wish to be a target for further abuse.”’’ as Fæ there were no civility complaints about me until off-wiki harassment started to be brought onto Wikimedia projects, which has become intolerably hurtful, personal and stressful. After I received anonymous threats in December, I took what I thought was the correct approach and went for advice and (at different times) requested support from the Wikimedia Foundation (mainly Philippe), an Arbcom member (AGK), a member of Wikipedia oversight and a Commons bureaucrat as well as the UK Chapter and later on, when the off-wiki allegations and hounding did not ease off, the police, Stonewall and victim support. I have attempted to follow the professional advice, which included avoiding responding in any way to certain related users, to never respond in forums off-wiki and to consider the option of withdrawing altogether from Wikimedia projects to protect myself; I would like to point out that I do not believe that Delicious carbuncle was directly involved in any threats.

C) Users are expected to behave in a way compatible with Wikipedia's norms and policies. One of these is to participate in Wikipedia dispute resolution when requested. Have the involved parties complied with this policy?

Yes, within the constraints of the advice I was given by authorities and trusted Wikipedians I hold in high regard after their help and advice over the last six months, and the previously discussed obligation that I have to formally report complaints about my role as a charity trustee to the charity rather than responding on Wikipedia or any other internet forum.

I would have liked to have been able to resolve issues that MBisanz perceived by email, particularly when these matters became conflated with my role as a trustee and I was unable to respond on-wiki. The starting point of MBisanz' recent interest in me was his use of a private email as evidence on ANI. I objected to use of private email in this way and still hold it fails to fit our values of respect to arbitrarily use email without permission from the correspondents unless there is over-riding public interest. The justification that this was proof of canvassing on my part, I firmly challenge and am prepared to supply the original email to Arbcom, or to make it a matter of public record if necessary.

The aforementioned 2012 RFC/U was raised with the scope of poor BLP sourcing of gay porn actors, in my opinion, no significant evidence was presented to respond to and during the ensuing discussion the evidence that was given was refuted by well respected editors. This, along with advice (as above) to avoid any engagement with Delicious carbuncle, left me with nothing to reply against and any reply I made likely to only inflame the discussion, be used as evidence of self-outing or evidence that I was failing to follow the common principle of WP:DENY. There was no clear allegation I can recall of misuse of Admin tools, though had there been, then I would have encouraged the use of the recall procedure which I have always supported. I did respond on the 2012 RFC/U talk page and was immediately advised that it was unwise of me to do so.

If it had been made clear to me that failing to reply would later be treated by Arbcom as a failure to comply with WP:ADMIN#Accountability then I would have responded under that requirement. Even though I exchanged several emails with Arbcom members during that period asking for support and advice, no such guidance of this type was given.

D) How much leeway do we give users who are being significantly harassed by offsite users.. who do not participate on Wikipedia, either by choice or by having been banned from participation on Wikipedia (specifically where they are frustrated and fail to differentiate between those who are personally attacking them, and those with legitimate concerns)?

Anyone undergoing extreme forms of hounding or harassment must be positively supported by our processes and community in order to enforce the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use and if they are not given suitable support or remedy after months of persistent harassment by people who have active Wikimedia accounts, in my case facilitating off-wiki (previously referenced) disturbing sexual and paedophile related allegations published against my full name and career history (so that false allegations, sexual claims and defamation such as "Homosexual Deviants" have appeared on the first page of internet searches for my legal name), then we must provide reasonable leeway for distress and a mechanism for dealing with these problems without forcing the individual to engage in discussion where such real life allegations are being repeated or linked to in a public forum (such as an RFC/U) before action can be taken or support provided. The fact that everyone participating in my RFA, representing the majority of my personal network within Wikimedia, was automatically invited by bot to the 2012 RFC/U against me where some of these claims about my personal and professional life were repeated, is itself a distressing symptom of how our processes fail to support someone who has a documented claim of harassment. In my case to the extent that I had already approached Arbcom members and the Foundation for help and was provided with few realistic options on how to respond without creating a public case.

The terms of use includes the following conditions on activities that project contributors may never do:

• Engaging in harassment, threats, stalking...
• Infringing the privacy rights of others under the laws of the United States of America or other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content)
• Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment,... violation of privacy...

I have been pursued over a period of years by people using the same pseudonymous Wikipedia accounts for claimed BLP failures about gay porn actors based on edits in 2009, which have not been demonstrated despite full investigation by experienced contributors in an extensive RFC/U this year. This has then being used by Wikipedia editors as “justification” for multiple harassing discussion threads on Wikipedia Review (it would be clear to any reviewer that it is reasonable that discussion that makes public speculation about my sex life or that I might be involved in paedophile related crimes, alongside details and links to employers and the names of friends and work colleagues can be seen as harassment and stalking, see [36] and [37]) or to make a "Faggotry" attack page on Encyclopedia Dramatica (link previously removed from this RFAr discussion) and then to bring similar unfounded allegations based on, or linking to, these off-wiki discussions onto Wikipedia is a problem under the Foundation website terms and conditions.(Related examples on ANI and 2012 RFC/U)

E) Does mere participation in a site where violations of Wikipedia policy count as contributing to outing or harassment? Does participating in a forum thread where outing or harassment happen count as contributing?

No, only if the participation instigates, encourages, enables or inflames such harassment would it be a problem. If a Wikipedia trusted user holds a significant role on a well known attack website that routinely outs and harasses Wikimedians as part of its reason to exist, then it would be reasonable to expect this to be a matter of open discussion and concern for our community. Wikipedia policy does not unambiguously require transparency of actions with regard to off-wiki involvement to ensure that there can be no conflict of interest. A trusted user, for example, who provides confidential advice to a user who is being harassed off-wiki with false allegations, should not leave that user in a position to later find out that their trusted advisor has a formal role on the website where the allegations have been made, or worse, later find the same trusted user inflaming discussions off-wiki by making similar public allegations.

Under current governance provisions for trusted users, I am unaware of any protection from this happening, or that a valid complaint about such a scenario would be considered a breach of trust.

In relation to this question, it should be noted that the most recent discussion thread about me on Wikipediocracy (not the only one, the current one ("Fae") recently created on 14 May by someone declaring dormant account Tiucsibgod as theirs), which includes discussion and speculation about this RFAr, is the most read discussion ever on Wikipediocracy at 380+ posts and well over 7,500 views. A significant number of names contributing in that and prior discussions (both on Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review) and the names contributing to the 2012 RFC/U and this RFAr are the same, and some people contributing in these discussions use different names on Wikipediocracy (as shown by their own profile declarations on the left of every public post on Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review, and sometimes by being self-declared by referencing their own Wikipedia edits, see example list by Michaeldsuarez and example of self-declaring by Peter Cohen). Whether this should be recognized as a form of harassment, off-wiki canvassing or represents an active tag-team is a matter for Arbcom to judge when assessing if the community is fairly and proportionally represented in any resulting on-wiki consensus from current and previous dispute resolution processes actively discussed and promoted off-wiki in this way.

F) Have the involved parties in this case attempted to use affiliations of other users as a platform to dismiss or discredit their views?

I have not intended to dismiss or discredited the views of others on Wikipedia based on their affiliations. If I have come over that way due to reacting stress of being hounded in a very personal way off-wiki for the last six months, I can only apologize and would like those who feel unfairly maligned to email me if they would like to see a public apology about their case. It was with the intention of proposing transparency for the affiliations of trusted users, particularly those who engage with off-wiki “badsites”, where these same affiliations may later cause concern or complaints with regard to involvement for those who are subject to sanctions or actions that depend on their trusted status. As an example, in the case of Jayen466, who I have robustly debated with on-wiki and by email lists, I personally argued the case to support his membership application to the UK chapter (the board was not unanimous) and previously suggested he make a presentation of his issues with Commons sex education images at a board meeting, even though he is declared as a moderator on Wikipediocracy. I have no problem with open discussion that avoids personal harassment or general defamation and to that end I am pleased to see a suitable policy in place with regard to harassment on Wikipediocracy in response to recent issues. It should be noted that many would debate the word “affiliation”, just writing on a website forum legally owned by Gregory Kohs does not necessarily imply that such a person would say they were “affiliated” with him, however most would agree that having an operational role in the site, such as a moderator or administrator could be seen as an affiliation.

