Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence

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

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

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

Arbitrators active on this case

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

Inactive:

1. Xeno

Recused:

1. AGK
2. Kirill Lokshin

What a shame

To see that so many apparently desire nothing more than to attack others. I encourage all contributors to re-evaluate their text and try to make them as positive as possible, placing them in context where appropriate. Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

What do you think "attacks others" without providing a diff in context? -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if attacking is happening, can you please specify instances so the clerks can remove it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Per "Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight" in that fat orange box above, Farmbrough's comment should be reverted by a Clerk. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This thread can go until the comment has diffs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope of proceeding

The scope of this proceeding is unclear. Is ArbCom evaluating whether to sanction anyone other than Fae or MBisanz? For example, the evidence I would be most interested in would concern the actions of those not parties to the case. It is difficult for me to submit evidence defending Fae per se, because I don't perceive him to have been accused of any significant wrongdoing. Wnt (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

IF you have evidence on other users not parties, submit that evidence (per the rules of this case, strictly with diff-backup) and then request to a clerk or to me here to add a party to the case. SirFozzie (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Statements without evidence

I observe that two contributors to the evidence page actually did not provide any evidence, but rather made general arguments that might be more suitable as workshop proposals. For the sake of the signal-to-noise ratio of this proceeding, I suggest the clerks ought to relocate that material to an appropriate place (the workshop or the users' talk pages). alanyst 15:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ground rules on linking to external harassment

I think I briefly viewed Michaeldsuarez's comment that he mentions in the evidence ([1]) (and was unconvinced) before it was revdeled, but I don't remember much about it now. For further evidence many of us on either site might be tempted to link specifically to Wikipedia Review threads and the like. My interpretation of WP:Linking to external harassment was that this is generally not accepted, and I think that the revdeling was done on that basis as far as I remember. Nonetheless, other violations of that policy (including, alas, my own) were not revdeled even when I pointed this out. I suppose e-mail is another option, but frankly, in part based on the outing of Fae, I generally don't send Wikipedia e-mails. My impression is that when these links are mentioned for a legitimate purpose - i.e. an active ArbCom proceeding - they would be acceptable, and therefore it is acceptable to undelete Michaeldsuarez's edits at this time. In any case we should clarify what the ground rule is here one way or the other to avoid misunderstandings. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I removed the link from Michaeldsuarez's statement, but did not delete it or revision delete it. There is some discussion about it on my talk page. I will allow the drafting arbitrator (or other arbitrators) respond to the more general point. Risker (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Risker, Wnt isn't talking about the link that you've removed; he or she is talking about this diff, which was suppressed by Fred Bauder. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt: The suppressed comment (I've kept a copy) didn't contain any hyperlinks to external websites. That comment didn't include any links to the Wikipedia Review. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding accounts

I noticed that Lord Roem removed a comment made on behalf of a banned user that linked a User:Fæ to three other accounts. Given the number of accounts Fæ has had and the opaque manners in which they have been connected on and off wiki by himself and others, could a clerk or arbitrator please inform me which account names I am permitted to reference in my evidence? That I have to ask this question is itself indicative of part of his problematic conduct, but before I go and gather inadmissible evidence on that, I figured I should ask. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Primary reason for that removal (if you're referring to the one I'm thinking of) was due to that editor's proxy editing on behalf of a banned user. So, different situation. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that part of it. I just realized there were a lot of account names floating around, some I hadn't heard of, and didn't want to get in trouble by mentioning something impermissible. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as you base your evidence on specific examples (diffs) and don't float too much into speculation, you're fine. Lord Roem (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator Questions to Parties

The section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Arbitrator Questions to Parties says it "is generally aimed at people involved in this dispute." To be clear, are these questions being asked only to the two listed Parties, or to the much larger group of people who have expressed strong opinions about the situation? Wnt (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

People involved in this case can answer this, SirFozzie (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to interpret the word limit for the questions to parties on this page. I have a draft response, but my attempt to properly answer the questions with reasonable context and evidence has taken me over 1,000 words. Would it be possible for a clerk or arbitrator to look at my draft and see if it is okay or if I have approached this poorly? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully one of the arbitrators will correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence limit only seems to apply to the "regular" evidence being posted after the arbitrator questions - no word counts or diffs are being displayed on the arbitrator questions section. Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I will flag this up with the arbs and hopefully get back to you with a answer. In the mean time, have you written +1000 words for one question? or does this +1000 apply to your whole response? Seddon ^talk 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole reply. I'm working on trimming it down but reducing to less than 1,000 would be a lot more work and probably end up a bit cryptic or shifting explanation arbitrarily out to diffs. I don't think I've gone nuts on length, it's just hard to give proper context to answer these open questions without being glib. --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence limits have been dropped for the questions section (the bot dos not track it) SirFozzie (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So yes Fæ, feel free to post your answers (even if they're long). It won't impact the word or diff count for your regular evidence. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's a weight off my mind and will make writing them up a lot easier for me. --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: my draft replies are written, I would like to step back and give a day or two to rewrite and have a chance to look at past RFAr cases as I am unfamiliar with common practice. I have had difficulty in judging the intended focus in responding to these open questions, my presumption is that the questions do not intend to invite opinion, but that the answers should relate to MBisanz' request, part of my rewrite is to ensure that is clear. As I will be fully committed to events from (at least) Friday to Sunday, it would probably be wise for me to defer posting until next week, to ensure that I will be available to respond if there are any corrections needed. As far as I can judge, it is neither possible or sensible to attempt to respond to all the varied claims and diffs being raised in discussion elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted and made some initial improvements to sourcing. As said above I will be in workshops today through to Sunday night. If there is a correction needed, it would be helpful if someone were to email me with their suggested correction or at least to alert me to a remaining issue with my answers. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Outing and Harassment

One question by Sir Fozzie suggests that disclosing information that is disclosed by a user is not outing nor harassment. That cannot be right. While it's not "outing." It certainly could be harassment depending on what is said, and how the information is used. If it is included in an ad hominem attack, it violates wikipedia NPA policy, and the collegiality pillar. 'Focus on the comment not the contributer' applies equally to known or anonymous users. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't all ad hominem attacks violate policy? Nobody Ent 02:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's just more likely that it is about the personality of the user, where someone is discussing personal information about the user.Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the plain letter of WP:OUTING should suffice here: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Note the caveat here. If the information is voluntarily disclosed, it may be OK to use it (depending on context, obviously, as Alan rightly says). If not, then it's not OK under any circumstances. In this particular case, linking Fae's current and previous accounts is not outing as it isn't "personal information" in the sense envisaged by WP:OUTING. Fae has voluntarily disclosed his real name in conjunction with his Wikimedia UK activities, so that's not outing either. However, Fae has also been subjected to having his home address and phone number posted on Wikipedia Review - information that he said at the time had never been publicly disclosed in conjunction with Wikipedia. That is outing, quite clearly. The distinction is between (1) information that is not "personal", (2) personal information voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia and (3) personal information not voluntarily disclosed on Wikipedia. Posting the latter is outing. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking to ED

