Misplaced Pages

My preference is to avoid a gendered pronoun to refer to my account on Misplaced Pages. 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 "Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages. (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. ). 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 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  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 Misplaced Pages'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 , 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 | ✌ 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)

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. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration states explicitly, in the first paragraph, "This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends only to the English Misplaced Pages". 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages) 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) 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 Misplaced Pages? 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)

Thanks for highlighting those comments, Carcharoth. I note Jclemens' comment in particular: "While the English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is immune from sanction for that conduct here on the English Misplaced Pages." 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 Misplaced Pages? Can anyone point me to an example of that ever happening? Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note: The section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed decision#Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions was mentioned at Commons at Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#English Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, as Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages permits Fair Use even of photos people snatch from the Web. So here you are on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 | ✌ 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 00:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I always learn cool new shit at Misplaced Pages... 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 Misplaced Pages'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; Misplaced Pages's arbcom is a laughing stock.

For years the mainstream media has reported on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's conflict resolution process;

--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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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/search/?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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages encyclopaedia. SilkTork 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 Misplaced Pages. At the same time, he has said to parliament and the charity commission that Misplaced Pages has an effective BLP policy, and that Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages or any particular Misplaced Pages 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-Misplaced Pages pornographic content that Ashley van Haeften wanted suppressed and do not punish Mr van Haeften for linking from Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors will follow both on and off Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages and WR interactions. SilkTork 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's rules, which is a dangerous precedent to set, especially considering the fact that Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Congratulations to those involved, you obviously enjoy bullying your way into censoring Misplaced Pages. For any interested administrators that can advise as to next steps, please contact me by email".
• Ash did not leave Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Responsibility of uploader verus reuser

"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. Misplaced Pages wouldn't be sanctioning JoeSchmoe if he added a potentially infringing image to an article when it was BillyBob that uploaded it to Commons."

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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. Misplaced Pages 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). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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 | ✌ 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)