Reply to questions by [[User:x}}

(Insert your response to my questions)

Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough

Current word length: 125; diff count: 2.

RFC on Fae was contrary to policy

The RFC on Fae was predicated on linking two accounts. If the two accounts were operated by the same person they were protected under the provisions of WP:SOCK[38](legitimate accounts:Privacy). The outing policy further makes it clear that we should never give credence to attempts to link legitimate socks, absent an overriding need. No such need has been shown, therefore no linkage should be made on-Wiki.

RFC failed to meet RFC/U requirements

The RFC failed to show an ongoing dispute with attempts to resolve certified by two users.[39]

Fae well advised not to be involved in RFC

Given the above assertion, Fae was well advised and to be congratulated for keeping away from the three ring circus that the RFC became. The Wikipedia community, especially admins (including myself) should be reprimanded for not closing this unproductive and divisive muck-fest much earlier.

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole

Current word length: 86; diff count: 3.

Fæ misled the community at his RfA

Fæ took a clean start [40] in the middle of an RfC/U that was seeking sanctions due to his use of sources. The RfC/U was closed with "User has stopped editing Wikipedia. Delisted due to inactivity." [41] In his subsequent RfA as User:Fæ he said he'd taken a clean start after an RfC/U rather than "during" [42] and that he'd never been blocked or banned under the earlier name. [43] This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that a completed RfC/U had found nothing worthy of a topic ban.

Evidence presented by ErrantX

Current word length: 463; diff count: 7.

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

Fae has been maligned off-wiki on Wikipediocracy[44], but he appears to consistently monitors this site. On 17 May, at 13:35, I posted a comment about a situation where Fae attacked me [45]. At 13:50 I received an email from Fae about the post (n.b. I am sure Fae will be happy to confirm this email was sent). In his statement at the request for Arbitration he mentioned using Wikipediocracy search function [46] - a feature only available to logged in members.

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

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

There was some exchange on Fae's talk page following this incident, involving Elen and Salvio, where they tried to explain some of the issues and recommended Fae tone down his accusations. [47] & [48]

Over the intervening weeks I have noted a similar pattern of mistaking, misconstruing or misrepresenting situations. For example he made a vague comment about Jayen466, who was not involved in that discussion, that only through good faith cannot be considered disparaging. In submitting his statements at RFAR he made two mistakes; first, apparently through hurried research, saying MBisanz had met Eric Barbour [49] (which, as noted, he then corrected) and later making a broad accusation against Delicious Carbuncle which the clerks later removed.

Evidence presented by Collect

Current word length: 398; diff count: 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fae directed me to [53]. I commend ArbCom to read it.

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

I ask the Committee to review the RFC/U, paying attention to such edits as [54] etc.

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

Evidence presented by Michaeldsuarez

Current word length: 494; diff count: 13.

Censoring rebuttals and the perpetuation of Wnt's faulty accusations

I didn't indent to present evidence so early, but Collect's statement above provides a link to this diff by Wnt, so I feel that the whole stories needs to be given. Wnt misunderstood Delicious carbuncle's WR post completely, and I attempted to state what Delicious carbuncle really meant: [55]. Unfortunately, Fred Bauder suppressed that diff, but I hope that ArbCom can view that diff and see what DC really meant.

The suppression had the effect of perpetuating Wnt's faulty accusations, since no one can view the rebuttal. Fæ also played a part in allowing the inaccuracies to live on. Fæ repeated Wnt's accusations ([56], [57]) and recommended the diff containing Wnt's allegations to Collect: [58]. Fæ also recently censored my defense of DC ([59], [60], [61]), so we once again find ourselves in a situation where users can't view the rebuttal.

Fæ recently requested ([62]) the suppression of an ANI discussion where DC refutes ([63], [64]) Wnt's accusation, so now we're at risk of having yet another rebuttal censored. How long is Wnt's misinformation about DC going to live on? Due to the constant censorship of rebuttals and spread of the misinformation by Fæ, Wnt's accusations will probably live on forever.

"Attack article" (reply to Prioryman)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[removed] isn't an attack article; it's an informative article. It presently helps people learn about one of the people in the top echelons of a public charity. The article doesn't contain any attacks or assertions; it only contains freely licensed images. I've stated that it was originally meant to fulfill an educational role; it was originally meant to teach people the downsides of using free licenses. I didn't even want to connect the person in the "Embarrassing images you uploaded under a free license" article with Fæ inside the mainspace originally. "Hipcrime" was the one who, in late November 2011, redirected Fæ's name and pseudonyms to the "Embarrassing images you uploaded under a free license" article: [removed links] At the time ([removed]), the article only mentioned "Teahot"; it didn't mention Fæ or Fæ's real name. I renamed the article to "Teahot" instead of "Fæ" because I didn't want to associate the old Ash / Teahot with the new Fæ inside the mainspace at the time. I changed my mind due to the urgings of an ED community member: [removed]. As an ED sysop, I'm entrusted by the community to meet their needs and desires. Yes, there's ridicule involved, but ridicule isn't harassment, and it isn't meant to punish anyone. I've never interacted with Fæ or Ash, so it isn't meant to "punish" him. I created the article, but I never went to Fæ's talk page and said, "Hey. You need to check out this article on ED." I've never attempted to harass Fæ.

Attempt to aid Fæ against misinformation

I made a sincere attempt to aid Fæ against the the accusations surrounding the von Gloeden image after Wnt reported the error. I contacted "gomi" and Selina. gomi misunderstand my request. gomi mistakenly believed that I wanted my own posts modified even though I'm never used the von Gloeden image to make assertions about Fæ. gomi granted me the "No Edit Time Limits" flag so that I could have more time to revise my own posts. A flaw with that flag also granted me access to the private sections of the WR, and I exploited that flaw (i.e. leaked threads and caused chaos) for ED's benefit. Selina misunderstood as well and accused me of being Fæ's proxy ("[Michaeldsuarez] has been repeatedly forward[ed] messages on from Teahot/Ash/Fæ ([...]) to mods here past few days"). I'll Email ArbCom some links. I don't have any desire to harass Fæ; I only wish to expose him.

tarantino outed Ash prior to the "Speculation" Email

In his answer to question "B", Fæ contends,

Delicious carbuncle (DC), rather than relying on my self-disclosure, used a pseudonymous personal email that I sent through the Wikipedia email user function with the subject "Speculation" [...]

The Email was sent at 18:31:51 UTC, on March 26, 2010. However, that's not how the Wikipedia Review discovered Ash's identity. tarantino outed Ash earlier, at 7:12 UTC, on March 11, 2010, in a Wikipedia Review thread entitled "Comparing page titles to page creators". tarantino outed Ash before the "Speculation" Email was sent. The Wikipedia Review knew who Ash was before the Email was sent.

Daniel Brandt added Ash to his hivemind page prior to the "Speculation" Email

At 6:22 UTC, on March 25, 2010, WR user Somey stated the following on the WR's "Ash vs. Delicious Carbuncle" thread:

However, Daniel Brandt did find out his name and added him to Hivemind, giving him the highly sought-after "333" spot.

Daniel Brandt publicized Ash's identity before the "Speculation" Email was sent.

Evidence presented by ReverendWayne

Current word length: 102; diff count: 0.

Fæ failed to respond to a proper query about his conduct

When it had become clear that Fæ's participation in the RFC/U was unlikely, I posted to his talk page [65] to ask about his statement at RfA. He did not respond, nor did he offer any reason for not responding. I have no history with Fæ and have not participated in any off-wiki discussions concerning him. My question did not require him to identify any old account(s). In my query I referred to Wikipedia's policy on administrator accountability, so I must conclude that he was not ignorant of that policy, but rather did not consider himself bound to follow it. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 408; diff count: 80.

Fae

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

[66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] (partially retracted) [76] [77] sweeping accusation (this is before the remark YouReallyCan made for which he apologized) [78], (interesting aside [79]) (PA, lilburne is a regular at WR/WPCY), [80] (partly referencing the trolling diff left on his talk page, diff is in the Russavia section below), [81]/[82] [83] attack on living person [84] another attack on a living person [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] arguably untrue statement [92]

• YouReallyCan incident- spark [93] [94] I have been subject to nasty on-wiki and off-wiki homophobic attacks, stalking and abuse in sustained attempts to frighten me off the projects Implicitely accuses other editor of homophobia and racism [95] [96] Personalizes discussion about AfD nominating editor as user:Delicious carbuncle|Delicious carbuncle seemed so concerned about my HIV status, he might help you review. For a change, perhaps your reasonable concerns about the enforcement of our policies could be directed at the disruptive homophobic attacks and attempts to game the system by those who appear to have problems in their collaborations with openly gay Wikipedians? [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] Clear homophobia accusation [110] [111] [112] [113] [114]

• The following diffs show Fae refusing to engage in dispute resolution or respond to questions: [115] [116] [117]
• Possibly questionable admin action: PaoloNapolitano block reduction [118], possible WR connection, to which Fae has expressed strong feelings (see diffs above about "traveling circus"). PaoloNapolitano had commented at Fae's RfC.
• Questionable attitude towards BLP editing [119] edit wars controversial BLP material [120] [121] [122] and main page material [123]

(more to come)

Other editors

During the Fae RfC, a number of editors engaged in egregious ad hominem personal attacks, accusing other editors who were critical of Fae, either specifically or in general, of being motivated by homophobia or other negative motivations. I listed the editors by name, with specific diffs, in this section, then asked each one of them not to repeat the behavior. As far as I know, most of those listed followed my advice. There were, however, a few that did not. A few others not listed also later engaged in the same type of egregious attacks. I will list their account names with supporting, specific diffs below:

• Nobody Ent- "homophobes"- appears to have been intended as sarcasm
• Armbrust- links to "homophobes" comment
• Prioryman- edit wars to relink to "homophobes" comment
• Russavia- [124] (may be a response to a rude, trolling comment [125])

(more names and diffs to follow)

Evidence presented by Nobody Ent

Current word length: 271; diff count: 6.

The Committee is just going to have figure it out themselves

I've read the Sir Fozzie instructions five times. I've read the case statement three times. I've watched the Cla68 / Lord Roem edit war over Cla68's evidence. I have no idea where to start. The nature of the issues are such that trying to break the contribution history down into bitesize chunks without running afoul of all the rules just isn't going to be feasible.

Meaning depends on context; if ArbCom wants to decide if the allegations against Fae are true they're just going to have to wade through the contributions. Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan.2FOff2riorob and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#AndyTheGrump.

Not a cleanstart

The cleanstart policy as of 28 March 2010 -- date of creation of Fae account[126] stated If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. The editor continued making edits as Ash through 12 April 2010. When accepting his Rfa announcement he incorrectly stated he cleanstarted after his RFC/U; however the RFC/U did not terminate until 10 May 2010Nobody Ent 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U was legit

Community consensus was the RFC/U was legit -- it was listed 29 Jan and remained list until 28 Feb

Cla68's statement is incorrect

My phrase bunch of editors who are all homophobes except all the ones who aren'tEmphasis added is not an ad hominem attack; rather it was part of a satirical but essentially correct summary of the arguments that preceded. Logically, it divides editors into two disjoint subsets whose union comprises the universal set; I made no statement regarding the number of editors in each subset.

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

No evidence of outing concerning this case

With this case, the account editors are attempting to link to Fæ contained no identifying information that Fæ has not already offered up voluntarily. As far back as December 2010 Fæ provided a direct link to the Wikimedia UK page on his user page and freely identified himself as a member of the foundation. Back in April of 2011 the page on Wikimedia UK's board of trustees plainly identified Fæ as Ashley Van Haeften. It is not credible to claim outing now when the only personal information that would be brought to light can be easily found by clicking through Fæ's user page this very moment. All information linking the two accounts and all personal information obtained about Fæ, as far as I can tell, has been made available by Fæ and so no violation of WP:OUTING has occurred.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable

Current word length: 201; diff count: 3.