This is not useful to the Arbitrators and has been hatted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Prioryman mentioned the ED article, I couldn't really defend himself without providing links to ED. I'm made a response with links to ED. I hope that this is okay in this particular case. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) "If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand." -per top o' page. Nobody Ent 16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I never said that I was unsure. I know that I have a right to defend myself against Prioryman's accusations; I know that defending myself would requiring linking to ED; and I know that not defending myself will only hurt me and perpetuate Prioryman's accusations. I did as I must. My message above is simply there in order to avoid any misunderstandings about my intentions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure why you're referring to it as an "accusation" - it's a statement of fact, isn't it? Which you've already admitted? Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Don't post evidence linking to a blacklisted website. A diff with the URLs has been sent to the Committee. Any future evidence linking to that website should be sent by email as well. If you are unsure about posting, ask beforehand. Lord Roem (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) @Prioryman: I'm talking about the "punish" accusation. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I contested that claim; I simply wasn't in the mood for a lengthy argument. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Well, I don't know about that; the exchange seems clear enough. Risker said "through your own admission it only exists to punish the person who uploaded the images in the first place." Your reply accepted that view: "Alright, but it wasn't personal." You didn't actually contest the claim that it was "punishment"; the only thing I see you contesting there is whether or not it was the result of a grudge. Prioryman (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I don't see this conversation going anywhere positive. The Committee has seen all comments, everyone's statements are viewable in some form by all arbitrators. Let's take a step back from this for a day before another back-and-forth happens. I'm concerned that this will devolve very quickly. I appreciate your understanding. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC) No problem, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a misunderstanding on my part about what MDS had said to Risker. Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Although I know I shouldn't get involved in this particular debate, I feel like I must. I'm certainly not a fan of ED, but the "attack page" in question consists almost entirely of copies of images that were uploaded to Commons by Fæ (at that time using the account later renamed to Ash) and added by him to Wikipedia articles. Michaeldsuarez did not take those pictures. Fæ did. Michaeldsuarez did not upload those pictures to Commons. Fæ did. Michaeldsuarez did not add those pictures to Wikipedia articles. Fæ did. Michaeldsuarez did not connect Fæ's real name to those accounts. Fæ did (in image credits both here and on Commons). I think if people are unable to get a link to the page, we should at least be clear on what it is that is being described as an attack page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Would that page be considered an attack page and subject to speedy deletion on Wikipedia? I certainly think it would be an A10 with no real debate. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC) Any page on Wikipedia that uses Fæ's name as a title would likely be deleted as an attack page, regardless of content. The page in question is not on Wikipedia. My point, however, is that the content that makes up the page was contributed by Fæ himself. I wouldn't want people to think that it is similar to other ED pages. It is three images and the descriptions provided when Fæ uploaded them to Commons. One of those images (File:AussieBum wonderjock.jpg) is still available on Commons and in use on the Romanian language article on briefs - is it an attack page, too? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Would an article that had similar pictures of a person who is not Fae be deleted as an attack page here? I can't imagine it wouldn't be. Do you disagree? That the subject posted the pictures wouldn't change the answer I wouldn't think. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Again, this page isn't on Wikipedia, and it isn't an article, just images uploaded by Fæ along with the descriptive information he provided. If it were on Wikipedia, it would likely be deleted as an attack page (although it would equally likely be perfectly fine if posted by the subject in their own userspace). It is not on Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Yep, it's not on wikipedia, but we are. And at least when I claim it's an attack page, I mean in the Wikipedia-definition of the term. So I'd claim the "attack page" is, in fact, an actual attack page as is generally understood here. As you seem to imply it's not at attack page (the quotes and "what is being described as an attack page") I wanted to be sure we agreed it is, at least by Wikipedia's definition. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Michaeldsuarez, do you agree that the ED page in question would likely be subject to the A10 speedy criteria here on Wikipedia? That is, that it's an attack page as the term is used on Wikipedia to describe articles? Hobit (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC) You've already asked that question. Please cool down or you'll leave the impression you're trying to bait him into an argument. Lord Roem (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry for replying. I didn't see your message. The software didn't give me the usual "edit conflict" message. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Arg. People are saying it's not an attack page. I'm trying to establish what they mean by that. I directed the question to Michaeldsuarez, of whom the original question was not asked nor had he responded to it. He has now responded, and I'd like to know if I'm allowed to respond to his response. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC) As I said on my talk page, I do not see this discussion being productive in any regard. Both of you have had the opportunity to state your positions. SirFozzie and the other arbitrators active on this case will review your submissions and read your comments. Getting into a debate on this page, especially with the tense background to these proceedings, either serves no purpose or risks devolving really really quickly. Lord Roem (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) No, it wasn't posted on Wikipedia; therefore, it isn't subjected to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Are you going to force Wikipedia's rules on comedians and bloggers as well? WP:G10. It isn't an article article. It isn't "negative in tone" since the article doesn't contain any statements or assertions, and it isn't "unsourced". In fact, the article's content is entirely sourced. The material isn't "intended purely to harass or intimidate", as I've explained here and here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's evidence section

Prioryman's evidence section appears to basically be an editorial. It summarizes the RfC, then gives a statement of opinion about it and several other issues without providing any diffs to any evidence that has yet to be presented in this case. In fact, the section on Michaeldsuarez doesn't appear to say anything that Michaeldsuarez hasn't already said himself. Aren't statements of opinion supposed to go on the Workshop page or one of the case talk pages? Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my evidence about the RFC and RFA - in which I was uninvolved - is to provide some relevant numerical evidence, which other editors haven't covered, about the role that the issue of the previous account played in the RfC and the earlier RfA. As for MDS, I believe it's worth stating the facts for the record, as it ties in with other evidence that is under development. Note that none of what I've posted are "statements of opinion" - they are simple statements of fact. Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever watched Rashomon? Everyone thinks their version of events is the true one, and that includes me also, of course. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly have - it's one of my favourite films - but you seem to have missed the central theme of it, that it shows the unreliability of memory. (I've heard of police departments screening it for their trainees to make this point.) The nice thing about the evidence I presented, however, is that it's all based on written source materials, i.e. the RfA and RfC. If you think I've got the numbers wrong then please feel free to point out my errors, and I'll correct them. Prioryman (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's evidence section was looked over and reviewed in conjunction with MS' evidence section, by myself and at least a few others. I'm fine with leaving it as is; if anyone else has an issue with it; I'm sure they'll bring it up. NW (Talk) 22:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not compliant with directions at top of the page: "Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. ...Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute. ... Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, " (emphasis mine). As analysis, the contribution belongs on the workshop page, not the evidence section. Nobody Ent 23:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." [2] Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's evidence section (Arbitrator input required)

As a non-party editor, Cla68 is supposed to be limited to 50 diffs. He's currently on 105. I suggest this needs to be trimmed drastically. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Or I can request more space. Where do I do that? Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here. I'll change the header to see if I can flag the attention of an Arbitrator. If you don't get a response in a day or two, email the mailing list. NW (Talk) 10:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you get 105? His diffs currently run from number 46 to number 105. By my arithmetic this gives a total of 60 (stiill greater than the nominal limit of 50, though)

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cla: Before I decide if to grant a waiver to the diff limit, I'd like to know if you're pretty much done with diffs, or if you were planning to add more. SirFozzie (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've got to admit, I misread the total - I hadn't noticed that his diffs started at 46. Apologies. Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out on Wikipediocracy (thank you Mr/Ms dotdash), I also blundered by not including the unnumbered links in my putative total. I count 20 of those, making 80 in all.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Hersfold will take a look at the clerking bot tonight as it appears to have forgotten its duties. Lord Roem (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I leave it up to you guys. Basically what I was doing is going through Fae's contribution history from 1 January 2012 and listing every diff that could be interpreted as Fae alleging homophobia, personally attacking someone, disparaging a living person, or smearing participants of off-wiki forums. I'm currently up to 8 April. Do you want more diffs to look at, or is what I have provided so far sufficient for you to make an informed decision? Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing referred to as a "diff bomb". You might consider setting the threshold a bit higher, especially as some of the diffs seem like fair comment; for example, you call out this edit as an example of Fae "alleging homophobia", when he was responding to an anonymous homophobic statement posted on his talk page. I mean, how can you interpret "You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g" as anything other than homophobic? Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there are definitely some mitigating factors, at least for some of Fae's comments. I have tried to include those also in the evidence, such as a reference to the trolling comment on his userpage, and YouReallyCan's comment to Russavia. And, as I said on the Workshop page, Fae appears to be doing a good job with his page and vandal patrolling. Anyway, my question for SirFozzie still stands. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to grant a slight waiver, to 75.. but try to keep your diffs to the ones you think are truly unfounded attacks. When I was reviewing some of them, he was responding to an attack that quite simply WAS homophobic in nature, plain and simple (not saying the others weren't, I'm reviewing all the diffs provided) But in those cases, the diff isn't useful to me, and uses up time and effort better spent elsewhere. SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here...there's a balance to be struck between focusing one's evidence on the most useful diffs, and distorting one's evidence by omitting exculpatory material. The latter may be an unintended side effect of SirFozzie's request for Cla68 to do the former. So may I suggest: list the most compelling diffs, but summarize the rest to preserve the big picture. For example: "Diffs that clearly show behavior M: [list of diffs]. Additionally, there were X edits that showed this behavior but had mitigating factors, and Y edits in similar circumstances where the editor did not engage in the behavior." alanyst 03:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will give that a try. I was giving the diffs the firehose treatement because of a remark that Cool Hand Luke made once to someone when he was an arbitrator. I don't have time to find the diff, but to paraphrase what I remember it was something like, "Just give me the diffs and I don't need you to interpret them for me." Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Fæ's answers to questions

