Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:40, 13 June 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

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.

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

MBisanz and WP:NotCensored

Just expanding on the thinking behind the two remedy proposals I made. I understand the restrictions on this case, but they seem to be depriving Fæ of a level playing field in a number of ways. Its especially regretable that MBisanz once again chose to open proceedings with a diff bomb. An accusation can be made using a single diff and one or two words - but it is generally impossible to adequately refute one without using at least twenty times as many words. This is especially so when the accusation has extra weight by being made by a crat. So Fæ is effectively prevented from adequately defending himself. Im not arguing that MBisanz's participation in this witch hunt requires a desysop, he does heaps of useful work so that would be a shame. Yet a stern warning does seem called for. As Varnent argued, its desirable that Arbs display more severity towards the witch hunters and their supporter rather than towards their victim. By comming down relatively hard on MB, the arbs would create some space to possibly gently advise Fæ to consider taking a step back from involvement in wiki politics for a while. That might be in his best interests especially if no way can be found to address the off wiki harassment. If it becomes necessary to gently advise Fæ, I hope Arbs can at least formally recognise that its understandable that not all his recent posting have been perfectly collegial. Even the strongest characters would be distressed at the blind eye many seem to be turning to the sustained campaign of harassment.

Tension over WP:NotCensored is perhaps a reason why some good faith editors are concerned about some of Fæ's editing. The actual wording at WP:NOTCENSORED does seem to allow certain forms of limited censoring, but while we have the WP:Notsored policy shortcut, editors can claim "WP is not censored" to support them including shocking material. Limited censorship is a good thing, obviously its best not to have extreme porn that glorifies rape, and theres all kinds of other sorts of highly offensive material we might be better off without. Theres is little point in a regular editor proposing this sort of change on WP:Not - but if Arbs wanted to take this up they could maybe get support from the Foundation for a policy changing proposal that could only be denied by consensus, instead of requiring consensus to make? As a moderate social conservative, I feel such a measure would be a way to get a good result from this case. But most might see the measure as a victory by the WR accounts. So again it would be useful if MBisanz is warned or admonished so as to avoid any appearance that Arbs help witch hunters profit from their actions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

With regard to your WP:NONCENSORED proposal, please refer to my comment on the Workshop page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Question, somewhat procedural

I notice that in the discussion that follows under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Fae's real name, a user posts what might be personally identifying information. Should this information be removed? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything (or at least anything that needs removing). Do you want to email me or the clerks, rather than draw attention to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this the wrong way, but it's a person's real life last name, apparently already posted but being repeated a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It has already been disclosed by Fae in relation to Wikimedia UK, but as a courtesy to Fae - who doesn't seem to use it on Misplaced Pages - I think it should be removed. Bali ultimate seems to be trying to make a point by using it so conspicuously when nobody else is doing so. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that its use does seem somewhat pointed, since Fae is known by it in his WMUK position, removing it at this point would seem fairly pointless. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess that answers my question. Because it seemed to be known information, I didn't perceive it as an e-mail issue, but because it also seems to be rather mean-spirited, I felt it needed eyes on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have hatted the portion that does not pertain directly to the FoF - which is about what Fae posted, not about what anyone else posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 22:43, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Good solution, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's workshop involvement

Dear arbitrators,

Is this the Fæ–MBisanz case, or the Prioryman–Delicious carbuncle case? I am absolutely astonished to see reams and reams of material about DC from Prioryman here on the workshop page, given that the two are (recently!) interaction-banned. Now, Prioryman did say on the evidence talk page that you gave him permission to post these, but Prioryman asserts over there that "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." However, when I read what Prioryman actually wrote, things like "Delicious carbuncle had unclean hands", or "Delicious carbuncle has previously used the tactic of posting intensively about other editors off-wiki as a prelude to an RFC/U," these look very much like indictments of DC to me, rather than description of circumstances likely to exonerate Fæ. Is this the sort of stuff you had expected Prioryman to post? Because it seems to me this case is degenerating into a mudfest between two interaction-banned editors, neither of whom are parties here, and that you have privileged one of these two editors. Do we really think no one else could have presented mitigating circumstances related to Fæ's conduct? JN466 00:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have an extensive history, including some extremely hostile exchanges in several ANI threads. Prioryman requested, and obtained, an interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle (DC), which DC has largely honored, including in this case. Prioryman, however, appears to be trying to use the case to further his own admitted attempts at getting DC banned. Like I said, I believe the conflict started before the Fae issue arose, when DC questioned the circumstances surrounding Prioryman's clean start. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I understand that DC has been given the same permission as me - there is no "privilege". I posted these FoFs to make the point that Fae and others had reason to believe that DC was not acting in good faith ("unclean hands") and that DC had a track record of similar conduct (the Cirt-Jayen case and other incidents on WR). The FoFs and evidence aim to support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the RFC/U was not initiated in good faith or with clean hands, and that Fae's response to it was based on that belief. I have not made and will not make any proposals for remedies involving DC, so it's false to claim that I am attempting to "get him banned". My aim here is to exonerate aspects of Fae's conduct by providing evidence of the wider context. Prioryman (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a lot of history with DC. I am prepared to believe a lot, but not that you don't carry a grudge against DC after all that's happened. --JN466 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, both editors may post evidence pertaining to the other (within the prevailing evidence constraints), and make workshop proposals based on that evidence. They may not directly engage with each other in threaded dialogue, or post about each other on case talkpages. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. What is the scope of this case now? Is it about Fæ and MBisanz, or are you looking to examine and potentially sanction other editors' conduct?
  2. If this case is not just about Fæ and MBisanz, but is about other editors' conduct as well, I would propose that you allow members of the community to submit evidence regarding Prioryman and DC. The history of enmity between Prioryman and DC and its underlying reasons should be examined here if you are giving Prioryman such a platform. It may also be advisable for one or two members of arbcom to recuse, in that case.
  3. Will you please extend the evidence submission period by a week, given that all of this was posted just as the evidence submission period was due to close?

  It strikes me that Prioryman's case and Fæ's case have a lot in common. Both had accounts that claimed to stop editing Misplaced Pages while they were the subject of dispute resolution. Both immediately came back with one or several new accounts, without declaring the connection to the prior account. Both entered controversy with the new account. Both were recognised by DC. --JN466 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this case seems to be about me and not Fæ?

I was planning on staying away from this entirely, but the attacks and untruths in Fæ's answers to the questions posed by the Arbs caused me to post requests for corrections on the talk page (which were, for the most part, entirely ignored). I decided to contribute evidence largely to set the record straight about allegations made in Fæ's statement and on the workshop page. I am puzzled why so much of the workshop material relates to me and not to Fæ. My understanding was that this case was about Fæ's actions as an admin and his failure to engage in dispute resolution processes. I have asked Fæ for literally years now (if you include requests I made to Ash) to engage in some form of dispute resolution instead of making unsubstantiated allegations, but he has consistently avoided doing so - is this that case? If so, I should have been a party and I think it would have been nice if someone told me that I needed to mount a defence. If not, can someone please set this case back on track? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. If this case is about Delicious carbuncle, s/he should have been told when the case started. If it isn't, then the committee needs to make clear now that it isn't. JN466 02:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=497338631&oldid=497338514 – I guess that what SirFozzie said to me also applies to Delicious carbuncle. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you have either misunderstood SirFozzie, or this is an administrative cock-up. SirFozzie refers to "parties" there. It has been customary in the past to add an editor as a party on the main case page if they were considered a party. The main case page in this case still lists just two parties: Fæ and MBisanz. An editor whose conduct comes under scrutiny during the course of a case is entitled to formal notification of that fact from the committee or its clerks. JN466 04:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DC has not been made a party. If he would like to be considered one, or wishes to make the case that he is one, that needs to be directed to SirFozzie. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)