User MBisanz

Myself and others have talked about this at length, indicating he ought to improve his dispute resolution skills to a level commensurate with his authority here as a crat. For example, see these diffs from almost three years ago, along with many other statements on both the talk and main page of the RFC the link to.

Nothing remotely near consensus that Fæ is a "problem" user

Per Collect's claim above, 46 accounts did indeed endorse the ThemFromSpace view at the recent RFC - but this didnt make any claim about Fæ being generally problematic - it claimed he left under a cloud but otherwise was about his RfA. And 34 editors endorsed a largely opposing view, which said that at Fæ's RFA "In no way was anyone misled" (bolding in the original. ) At a stretch one might claim there was consensus that if the old RFC had been linked to at Fæ's RFA, then it would not have passed. But that is a totally different matter than from claiming Fæ is a "problem" user. Not all statements from the WR accounts and their supporters are as transparently false, so I echo Nobody Ent's request that even more than in a usual case, Arbs investigate for themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Prioryman

Current word length: 328; diff count: 4.

Fae's previous account

The existence of Fae's previous account was raised at the outset in his RFA nomination. During the RFA, 128 editors voted for him, 23 against and 6 neutral – 81.5% in favour, 18.5% opposed or neutral. 6 supporters mentioned the issue of the previous account but said they were OK with it. 8 opposers and 5 neutrals cited it as a reason not to support the nomination. In total, only 19 out of 157 participants (12.1%) even mentioned the issue. A majority (16 of 29 editors, or 56%) of those neutral or opposed did not cite it in their rationales. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Effect of disclosure on RFA supporters

179 editors participated in Fae's RFA, the RfC/U against User:Ash and a July 2011 discussion on AN/I. All were notified of Fae's RfC/U via a bot posting and had the opportunity to indicate if disclosure of the previous account in the new RfC/U had changed their minds about supporting Fae.[127] During the Fae RfC/U, some editors claimed that the RFA would not have passed if there had been full disclosure of the previous account. However, there is no evidence that the vast majority of editors who voted for Fae's adminship have changed their minds. 128 editors voted for Fae in the RFA but only 8 (comprising 6% of his supporters) said in the Fae RfC/U that they had changed their minds about supporting him. 17 editors who participated in the RFA, including both supporters and opponents, agreed with the proposition in the Fae RfC/U that "in no way was anyone misled." Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez's attack page about Fae

By his own admission, User:Michaeldsuarez maintains a page on Encyclopedia Dramatica to "ridicule" Fae [128], which another ED contributor has categorised under "Faggotry" and "Homosexual deviants" [129]. He has agreed with User:Risker's statement that the page "only exists to punish the person who uploaded the images in the first place."[130] In the course of this case, Michaeldsuarez has written: "I don't have any desire to harass Fæ; I only wish to expose him." [131]

Evidence presented by Tryptofish

Current word length: 165; diff count: 0.

I don't think that there is any evidence of Fae misusing the administrative tools, and the editing history is, well, complicated.

• I became aware of this case through a notice Fae left on my user talk, about his mention of my participation in the RfC/U (which, by the way, yielded no consensus at all, and is a good example of how RfC/U doesn't work). Please follow Fae's link in his reply to questions and see what I actually said, which is nuanced.

• I'm not aware of any evidence of Fae being a bad administrator, only the issues of the RfA and of his level of participation in DR.

• I've worked with Fae, and can point to here and here, where I find his contributions helpful and collegial amidst some difficult editorial decisions. I can also point to here (hatted), shortly later at the same talk page, where Fae seems to completely misinterpret discussion in which the word "homophobic" was mentioned, and created needless drama as a result. Perhaps that can give a fuller picture of the behavioral patterns, that are neither all bad nor all good.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.