In Fæ's reponses to the "Arbitrator questions to parties", he has quoted editors without providing diffs to the original statements. This clearly removes the ability for readers to determine the context or verify that the statements are quoted accurately. To use a single example, I offer the following:

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

I did not make that statement on ANI. I quoted that statement on ANI, but it was made on Wikipedia Review. My reason for quoting it was to dispel an incorrect and rather fanciful interpretation of those remarks. The context of both the original statement and the ANI discussion have been stripped away, leaving it seeming like I made the statement on Wikipedia and that Fæ is asking for me to provide evidence that he engages in "sexual practices that may result in health, safety or legal risks". That does not seem like a well thought out request.

Fæ has referred to me several times in his evidence with phrases such as "the RFC/U that Delicious carbuncle created". This appears to be personalizing a dispute resolution process that I initiated but was necessarily certified and endorsed by multiple editors. Since there were two parts to the RFC/U, it is difficult to know when Fæ is referencing the RFC/U begun in 2010 or the continuation of that RFC/U in 2012. In one case, a long quote is entirely unattributed and no diff is provided.

I am more troubled by a statement in which a diff is provided, but it does not relate to the claim that is made:

Delicious carbuncle (DC) has confirmed that the evidence they used for outing me on Wikipedia Review was not self-disclosure, but a pseudonymous personal email from me which asked them for their help

The diff provided is this one in which I confirm that someone else's statement is accurate. That statement makes no mention of personal email and Fæ's contention is quite simply wrong on all counts. Fæ revealed their own identity on both Wikipedia and Commons. I will not rebut the other points since the entire section appears to be something other than answer to the question posed.

Fæ's entire response be removed and he should be warned about adhering to the rules of this proceeding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well. Nothing appears to have been done to address my concerns, other than a few more diffs being added by Fæ. The long, cherry picked quotations from Russavia and 28bytes which attack me are still there, as are numerous other references to (and allegations about) me, despite the fact that I have not been named as a party to this case. Do the clerks or the Arbs intend to do anything about this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Addressing your last question, if you would like to be added as a party to the case (which entails different evidence numbers), please direct that request to SirFozzie. Lord Roem (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that efforts were being made to prevent exactly the type of thing shown in Fæ's answers. I was not intending to present any evidence in this case and I do not wish to become a party. Why is Fæ being allowed to include other people's attacks on me as quotations? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting correction in Fae's answers

I'm posting here, since Fæ has told me not to use his talk page. If one looks at the history of the ED article, one can see that I didn't add the page to the "Faggotry" / "Homosexual deviants" series. An user named "Petin" did that. I didn't even add the page to the Wikipedia series; "Lorentz" did that. I didn't add that page to any series. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Evidence&diff=496425553&oldid=496424447 – Resolved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you do anything to change or dispute that addition? Did you express any disagreements with it? Prioryman (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses people! Let's stay away from hypotheticals... which only serve the purpose of argument. - Lord Roem (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out the hypothetical, but I would appreciate a reply from Michael on what action, if any, he took over that categorisation - which I think any right-minded person would find deeply offensive. Prioryman (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're still skirting on the edge here, but the question is now much better. Simply, did he do anything about the page's categorization? MS, if you choose to reply, please keep things civil and dispassionate. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't own the articles that I create. Once I publish an article, it becomes shared with the community. It isn't my place to revert revisions that I don't agree with. Please keep in mind that ED isn't written from a neutral, politically correct POV. It isn't my job to keep ED clean and child-friendly. Removing offensive content would be the antithesis of what being an ED contributor and sysop is all about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Do you, personally, find that categorisation offensive? How do you reconcile the page being categorised under "Faggotry" / "Homosexual deviants" with your contention that it's not an attack page? Prioryman (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to ED's adherence to the "wiki" way, any article can transform into an attack article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That has never happened in a Wikipedia BLP, now, has it? Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the difference is that on Wikipedia, we're expected to take steps to prevent BLPs being used to attack people, whereas on ED there's a positive expectation that articles can or should be used for denigration and that those responsible for creating and maintaining them don't consider it their job to do anything to prevent this. The fact that MS says "Removing offensive content would be the antithesis of what being an ED contributor and sysop is all about" says a lot about what kind of site ED is. Prioryman (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but that's not responsive to the two questions that I asked. Could you please address them? Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it's really relevant. The question is whether he created an attack page, not whether he created a page that went on to become an attack page. Any editor on any wiki can only be responsible for what they contribute; such is the nature of an open editing system. As I understand it all he did was post pictures that Fae himself uploaded under a license that allowed it and then other editors added the content necessary to turn it into an attack page. That's not to say that Fae couldn't have felt humiliated by the initial page, but again, he uploaded those pics himself. SÆdon^talk 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

One relevant question is whether someone (or several someones) have one or more personal issue(s) on Wikipedia, that they should drop. That one creates a website with asserted pictures of some other user on a wiki where attacks occur seems relevant to establishing a personal user's issues with another user (that they should avoid, altogether, on Wikipedia). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't yet interacted with Fæ at the time that I created the ED article. I didn't create it as a result of a grudge or a past interaction with Fæ. There weren't any personal issues between Fæ and myself. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You created a page about asserted pictures of another user, correct? If you have done so, its foreseeably likely to have consequences for your interaction with him, or with others about him. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "asserted pictures" (forced images?), but I did create a page containing photographs originally uploaded onto Commons by the "Ash" account. Yes, consequences of some sort are foreseeable, although I'm not yet sure what form those consequences will take. I started this thread stating that I would now comply with Fæ's wishes to not leave messages on his talk page. Is that not enough? Fæ hasn't requested anything from me beyond asking me not to use his talk page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claim

it is well known that some of people contributing in these discussions use different names on Wikipediocracy. is not supported by any evidence (diffs/links). Nobody Ent 01:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some obvious examples - Jayen466 posts as HRIP7, VolunteerMarek posts as Radek, Bali ultimate posts as Dan Murphy etc. This is disclosed on WR / Wikipediocracy by the participants themselves, who list their Wikipedia usernames below their WR / WY usernames next to their posts. It's not exactly a secret or some previously unknown fact. Prioryman (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IOW, a person using some diligence can connect the accounts on different sites - and you find that to be a proper act by those so connecting accounts of any person - right? Collect (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How can it possibly be "improper" if the link is disclosed by the individuals themselves? As I've pointed out it's not a secret of any kind. Prioryman (talk) 11:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, the facts linking Ash to other accounts were fully as overt, indeed more overt than the examples you give. So either using off-wiki linking of accounts is proper, or it is not. Which is it? Can we use statements off-wiki which say "I, user X here am user Y on Wikipedia" or not? (Note that a person on an off-wiki site could misstate who they are on Wikipedia quite readily - thus your linking here of accounts could be errant -- user "Xyzzg" on bloggopolisX.com could say that "I am Prioryman on Wikipedia", and we would not be able to aver that it is true with any confidence at all). So - is use of off-wiki information proper - or not? Cheers - I do not think I could phrase the issue in any clearer language. Collect (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So everything posted on WR / 'cracy is known to be true? Nobody Ent 17:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

A wondrous miracle indeed, if so. I rather think you understand this pretty well <g>. Collect (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claim 2

Fæ states "I consider that any outcome of a dispute resolution process must be treated as suspect if one of the involved parties takes the dispute off-wiki and canvasses for participants". No indication is given of who did that, in what dispute resolution it occured, or if Fæ was participating in the process when this occurred. Without that informatiion, it sounds like a self-serving justification for not participating in dispute resolution, which is one of the main factors of this case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that that phrasing was not the best. It has been removed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claim 3

Fæ states that the forum Wikipediocracy is "legally owned by Gregory Kohs". Fæ knows this to be misleading at best. As Rd232 said on Commoms, "And by the way, I'm sure you've seen me repeatedly telling Fae that registering a domain name is not the same as owning or controlling a site; and FYI thekohser is neither an Administrator nor Moderator of wikipediocracy's forum". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, for all intents and purposes the Wikipediocracy is Kohs' site, even if he has gone to lengths to not be seen as a literal owner or admin. He was a central figure of the Wikipedia Review Disgruntled Bunch that very much came to dislike that the WR was under the dominion of a single owner, so from the outset they wanted the ownership, as it were, to be held in a collective trust. Having said that, what Fae is doing by the continued name-dropping is a simple guilt-by-association logical fallacy; Kohs is persona non grata on all Wikimedia projects save Commons I believe, so if one can lump all anti-Fae criticism under such a disgraced name then it sullies the whole lot. I think/hope the Arbs are smart enough to see through this, which is why I wouldn't get too bent out of shape over the "legally owned by" stuff; technically incorrect, de facto reality, but in the end a meaningless assertion. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the back-and-forth, while interesting to those of us who follow Wikipedia criticism in the wake of recent debacles on WR, is getting quite remote from the issues before the Arbitration Committee. "Who owns Wikipediocracy?" is not something that is going to be relevant in this case. (And this is true for many of the other tangents that are being discussed, not just this one; and I'm not looking in any particular direction as I type this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the point lies in whether or not Fae's motive is to suggest that the WY participants are working on the behalf of a "banned user" who is felt by many to be a persona non grata. If that's not the case, it's irrelevant. If it is the case, then it's further evidence of Fae responding to an argument by attacking the person making it, rather than responding to the argument itself. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claim 4

Fæ states that he is "distressed" by "inflammatory or unsubstantiated allegations from canvassing discussions on Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy being brought on to Wikipedia". Since they are on Wikipedia, diffs need to be provided of the allegations. I suggest that "canvassing" is a loaded term and evidence (in the form of links showing actual canvassing, not mere discussion) should be provided if such term is being used. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae has removed the phrase "inflammatory or unsubstantiated", added Commons to his sentence, and included some links. Only one link is to Wikipedia and there is no clear link between Wikipedia Review or Wikipediocracy and the comment made. It is entirely unclear what the archived discussions from Wikipedia Review are meant to demonstrate without Fæ connecting the dots. It is well established that there are discussions of Fæ's actions on WR - what is his specific claim? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think his claim concerns "canvassing". But you've made your point here, and are free to rebut any of Fae's points in your own evidence section. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not wish to give evidence. I would like to avoid any further drama by staying at arm's length from this if possible. Fæ is quite clearly referring to allegations not to canvassing. In either case, he has not supported his case with those diffs. Please explain how this fits in with Sir Fozzie's point 3 of the rules of evidence here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous claim 1

Although Fæ has updated his "answers" to clarify that certain comments I made on ANI were, in fact, quotations from a Wikipedia Review post under discussion, he has put those quoted statement forward as unsupported "extraordinary claims" (the subject of the question). The entire discussion was one of hypotheticals and, as such, I see no reason to even attempt to substantiate my statements. I did not make those statements on Wikipedia and they are not the "extraordinary claims" that ArbCom is looking into here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed, because the statement can be seen in the link. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing this with the statement by Russavia, which you removed. My statements, which I made on WR but quoted here only because they were being wildly misinterpreted by one of Fæ's supporters, are still there in answer to the question "Have such extraordinary claims been made and if so.. have they been substantiated to the point that Wikipedia requires?" despite the fact that i was not making any kind of claim and my words were never intended to be posted on Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the quotation that was not necessary, but preserved the link. If you have further problems or concerns with Fae's evidence, you are free to respond in your own evidence section. Some of your comments seem to be direct rebuttals of something Fae said, which are certainly more appropriate on the evidence page proper. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous claim 2

In reference to the deleted article List of gay bathhouse regulars, Fæ states that "the list in question was restricted to the dead, and was well sourced to quality published biographical and autobiographical sources". He links to a copy of the article in his userspace which contains an entry for Scott Capurro, who is not known to be dead. It would be impossible for Fæ not to be aware of this, since he (editing at that time as User:Teahot) refers to Capurro specifically in the AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Ash removed Capurro from the list before it was deleted. (on 26 July 2009diff). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a direct rebuttal to Fae's evidence. It's not NW's or my job to make judgement calls about who was "aware" of something. That's something above my pay grade. Lord Roem (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Further to it was claimed by John lilburne that “[I was] someone, that a few months previously, was invading the privacy of others by building a list of gay bathhouse attendees” when the list in question was restricted to the dead apart from Scott Capurro. It should be noted that the BLP issues for the List were well expressed in its Article for Deletion debate. In particular that the chances of the list being limited to the dead was zero, and that it is nearly impossible to define regular. The addition of Fashanu is an interesting case in point. He is hardly in the same league of notability for being in bathhouses as Truman Capote, Charles Demuth, Charles Griffes, or Rock Hudson. In the decade and more since his death there haven't exactly been a slew of 'kiss and tells' from people retelling tales of Fash in the baths. Best we can tell, 8 years after coming out, he was a newcomer to the biggest gay bathhouse in London. Though, according to that bastion of reliability the 'Daily Mirror', he may have been to another one, at some time or other, over in Stockbridge, apparently. Lists of this nature, where random people are crammed together, not because they are notable for the thing listed, but simply because there happens to be a reference somewhere ... that associates them with the list's subject are IMO inherently bad. I said my piece about this when the "List of HIV-positive people" was up for deletion, and I retain those views still. I'm indeed surprised that whilst Fae recognises that particular list's inherent BLP issues he fails to recognise that his "List of gay bathhouse regulars" creates the same the inherent problems too. John lilburne (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claim 5

Fæ makes the unsupported, erroneous, and implausible claim that I determined his identity using the ownership records of the domain which provided his email address. If he had sent me an email from a Google account, would I have assumed that he was "DNS Admin" from Mountain View, California? Fæ revealed his identity on Wikipedia and on Commons - there was no need for me to rely on any other source. For example, the description of an image uploaded in 2006 reads "Taken by Ashley Van Haeften of himself on Carn Brea, Cornwall, UK, C.1996. I spent my teenage years growing up on Carn Brea. In the background is Carn Brea Castle which was bought as a ruin and converted into a restaurant in the 1990's". His supposition about my actions is not only incorrect but does not make sense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported claim 6

Fae states "I have been pursued over a period of years by people using the same pseudonymous Wikipedia accounts". Although there are references to imagined slights on Wikipedia Review not borne out by the links to archived discussions there, no Wikipedia account is identified and no diffs are provided of the "pursuit" despite it being years long. Who did this, where, and when? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could remind Fae that when presenting evidence, diffs or links are usually expected to be supplied to support any allegations made? Cla68 (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Update on Clerking Bot

The changes to the ArbComOpenTasks template are screwing around with Hersfold's bot. It's being worked on now, but until it's back up, clerks will have to manually check compliance with evidence guidelines. So, just a heads up! Lord Roem (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good news, everyone! We're close to getting the bot up again! Hersfold is doing a great job updating the bot, but it will be just a bit longer. -- Lord Roem (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

How many messages can one leave?

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Nineteen notices to nineteen different users. Here's where eighteen of them were mentioned in Fæ's answers:

Supporters include well established and trusted users such as Jayen466, Johnbod, Blue Rasberry, Bidgee, Bearian, Modernist, Secret, Victuallers, WereSpielChequers, OlEnglish, Peridon, Marek69, Causa sui, AniMate, Orderinchaos, Tryptofish, Lankiveil and Nick-D.

Is making a long list of supporters and using that list to notify those supporters about the ArbCom case appropriate? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's an established protocol to send courtesy notifications to editors if you mention them in the course of an arbitration or AN/I discussion. Wnt rightly did the same here after he posted his evidence, and nobody objected then. Why the double standard? Prioryman (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm one of those people mentioned. I, in turn, mentioned the talk page contact in my evidence, and I'll leave it to the Arbitrators who will read what I wrote to decide whether I really qualify as a "supporter". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I simply read Tryptofish's evidence ("I became aware of this case through a notice Fae left on my user talk"). I didn't learn this from off-wiki. As far as I'm aware, the Wikipediocracy thread doesn't mention the large quantity of notification. Wnt's answer doesn't include a long-winded list of eighteen lists. Wnt only contacted seven persons, and unlike Fæ, this wasn't from a big list of supporters. In my opinion, mentioning so many names was unwarranted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Note about context: While I was writing the above message, Lord Roem hadn't yet removed a certain sentence from Prioryman's comment. The edit conflict message didn't appear while I submitted my comment, so I wasn't aware of the removal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems the notifications are neutrally worded... Lord Roem (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet another thing in an ArbCom forum that reminds me of a real world courtroom. From the court cases I have observed, the participants do everything possible, often pushing boundries, to bolster their side. It's normal. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A neutrally worded message informing an editor that you have spoken about them in the course of an arbitration proceeding is not something to get worked up about. There's been no flood of comments from the editors Fae contacted, and I doubt there will be. It's just courtesy. Lord Roem (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Lord Roem Speaking of courtesy, I would like to point out that Fae posted talk page notifications to all the users who had supported him in his 2012 Rfc, including the following WMUK members whom he may well know in person: Johnbod, Sam Blacketer, Victuallers, WereSpielChequers, Marek69, FeydHuxtable, and Prioryman. He failed to notify the editors he mentioned in more unfavorable terms in his 'evidence' – Delicious carbuncle, Peter cohen, John lilburne, Michaeldsuarez, and yours truly. Other editors in good standing he mentioned but did not notify include Youreallycan, ErrantX, Phillipe Beaudette, AGK, and Tiucsibgod. Draco^E 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then Fae should notify the other set of editors he mentioned (with the exception of those who already submitted evidence as they have already made their statements). Lord Roem (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He didn't notify me and I didn't participate in either of the RfCs or the RfA, but I don't believe he's mentioned me in his evidence either. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Lord Roem. As far as I'm concerned, consider me informed. I would also like to take this opportunity to inform Fae that I do not wish for him to contact me by email ever again. I redacted the statement he is linking to in his 'evidence' after he sent me a private email only a few hours after my initial post in his 2012 Rfc. Should Fae insist on contacting me by email I would hereby like to inform him that any further emails will be treated as on-wiki communications, in the interest of his interpretation of "openness and transparency". Draco^E 21:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand DracoEssentialis' statement entirely and have not been following the case closely. But there are three untrue factual assertions. 1) Fae did not notify me about anything (until he alerted me to Draco's statement); as can be seen from my talk page history he has not edited it at all until this last hour. 2) I am not now nor have I ever been a member of WMUK. 3) I have not to my knowledge met Fae in real life. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@Lord Roem, regarding your edit of my statement here, please allow me to say I wasn't aware that merely referring to my reaction to an email was not in compliance with the rules. I am perfectly willing to send you and the arbitrators a copy of that email, given that Fae never asked me to keep it confidential. However, since he's once again lashing out left, right, and center, I would like for him to have the final say on whether or not I'm at liberty to do so. I have no hard feelings against him (though that clearly isn't mutual), but I do consider him unsuitable to edit BLPs, given what he tried to do to Karrine Steffans. My sincere apologies to Sam Blacketer, an editor who supported Fae in his 2012 Rfc, and was kind enough to mention that he had just been informed by Fae about my statement on here. What a surprise. I missed that Sam was among the few UK supporters of Fae's who didn't receive a "courtesy notification". I will redact my previous statement to reflect this. Draco^E 22:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do inform anyone I have missed out, as mentioned above I may not be free to address this until after Sunday otherwise. I don't understand the point of informing people I have explained that I have been in email contact with in relation to this RFAr and so are going to be aware of it (though I did notify Jayen466, DracoEssentialis' husband as stated on her user page), or those that are visibly active in contributing their opinions. Though if this is necessary, I will do it by all means. I recall that during the 2012 RFC/U everyone who participated in my RFA was notified by bot. A slight but important clarification, as pointed out, I had thought, by Tryptofish above; anyone who supported one opinion in the 2012 RFC/U should not be arbitrarily characterized generally as "supporters of Fae". --Fæ (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Where should I reply to Fae's answer to the questions?

I see my name mentioned in three places in Fae's answers to. Where should my comments on these mentions go? --Peter cohen (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to directly respond, you are free to create your own evidence section. You can title the 'assertion' appropriately ("X's statement is incorrect") so the arbs know what you're referring to. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested on closing times

At the top of this and other pages it says: "Evidence closes 12 June 2012 • Workshop closes 19 June 2012." Could one of the clerks please clarify at what specific time the pages will be closed? Prioryman (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're flexible enough to say when UTC/Wikipedia time says 13 June. But I'm not familiar with that specifically... I'd direct that to Nuclear Warfare or SirFozzie. :) Lord Roem (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - in that case I'll assume that the closing time is effectively 23:59 UTC on the 12th and 19th respectively, and I'll aim to complete my various bits in that timeframe. Prioryman (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fair. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Scope questions

Fæ has made reference to Commons and included diffs in his "answers" that are from Commons. Also included are several links to Wikipedia Review discussions, although it is not clear how they relate to specific allegations in Fæ's "answers". What is the scope of this case?

1. Given the circumstances, it seems reasonable to allow links to WR -- although I suggest that anyone linking to such discussions needs to specify which part of a long discussion supports their specific allegation -- but I am having difficulty determining what is and isn't in scope here. Is Commons in scope?
2. If WR is in scope, are comments made on Twitter, for example, in scope?
3. What is the burden of proof accepted here? For example, Fæ states that the tagline for WR was at one point a sly reference to himself, but cannot substantiate that claim. Without meaning to dispute Fæ's statement, is it acceptable for parties in this case to make assertions about what they recall about external sites without being able to provide corroboration? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Undisclosed editing restrictions

The following from Fae's response to SirFozzie's questions seems to imply that there were editing restrictions in place during the RfA, which were not disclosed:

Thanks to then Arbcom member John Vandenberg’s advice in the months before and then during my RFA (I had previously approached Arbcom member Newyorkbrad for advice but he was not available), I agreed to avoid interacting with contributors to the 2010 Delicious carbuncle 2010 RFC/U about edits in 2009, and to avoid editing any gay porn actor BLPs for 12 months. This was an agreement that I closely followed. It should be noted that Youreallycan, a key critic, stated the opposite view to Peter Cohen [22].

Is it true that these were not disclosed at the time of Fae's RfA? Were there any other editing restrictions for Fae in place at the time, and were they disclosed? Are there any editing restrictions for Fae currently in place, and have they been disclosed? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 15:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're reading too much into this. I think all Fæ is saying here is that he voluntarily abstained from certain editing activities on John Vandenberg's advice. As far as I can see, those abstentions were nothing more than what the cleanstart policy says is expected of an editor who invokes it anyway—namely that the editor's new account "will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, ...". Unlike Fæ's apparent agreement, however, the cleanstart policy doesn't appear to me to place any limit—let alone one of 12 months—on the period for which the new account is expected to keep editing in new areas and avoid old disputes.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is more that he apparently entered into the voluntary agreement under advice of the arbitrator who weighed in on the RfA saying it was a "clean" clean start. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Fae's voluntary abstention. That RFC/U sought to force him to stop editing all BLPs, which was not a reasonable demand in the circumstances. He responded (as Fae) by avoiding the topic area under dispute. It seems to have been an entirely appropriate response to the main concern of the Ash RFC/U. Prioryman (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem—except possibly with John Vandenberg's and Fæ's joint judgement that the latter would be legitimately entitled to claim a cleanstart if only he were to follow the former's advice. The statements John made in the RfA seem to me to be nothing more than a public expression of the opinions he had apparently already given to Fæ privately.

Personally, I would be more concerned about an apparent inconsistency between the statement of Fæ's you have quoted above and one John Vandenberg posted to Fæ's talk page last January. Fæ's statement seems to imply that he received advice from John some months before the former's RfA was lodged. John's statement, however, seems to imply that he didn't even start looking into the matter until less than 2 weeks before.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 04:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly in regards to the inconsistency that does concern you, being the apparent inconsistency in the timeline of my advising of Fae, it wont surprise you to learn that all statements given are correct, and apparent discrepancies can be put down to highlighting the positive rather than a malicious attempt to deceive. I did communicate with Fae a bit prior to the RFA, starting in Jan 2011, but I only properly looked at the history of Fae just prior to the RFA. I should have looked much earlier, and I should have looked much deeper. For example, my investigation didn't uncover that Fae had previously had an account which resembled his real name; had I been informed of this, or found this during my investigation, it would have influenced by advice regarding cleanstart. However his editing under 'Fae' at the time was quite good. It wasnt perfect, but the profile of 'Fae' was definitely that of someone who would be an asset to the admin corp, and it was very different from the profile of 'Ash', although I did note a few overlaps and advised Fae to steer clear of such topics in future. From the outset I was curious as to how Fae handled his identity, as he was as member of Wiki UK which meant his identity was known. At the time I had no idea Fae would seek to become a trustee of Wiki UK, or that Wiki UK would become charitable, which IMO means ones identity must be fully disclosed to both the wiki community and the UK public who are trusting him to be accountable for his decisions, as charitable status is using public funds. Since Fae became a Wiki UK trustee, I have been concerned about his aggressive actions intended to keep his identities a muddled picture, and even more so by his attacks on everyone who links the two identities based on plainly obvious information that is hosted on WMF infrastructure and on the wikimedia.org domain. IMO obscuring these links is incompatible with being a trustee of a charity. That said, if Fae were to concede that he is, now as chair of Wikimedia UK, a public person, I would again support him at RFA. He is a nice chap, and as an admin he does a good job. Admins dont need to be perfect; they do need to be transparent. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Good post. --JN466 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviation for Wikipediocracy?

Is there an established abbreviation for Wikipediocracy yet, like WR for Wikipedia Review? Prioryman (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there a need for one? To what purpose? Collect (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You're being very defensive, aren't you? I just need to know how/whether I should abbreviate it when I write about it. Prioryman (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What in Heaven's name is the rationale for that outré aside? IMHO, the xs use of abbrs is !good. Write the extra twelve characters - it is good for the soul, and prevents confusion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There isn't an established one, though "WPO" and "WY" seem to be the most common nowadays. We (the staff there) tried to come to a consensus on it, but somehow ended up with more than one opinion per person opining. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 21:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

WO seems appropriate. Bielle (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice. To be honest it sounds like there's no established abbreviation for it yet, so I'll avoid abbreviating it for the sake of avoiding confusion. Prioryman (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not meant as advice; more a small joke. Bielle (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My new evidence and findings of fact

I've posted a number of new items of evidence and findings of fact today, including material concerning User:Delicious carbuncle, an individual with whom I have a mutually agreed interaction ban. For the sake of avoiding unnecessary confusion or controversy, please note that the Arbitration Committee has given permission for these items of evidence and FoFs to be posted. This evidence and findings of fact are not intended to indict Delicious carbuncle and Bali ultimate, the other editor whose conduct I have cited, but to provide background and context to the RFC/U against Fae. I believe that this evidence, and the findings of fact that it supports, makes a case for exonerating circumstances in relation to certain aspects of Fae's conduct. In order to respect the interaction ban and to avoid personalising the issues any further, I will not be following up comments posted by Delicious carbuncle and I will not be proposing remedies concerning him. Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So Fae's defense is that he was advised by "the police, Stonewall and victim support" to avoid "responding in any way to certain related users", therefore he declined to participate in the RfC. And all of Prioryman's evidence section is basically a restatement of Fae's "Reply to..." comments, with additional and directed accusations against the Wikipedia Review, Wikipediaocracy, and several named users currently banned from the Wikipedia. It seems to be quite a monumental leap from A (alleged harassment received by the subject in real-life) to B (refusal to participate in RfC), in that Fae is suggesting and Prioryman is repeating that those involved in the RfC were the ones harassing him to the point that police intervention/advice was sought. Would the clerks mind looking over this and seeing if this jibes with that fat yellow box up there? It seems to me that there is quite an effort being made to conflate criticism of Fae with harassment of Fae. Tarc (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hardly. There is a straightforward causal chain here. Fae was subjected to intense off-wiki attention initiated by Delicious carbuncle over a period of months. Fae was also subjected to threats, harassment and privacy violations. DC started an RFC/U against Fae soon after violating his privacy. Fae and many others considered the RFC/U to be a continuation of the general harassment of Fae. Fae received professional advice not to engage with his harassers, including DC. Consequently Fae declined to participate in the RFC/U. Note that this is emphatically not saying that "those involved in the RfC were the ones harassing him". The vast majority of those involved in the RFC/U were not involved in harassment and I've made no such claim. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and if we were creating an article here that'd be disallowed as synthesis, as you are implying a connection between DC's "intense off-wiki attention" and the "threats, harassment and privacy violations" he allegedly received. This is what Roem or NW needs to weigh in, as I see no diffs to support such a connection chain, nor would any really be possible since this is more or less your own interpretation of events. Tarc (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The harassment and privacy violations were carried out by DC in the course of his "intense off-wiki attention" - I have made the case that, per WP:OUTING, posting another editor's home name and address without their consent is categorically an act of harassment and a privacy violation. There is no "allegedly" about it, as the policy is explicitly clear on that point. Fae was also subjected to privacy violations by other individuals on Wikipedia Review. The shorter causal chain is: DC and others violate Fae's privacy and harass him. Fae also receives threats and abuse. DC starts RFC/U. Fae is advised not to engage with DC. Fae follows advice. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, that is your interpretation of events, and I do not feel that lobbing such allegations of harassment without actual proof should be allowed to stand. The workshop pages in particular, from "The RFC/U was initiated in abnormal circumstances" on down is especially problematic, as it is just a series of personal and unsubstantiated claims, a sort of weird proxy defense of and explanation for Fae's RfC participation refusal. As for the "outing" claim above, I think that has been pretty much debunked at this point due to Fae's own linking of his identity to that account. That's a bit of toothpaste that just ain't gonna be squeezed back into the tube at this point. Tarc (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is, if I might say, something of a sleight of hand that I've noticed going on concerning the question of outing. I've already said that I don't think Fae was outed by posting his real name, as he had already disclosed it in connection with his account. But that's a very different question from the issue of posting his home address and phone number, which he had not disclosed on Wikipedia. Posting that was unquestionably an act of outing and harassment. However, you are conflating the two, in effect saying that because Fae had voluntarily disclosed his name, that somehow made it OK to disclose his previously undisclosed address and phone number. That is absolutely not the case. Also, if you have any concerns that anything I've said is "unsubstantiated", I suggest you highlight for me which specific things you think are unsubstantiated and I will point out where I've substantiated them. (Ironic that a claim that my statements are unsubstantiated is itself unsubstantiated!) Prioryman (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Enough please, both parties. This is not the place for discussion about the evidence. There is actually a section on the workshop for that. Also, Prioryman has submitted evidence to Arbcom which he says will support the claims in his evidence - that is being examined. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for clerks

Bali ultimate has posted a threaded response in my evidence section. Could a clerk please move it to some other more appropriate place? Prioryman (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A brief comment relating to the evidence section I posted

More than other editors, I think, I have posted comments and related diffs related to "Fae's" editing as "Ash". I intend, as I post material to the Workshop pages, to demonstrate editing practices common to the two accounts relating to matters under arbitration. If there are questions as to the relevance of the older material, I hope the upcoming Workshop posts will dispel them. Some material also relates to the accuracy of "Fae's" representations concerning his prior account(s), a matter already raised by other editors and of clearer relevance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My section misplaced

I seem to have inserted my section below an unused evidence section. For some reason I can't delete that unused section. Is a clerk able to do so? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Lord Roem (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Peter cohen (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Error in Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&diff=497308618&oldid=496811185 – Please note that there's an error in the evidence that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz presented. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem rests with slightly imprecise language in the text, and am requesting permission to clarify it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Closing evidence page

This page was due to close on 12th June, but I see it is still being edited. Could there be some clarification of what edits are allowed after the close date? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence phase is closed. As I told both parties though, any requests for extensions should be directed at drafting arbitrator SirFozzie. Lord Roem (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I read that as no edits of any kind are acceptable from anyone at this time unless there is a request and permission from SirFozzie. On that basis can the changes that were made today to my evidence without permission given (as far as I can make out) from SirFozzie be reverted? Thanks again. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This request seems to me to be rather tendentious. If I interpret NE's edits, which appear to be no more than the insertion of webcode "anchors", correctly, no more has been done than to insert non-visible navigational aids to facilitate understanding of related statements on the Workshop page posted by NE. "Closing of the evidence phase" should not be used as a pretext for impeding the subsequent stage of this process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If I am to be a party, I will require at least a day to amend my evidence, probably more, and I will await clarification of my role in the case before undertaking to do that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Since two editors has only today been added as official parties to the case, the evidence phase should properly be extended at least a little bit to be fair to the new parties. -- KTC (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I just added something to my own evidence, and then saw this thread. If a clerk wants to revert my edit, I will have no objection. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

An update for everyone: Right after I got the message from SirFozzie to add the two new parties, I asked about extending evidence for them. I have not yet received an answer. But, considering any such extension would be short, it may not be a bad idea for new parties to prepare something in case an extension is granted. Lord Roem (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be fairly refused, if they were just added as parties. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I feel SirFozzie will extend it for them. I just haven't got official word yet. Lord Roem (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't just be extended to them as others may well want to come forward with further evidence as a result. Up till now most of the 'evidence' from Prioryman could be dismissed as nothing more than verbiage and transparent miss direction, which was hardly worth any one's while responding to. John lilburne (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting this diff here: [23]. Although I agree fully with Nobody Ent about NPA, I want to make sure that the Arbs see what was written. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What does the term "lambchop" have to do with the answers this process is determining?LedRush (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd always found them rather tasty, personally... Prioryman (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The most common meaning when calling someone the name "Lambchop" is to compare them to a famous sockpuppet. Lamb Chop had the voice and character of a 6 year old girl, which may be part of how the comparison on this page might be read as offensive when used against Prioryman. See Lamb Chop (puppet). If anyone intends to call a contributor here a sockpuppet by the use of snide comments, they ought to be asked to supply the evidence. --Fæ (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Far from referencing sockpuppet it alludes to this earlier comment in particular the plaintive bleating of much of Prioryman's evidence, and the meat aspect of lambchop. In effect tit for tat, or as the Australians would say fair goes at the sauce bottle. John lilburne (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that Arbcom members and the others reading here can take a look at the Youtube video you have linked to, read the tone of your text such as "plaintive bleating" and reach their own conclusions of your intended characterization of Prioryman. Thank you for your clarification. --Fæ (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Given the history between the two, uUpdate after update each of which are effectively "sanction DC, sanction DC, do it to DC, do it DC, do it to DC, sanction DC" can quite correctly be characterized as plaintive bleating. John lilburne (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem productive. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 10:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't for a moment believe John's explanation but, you know, I'm not particularly concerned about this. It's just him being silly. I agree that it's not a productive topic - let's just drop it and move on. OK? Prioryman (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do Michael and/or DC want to add more evidence to the page, or can the workshop be used to work it through? The workshop might need extending more than the evidence if that's the case, particularly given that they were added as parties at the last moment. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 10:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

According to DC two most recent edits [24][25], I'll say the answer to that would be yes. -- KTC (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I will expand my evidence, but I am awaiting clarification if the scope and focus of this case before I do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unhat request

Since I'm now a party, can Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#.22Attack_article.22_.28reply_to_Prioryman.29 and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Linking_to_ED please be unhatted? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Arbs can still see it, but there's no reason to unhat it. Lord Roem (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Can see" and "do see" are two completely different things. The "this is not useful to the Arbitrators and has been hatted" message on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Linking_to_ED is basically telling Arbitrators not to view it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If that is the way SirFozzie (drafting arbitrator) sees it, that's very likely the ways other arbs will too. Lord Roem (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The addition of folks to the case may cause SirFozzie to change his mind. Worth asking. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Lord Roem, please ask. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to unhat it. I still do not think it's useful, and if my fellow arbs disagree, they can either unhat/hab it, or just use it in their deliberations (it is still available on the page) SirFozzie (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So arbitrators sometimes make decisions involving parties without having read evidence the parties present? Nobody Ent 08:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A question

This speculative tangent is not going to be productive. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As I've been reading the evidence, there is something that seems to me to just not add up. I'm asking about it here, and I'm not directing it at anyone in particular. Anyone who has insight into it, please say what you will. I ask not simply out of personal curiosity, but because I figure that something that is unclear to me will also be unclear to some of the Arbs. It's about the way that those users who feel negatively about Fae's conduct have come to feel the way that they do. Going beyond simply posting evidence, I keep seeing what sounds like real anger at Fae. It comes across in words like "lambchop", and in places where Fae's real life name gets repeated over and over again. There's a level of animosity that I might expect if there had been a history of nastiness by Fae against those other users, such as persistent unilateral personal attacks against them. And yet most of the evidence I'm seeing consists of what might perhaps be considered to be bad editing patterns under the previous accounts, and concerns about transparency about the existence of those accounts or about possibly evading previous DR. Fae seems to believe that the intensity of affect comes from homophobic prejudice, but those other editors deny that. What, then, does it come from? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC) I'm sure you will have noticed that the majority of the comments against Fae on these pages have come from individuals associated with Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review. They're not, by any means, a cross-section of opinion on Wikipedia; they're a fairly small group of people who spend a lot of time on what are essentially support forums for embittered former users and cranks with an anti-Wikipedia agenda. (Not that all the users over there fall into those categories, but the former users and cranks seem to dominate or at least be the noisiest.) I think the nastiness and bitterness that you're seeing is simply a reflection of the culture of those two forums. Prioryman (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, I did notice that. (Unrelated: it occurs to me that I need to clarify that the "lambchop" comment was directed at you and not at Fae.) But I'd like to dig deeper than that. I'm well aware of these issues of online culture; indeed, there was a campaign against me by some persons from Something Awful who were furious over Wikipedia's inclusion of Japanese popular culture, of all things. But WR et al. don't get angry at everybody; the few comments about me there have (so far) been rather nice. There's something specifically about Fae/Ash that sets off some very personalized reactions that have become very visible in this arbitration, and I'd like to know what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Imagine if you will a theoretical list, we'll call it the "Canonical Things That Wikipedia Critics Do Not Like". Not addressing or actively resisting reform in the "Commons porn problem", assertions of prejudice without evidence, conduct unbecoming an admin, undue advocacy in a personal topic area, etc... If a person hits a bullseye on pretty much every list item, yea, I can see why there is enmity. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC) Yes, I can readily imagine that, but again, I want to dig deeper. The admin conduct didn't occur during the Ash account, and yet the enmity dates back to then. The assertions of prejudice were reactive, so something had to have occurred before that. Is it, then, the "Commons porn problem"? If so, I can understand why people would disagree with it, but why would it make them angry? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the clerk and I accept that the clerk disagrees with me. Please feel free to continue to reply at User talk:Tryptofish#Your question. I also urge the Arbitrators to consider looking under the "hat" with respect to things that are unexplained in the evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with LR that the hatted discussion had little productive potential, I would note that Jimmy Wales's comment when he invited Fae to stay off his talk page is a pretty good summary of the impression Ash/Fae/etc has left on editors who have noticed his involvement in disputes, and that Mr Wales hardly falls into the category of "embittered former users and cranks with an anti-Wikipedia agenda" who are so often said to be behind the criticism of AvH. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There are responses to your comment on my talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Classifying critics at certain websistes as "embittered former users and cranks with an anti-Wikipedia agenda" is yet another example of the abusive ad hominem accusations that have, unfortunately, been used all too often in connection with this episode. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Noting that one perspective ended up inside the hat, and the opposite perspective is outside it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish, the discussion at User talk:Tryptofish#Your question is enlightening. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Vigorously seconded. Stop me if I'm on the point of hyperbole, and no disrespect intended to the process or the Committee, thankless job that they have. But I'd venture to say (as a 100% uninvolved lurker) that that user talk page discussion has shed more light on this entire issue than most of what's been posted to these arbitration pages. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but to give Lord Roem some benefit of the doubt, the motivations of the parties and interested observers shouldn't matter as much as their actual actions. Cla68 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Forgive me if I seemed to imply otherwise. All I meant was that the added context seems to indicate the potential for parties to move forward and build an encyclopedia, if not together per se, then at least not at cross-purposes - if they can choose that course and stick to it. This would require a certain amount of "forgive and forget" by all parties, but is not utterly impossible. Two days ago this did not look to be the case. Again, mine is an outside perspective which could be mistaken. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that arbitrators are generally interested in "breaking the back" of disputes. That discussion, may (or may not) be useful to that end. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

My great thanks for the kind words! I really appreciate that. I hope that the Arbs will take a peek, and that they will find it worth their time. In my opinion, they will. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cohen evidence

In the first diff provided in that evidence, all I'm seeing is Fae replacing bare URL references with properly formatted ones. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Oops my mistake, I got confused by the insertion of the company name as a source. This diff does show Fae inserting the link. Could a clerk please fix the diff in my evidence? (I'm assuming thta I'm not allowed to at this late stage.) Also, I would be grateful if someone could change "unlawfully taken" to "unlawfully published". Thanks--Peter cohen (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Take a close look at the last paragraph. None of those are acceptable references in a BLP; they're press releases and PR copy from a porn producer. Moments before running reflinks, Fae had given that paragraph individual attention. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt, Fae (as Ash) had edited porn articles extensively and would have known that the second link in that paragraph went to an advertising page that shouldn't have been used in the BLP. Moreover, the paragraph had just been added back to the article by an anon, and tagged by an edit filter as a probable BLP violation. Yet "Fae" blithely went ahead without taking appropriate action against the BLP violations. After another user removed the paragraph, properly citing BLP and RS issues, "Fae" reinstated it, claiming in the edit summary that the sourcing was valid (as noted in my evidence section). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I largely avoid BLPs because of things like this. Looking into the archives, as far as I can tell we've self-censored her extremely well-known nickname covered in the mainstream press (MTV, AP) because the name is degrading. There are 300,000 Google hits for it [26]. Hobit (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? You think that nickname should be mentioned in her article? Should Amanda Knox get this treatment, in your opinion? Tarc (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

We do (search for for the nick in the article, it shows up in the references). Given it has been a common nickname (apparently in reliable sources) we should probably cover it. It's offensive IMO, but our job is to inform. And given we are quite happily linking to sources that use it, I don't see what exactly we are helping if we were to drop all references to it. In any case, getting back to the issue, at the very least these sources and the nickname aren't clearly problematic. Fae did reasonable things and used (frankly) reasonable sources to support actual verifiable facts. No matter if his opinion carried the day or not, I'm not seeing anything problematic. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Appearing as the title of a cited source is far, far removed from placing it in the infobox as a "pen name", as people tried to do one that Steffans page. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that I'd be opposed to. Not mentioning it at all, especially in the first case, just makes us look like we have our heads buried in the sand... Hobit (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc: yes, and yes. We should not be in the business of trying to hide WP:WELLKNOWN facts. We can try to be a bit sensitive about how prominently such names are featured, but they are important for understanding the sociology. Indeed, Foxy Knoxy has been a redirect since 2009, so I don't think we're breaking any new ground there. I think Fae's "blithely" violating BLP is one of those "extraordinary claims" some people here keep talking about.

Hobit: that said, you should always prick Google's inflated estimates by manually typing in something like "500" for the hit to begin on - they always deflate to something sane, in this case 383 hits. That millions-and-millions of hits dodge is just an advertising tactic we should know better than to believe. But 383 is enough, if there are reliable sources among them - two is enough, if they're good. Wnt (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Humm, I agree your link gives only around 380 hits. But [27] is a narrower search that gives more and still claims there are hundreds of thousands (which sounds about right really). But the point is moot, it's the quality not quantity and in any case the claim of Fae blithely violating BLP isn't at all clear. Hobit (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

@Peter, glad I could help! Hobit (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit of a heads up regarding timeline for this case

I have instructed the clerks that this will be the timeline for the remainder of this case:

Monday, 19 June: Evidence Phase closes. Page will be full protected. Any further evidence will need to go through a clerk (and will have a very high bar to pass to be posted) Monday 26 June:Workshop Phase closed, page will be full protected Monday July 2: Due Date for Proposed Decision.

Talk pages will be left unprotected. SirFozzie (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There's an inconsistency -- your note here states the proposed decision with be due July 2 but the header at the top of the page says the decision will be posted July 2. Nobody Ent 23:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just the usual format of the casenav schedule. July 2 is the date by which SirFozzie's proposals will be posted. The Committee could take anything from a few days to more than a week to discuss and vote on them; that's why there's no one "decision posted" date, since we can't know for sure. Lord Roem (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's been wrong for quite awhile, that's not in question. The question is why doesn't arbcom fix it? Nobody Ent 02:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I honestly just don't think it's that big of a deal. If people are curious about what the date actually refers to, it's easy to find out. And most times, it does give a good impression of when the proposed decision is posted. Lord Roem (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Update on case status:

The Committee has been informed that Fæ has requested a removal of the tools from the bureaucrats via email, stating his belief that he did not have the confidence of the community. This is just a note to state the following. Until at least the end of this case, Fæ will not be able to get the tools back upon request and must instead go through a fresh RfA. (and I feel confident in saying that the Proposed Decision will have a section to vote on making this status permanent, as is usual in cases like this where a resignation of status occurs while a case is open. Also, this will not necessarily short circuit the case. We will still be on the previous schedule with evidence and workshop pages to close at the before mentioned times. SirFozzie (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the kind of thing you'd really want an on-wiki diff for. Right now, Fæ is an admin. Will an on-wiki diff be required before the bureaucrats will act? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An email was sent by Fæ to the Bureaucrats mailing list, who forwarded it to the Committee. I will ask them to either action it or request an on-Wiki diff from Fæ. SirFozzie (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is now moot given the statement that Fae's just posted to the workshop page. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Given the ease with which anyone can register "i.am.really.fae@yahoo.com" or whatever and impersonate a user, I feel it's important to ensure that it is the Fæ account that is unquestionably making this request. Given the edits from today (June 18), this is no longer a concern of mine. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

Please change the {{pp-protected|small=yes}}{{pp-semi-indef}} to <noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}<noinclude>. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that you mean <noinclude>{{pp-protected|small=yes}}</noinclude> (with additional slash on the second <noinclude>), then  Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)