This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SB Johnny (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 11 June 2012 (→Allegations of harassment: correct SirFozzie's grammar ("people" is plural)... hope that's OK!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case This case is highly contentious, and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads up on the procedures we will be using. A) First off, we will be running under a "single warning" system. The clerks, myself and other arbitrators will be monitoring this case. Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight. Clerks have been given authority to remove such comments and give the commenter a single warning. If such issues happen again after a participant has been warned, the participant will either be barred from further participation in this arbitration case, or the person will be blocked for a period of time at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone. That includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether it is truly random or not). B) There will be NO speculations allowed. This includes the following: 1) No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it." That falls under a finding that we have endorsed less then three months ago: In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, (user) has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") 2) No speculation of off-wiki lifestyle, behavior, orientation and/or private life will be allowed. We are not a gossip site, and making such comments during the case has no purpose. We are an encyclopedia, and our editors should be treated accordingly. If users here are violating that principle elsewhere, that information should be noted briefly, factually, and directly in evidence. 3) If your evidence is being posted against one or more editors, you must fully back up your comments with explicit diffs and/or links. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've said above, unsupported attacks on other editors will be removed and warnings/sanctions will be issued. If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand. Don't think it's "better to ask for forgiveness then it is permission". It's not. These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages. We will be using the just-ratified limits on evidence (to wit, 1000 words/100 diffs for direct parties, 500/50 for non-parties to this case). If you're going to exceed either, ask myself or another arbitrator (on the /Evidence talk page) before you do so. To prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, we are taking additional measures to limit disruption. The case pages will be semi-protected and there will be additional scrutiny paid to accounts who haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. In other words, don't expect to try to avoid scrutiny with an IP address or an alternate, undeclared account. It will be counterproductive. If a new editor or an IP editor truly has something that needs to be said, they can ask a clerk to post for them. Finally, after I take the first few days to review the initial evidence and workshop postings, I will be posting a series of questions on the workshop page that I would like the parties to answer. I am primarily interested in what the parties have to say in response. This should be aimed solely at answering my questions and not going back and forth with other people's answers. Thank you for your attention, and hopefully, your compliance with these directives. For the Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Rich Farmbrough

Proposed principles

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Posting personal information is harassment

Per WP:OUTING

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block

Per WP:OUTING - Direct quote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Attempted outing should not be rewarded with confirmation or denial

Per WP:OUTING

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

RFC on Fae was contrary to policy

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Fae well advised not to be involved in RFC

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Proposals by Isarra

Proposed findings of fact

Claims that linking accounts is outing ignore CLEANSTART policy

While there may have been genuine outing involved elsewhere, tying accounts together after a failed cleanstart is not outing. That folks can do that is precisely why it is a failed cleanstart; WP:CLEANSTART specifically says 'If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts.'

Fae was recognised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by The Devil's Advocate

Proposed principles

Outing and CLEANSTART

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

Fæ's prior accounts

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Civility restriction

Fæ is put on a six-month civility restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by Wnt

Proposed principles

RfC/U is an informal non-binding process

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC/U is the responsibility of participating editors

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Editors are innocent until proven guilty

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sorted those names on the spreadsheet, and there are the 46 from Themfromspace's opinion, plus six more I will acknowledge. However, User:Waiting for connection doesn't exist, and I don't find it in a search of the RfC/U. John Vandenberg, Nobody Ent, Mark Arsten, and Milowent look supportive of Fae to me. Additionally, from among the 46, AlexiusHoratius strike his initial endorsement and opposes a new RfA, and Tryptofish's vote says the community evaluated the RfA fairly. So I recognize 5051 of your votes, while claiming 48 for Fae so far. I should also mention that DracoEssentialis and JN466 are husband and wife; I don't know if both votes are counted the way we do things. As for notifying these users, since only their vote is noted and not their actions, I don't think it is necessary, but I don't actually mind notifying 18 pro-Fae voters of this proceeding if I'm required to. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Opposition research" can be a form of harassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to respond to offsite activities

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:Anthonyhcole

Proposed findings of fact: Anthonyhcole

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies: Anthonyhcole

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

Fæ desysopped

1) Fæ is desysopped and encouraged to resit RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:FeydHuxtable

Proposed remedies

MBisanz warned

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

ArbCom to discuss WP:NOTCENSORED

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:ReverendWayne

Proposed remedies

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

Fæ can stand for reconfirmation RfA

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Nobody Ent

Proposed remedies

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

Fæ topic banned from conduct dispute resolution boards

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Prioryman

Proposed principles

Scope of outing

1) Per Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting of personal information, "posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A basic principle, but let's get it up here for the record, as it's an important issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking past and present accounts does not constitute outing

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks made elsewhere

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attack pages

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposals by User:Cla68

Proposed principles

Uploader beware

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of homophobia, racism, or bigotry

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Allegations of harassment

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Misplaced Pages's corrective mechanism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Acceptance of constructive criticism

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Refusal to participate

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

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

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad hominem attacks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings

Fae's RfC

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Fae's response to the RfC

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Fae's real name

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

Discretionary sanctions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Proposals by Michaeldsuarez

Proposed principles

Arbitration is a last resort

Misplaced Pages:Resolving_disputes#Last_resort:_Arbitration:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

Proposed facts of finding

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: