Revision as of 21:31, 11 July 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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. Expression error: Missing operand for +. support or oppose votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of outside conflicts—is prohibited.

Support:

1. Standard Fare. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct of Misplaced Pages users

2) All Misplaced Pages editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Escalating conflicts

3) While wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.

Support:

1. This is aimed at the conduct in and around the dispute. There has been issues where both sides escalated the dispute where it wasn't necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Disruption by administrators

4) Sustained disruption of Misplaced Pages is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:

1. With an emphasis on the last sentence. "learn from experience and justified criticisms of their actions." SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I copyedited the second sentence from "may be face sanctions" to "may be faced with sanctions". Lord Roem (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor decorum

5) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Again, aimed at the underlying behavior in this dispute. There has been numerous violations of this principle. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

RfC/U and dispute resolution

6) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored.

Support:

1. We have heard from various places that the RfC was invalid (It was not, it ran the full 30 days, despite a lack of participation from the administrator at the heart of the RfC)... and the WQA. This led to a situation where all criticism, whether justified or not, being lumped in with "those who are harassing me". This does not work. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Agree with the principle. Whether the RfC was valid, if we need to decide it, is for the findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Contra SirFozzie, I don't think the RFC was valid, as it was never properly certified. But that doesn't change anything here. Courcelles 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Participation on non-Misplaced Pages websites

7) A user's conduct outside of Misplaced Pages, including participation in websites or forums critical of Misplaced Pages or its contributors, is in most cases not subject to Misplaced Pages's norms and policies, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action including sanctions can be undertaken by either the community or by the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Generally, there's a two part test that we must apply to this principle. A) Can we confirm that person X is the same person as editor X on Misplaced Pages, and B) was it intended to have an on-wiki effect? In this case, there was two key postings on external websites that yes, we could confirm who it was that posted it, and both were intended to have a chilling effect outside that permissible by Misplaced Pages standards. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. This principle has been established in several prior cases. Misplaced Pages has become sufficiently prominent that it will inevitably be the subject of both criticism and satire off-site. It is entirely permissible for Misplaced Pages editors, including administrators, to participate in critic sites. We cannot and will not impose on-wiki sanctions because editors participate in a criticism site (I have done so myself, as has the author of this decision) or a satire site, even though the criticism at times may be harsh, strident, or in our view misguided. Only in extreme situations, such as those described in the principle, can the Arbitration Committee or the Misplaced Pages community impose sanctions here for conduct there. Where to draw the line is necessarily subjective; but it would be a mistake to say that for that reason no line can be drawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Comment on the edits, not the editor (1)

8) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack.

Support:

1. From the TG case. Unfortunately, one of the defenses that were presented here was "These people are associated with a band of people that were harassing me".. when that link had not and could not be proven to the satisfaction of Misplaced Pages's norms and policies. It became too easy a crutch to avoid justified good-faith criticism. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Comment on the edits, not the editor (2)

9) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits. Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks. Accusations of bias in article text can be resolved through normal editing procedures, however editors should not lightly accuse other editors of bias. Such accusations, if not backed up with evidence of such bias, could be considered a personal attack.

Support:

1. This is aimed at the campaign against Fae. While there were quite a few people with good faith concerns, there was some who decided to take aim at Fae due to his preferences, and the files he uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Return of administrator tools

10) Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later return and request them back may have them returned automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. This is generally to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion, but an administrator who requests removal of permissions while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will generally be deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless otherwise noted.

Support:

1. Long standing policy SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikimedia Commons and English Language Misplaced Pages

11) Files hosted on Misplaced Pages's sister-site, Wikimedia Commons and used on the English Language Misplaced Pages must still comply with all relevant policies, including that of copyright. Users must take care to properly license such files on Commons before adding them to the English language Misplaced Pages. Failure to do so can lead to community or Arbitration Committee sanctions.

Support:

1. Wikimedia Commons is heavily involved with English Language Misplaced Pages. We may not be hosting the files, merely linking to the files that it hosts, however, if the copyright status of a file is invalid on Commons, we are on the same hook. So it behooves us to make sure that the files are properly licensed. Such concerns must however be worked through hand in hand with Wikimedia Commons as the file's host. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. yes. important. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Commons disputes should ordinarily be resolved on Commons, to the extent that the dispute-resolution procedures there reasonably permit. However, when there is "spillover" onto this wiki, tne English Misplaced Pages ArbCom or community may also need to act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. It's appropriate to note that Commons has a far less mature governance model than the English Misplaced Pages does. While the English Misplaced Pages arbitration committee has no jurisdiction over Commons, that doesn't mean that a user who engages in inappropriate conduct on Commons with relevance to the English Misplaced Pages is immune from sanction for that conduct here on the English Misplaced Pages. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. And minor CE,  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Uploading copyvios to Commons is dealt with by the Commons admins. Uploading problematic content there and using it here, however, does make it enwp's problem. Courcelles 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Dispute

1) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has used multiple accounts. The account Ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) retired in 2010 while a Request For Comment was active. The user later declared a Clean Start as User:Fæ. In March 2011, Fæ successfully applied for administrator status. There were concerns raised with respect to the clean start in a January 2012 Request for comment, in which the majority (if not consensus) view was that there had been issues with Fæ's declarations in that request. In May 2012, MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) opened a Wikiquette alert against Fæ based on accusations that Fæ had made before and during a request for arbitration (which was declined at that time due to lack of prior dispute resolution).

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. With trivial CE,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 00:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Accurate statements. The locus of the dispute includes both Fæ's alleged (and by this point, to some extent, admitted) conduct as well as alleged harassment of him by other editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Use of multiple accounts

2) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) declared in their request for adminship that they were a returning user who had taken a clean start with no sanctions against them. This was only partially correct, as they did not disclose there was an active request for comment against them at the time of their previous account's retirement. They had linked several accounts as legitimate alternate accounts at the time of the RfA, including User:Fae, User:Faes, User:Faelig. However, there was a number of additional accounts that had not been disclosed, as they were claimed for privacy reasons. These accounts include but are not limited to: User:Ticaro, User:Era8, and User:Speedo, also known as Speedoguy. Not all of these accounts were disclosed to the Committee at the time of Fæ's request for administrator tools.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. CE (made the first sentence gender-neutral, to match the rest of the finding. Equally, the rest could be tweaked to match the first sentence if you prefer it). Please tweak/revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 00:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. I'm not sure that a pending RfC is a "sanction," but I do agree it would have been better to disclose it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I do think ducking out and changing usernames in the face of an RfC/U is anything but open and appropriate communication. Users who leave in the middle of dispute resolution or disciplinary processes may have legitimate reasons for doing so, but should either "face the music" upon their return or accept that the least favorable outcome may be presumed. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ has been the target of harassment

3) Fæ has been the target of a sustained campaign of criticism and some harassment, related to images that he has uploaded to Misplaced Pages's sister site, Wikimedia Commons, his administrator status on Misplaced Pages, and his role involving a Wikimedia Foundation-related charity. However, he has at times failed to differentiate between those who are harassing him, and those with good-faith concerns.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. The first sentence bundles together the criticism and harassment in a slightly unfortunate manner. There has certainly been a sustained campaign of criticism, and in addition, there has been some harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Agreeing with PhilKnight and minor copyedit (added "some" before harassment). Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Per PhilKnight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ's lack of response to good-faith criticism

4) In both the January 2012 RfC and the May 2012 Wikiquette alert, Fæ did not significantly participate, despite good faith concerns raised about his conduct on Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. One of the key issues here. He failed to respond to good-faith criticism, and instead dismissed all criticism as associated with those who were campaigning against him. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. While being brought up in such a venue is not pleasant, expected good-faith participation is a broad spectrum of conduct somewhere between saying nothing at all and abjectly endorsing all possible criticism. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. At least some aspects of the RfC should have been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks

5) Fæ has violated Misplaced Pages's rule on No Personal Attacks: , , .

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. "Serious allegations need serious proof". Also, in this instance, he seems to have cried "wolf".  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

This is pretty weak evidence for an NPA finding, really, and I dislike in principle trotting out anti-arb rants as NPA. While anti-arb rants are still covered by NPA, a solid finding should have enough other diffs such that there is no need to bring anti-arb rants into an arbitration case. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much per Jclemens - I think for this finding we need something stronger. There had been some strong language and emotions thrown about so singling out these in this way doesn't work for me due to context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We recently agreed among ourselves that diffs in decisions are illustrative, not definitive, so I don't think we need to enumerate a long list of personal attacks—and some of the name-calling, on all sides, would better be not further publicized. Nonetheless, I'd like to see my colleagues' concern addressed before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues with Fæ's WP:CLEANSTART

6) Fæ violated the restrictions on WP:CLEANSTART in several fashions. They created the Fæ account on April 29, 2010, announced they were retiring the Ash account on May 1, but continued to use several undisclosed accounts through August 2010. This violates the rules of CLEANSTART, which states that: If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Bottom line: This was never a valid CLEANSTART. Courcelles 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support based the failure to abide by the purpose and spirit, not just by the letter, of the clean start policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others

7) Fæ has responded to good faith concerns by attempting to link the people with concerns to the campaign against him. (, (as Ash),

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. (Although to an extent this is duplicative of some of the above paragraphs, and I don't want us to seem like we're "piling on" by making the same conduct the subject of multiple findings.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ resigned administrator status during case

8) Fæ resigned his adminstrator tools while this case was active.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. He also agreed not to seek a new RfA for a year; and he acknowledged some of his problematic on-wiki conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Michaeldsuarez harassed Fæ

9) Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created an article on an external website, which may reasonably be considered WP:HARASSMENT of Fæ.

Support:

1. There were right ways and wrong ways to criticize. This was a wrong way. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 01:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

The "article" consists of images that Fae uploaded to Commons. Is the thinking that there is something wrong in the images themselves? Or that the selection and grouping of the images was harassment? I see no problem with the images in themselves. And grouping them together doesn't appear to suggest harassment, any more than grouping pictures I have uploaded of myself would appear to me to be harassment. I feel that in order to have a finding of harassment sufficient to site ban a user, we would need some evidence of repeated offensive behavior. Is there something in addition to this article? SilkTork 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still looking into this to trace the history behind the creation of that article. It was created three days after the images were deleted from Commons. The images at the time of deletion were in use in articles on Misplaced Pages, and a bot had to remove the broken files. The reason for the deletion of the files were self-request for privacy concerns. The stated reason for the creation of the page was "No, you can't delete images from the Internet." I am now looking into the reasons for the self-request for deleting the files. If was part of an harassment campaign, then I will support this finding. SilkTork 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ

10) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posted identifying information on an external website about Fæ that Fæ had not previously disclosed on Misplaced Pages. Though he later retracted his comments, this was a serious violation of the WP:OUTING policy.

Support:

1. I may be of two minds about connecting the dots in the outing policy. Jimbo Wales may believe the OUTING policy needs to be changed. However, it is currently the policy of Misplaced Pages that what happened here was a violation. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Minor tweak for clarity ,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Saying this was not OUTING gives a free pass to go digging into (and posting info on) editor's RL identities. Courcelles 01:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Posting information NOT from Misplaced Pages, on a non-Wikimedia Foundation website, while objectionable, is not covered by WP:OUTING. If we reword this appropriately, I can support. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has been accused of infringing copyright

11) Fæ has been accused of infringing copyright on files he has uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, but no specific files have been alleged to infringe.

Support:

1. This has been a sidebar on the talk page, but in my review of the evidence posted, no one pointed to a specific file and say "This file uploaded by Fae has an incorrect copyright/license. So, we can't rule one way or the other. I set up a remedy down below to have this reviewed to make sure that the licenses and copyright are properly handed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. At the end of the day, this is an issue to deal with Commonsside. Knowingly placing copyvios into enwp is sanctionable here, but this is straying too far. Courcelles 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Fæ admonished

1) Fæ is admonished for making personal attacks and making ad hominem attacks on others based on perceived affiliation.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Pending resolution of my concerns with a couple of the underlying findings, I'm going to hold off voting. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ personal attack parole

2) Fæ is placed on an indefinite personal attack parole. Should Fæ make further personal attacks, or edits that attempt to discredit other editors views based on their perceived affiliations, any uninvolved administrator may block Fæ for a suitable length of time.

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In the case of a negative finding on personal attacks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I'd like to understand this a bit better before we enact it. For example, are we presuming that blocks placed per this personal attack parole are AE blocks? Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to think a bit on this one. Civility restrictions appear to be difficult to manage as there are varying levels of acceptance of robust and frank discussion among individual admins. Decisions about blocking for "personal attacks" would make sense if it were done by reaching consensus through a discussion - however, such discussions can produce more heat than light. SilkTork 20:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ limited to one account

3) Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. This account must publicly link on their user page to any and all past accounts they have controlled. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username.

Support:

1. This is necessary, due to the amount of accounts that have been used in the past, and the incorrectly applied CLEANSTART account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Added language requiring him get permission from ArbCom before changing username. Revert if you disagree. Courcelles 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork 19:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ administrator tools

4) As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminstrator tools. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.

Support:

1. The link at RfA is to avoid any chance of suggestions that Fae would be deceiving the community again by running without disclosing any and all accounts that he has controlled during his time on Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Michaeldsuarez banned and placed on non-article space restriction

5) For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Misplaced Pages. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment. Should they have the indefinite site ban lifted, they are placed under a ban from editing all other namespaces, other than those specifically having to do with articles (that is: article, article talk and file namespaces, as well as their own userspace as necessary).

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Not very keen on the third sentence. I'm okay with a one-year ban but the terms for return could perhaps be simplified or made as a separate remedy? (Also, trivial CE "other then" > "other than")  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle severely admonished and warned

6) Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. I think the fact that he quickly realized he had gone too far and did his best to take down the information puts this in the confines of a severe admonishment and a caution, rather then a site ban. However, I think it's clear that it's not a line they should ever be approaching again. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. At the end of the day, too mild. Of the two, I think this party's conduct was worse than that of Michaeldsuarez. Courcelles 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Delicious carbuncle banned

6.1)For participating in and instigating off-site harassment, including posting of personal information, Delicious carbuncle is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than six months. After six months have elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:

1. After sitting down and reading everything, including more WR threads than I cared to, I think this is necessary. There were ways that Delicious carbuncle could have raised their concerns without violating policy, but he chose other methods. At the end of the day, his conduct is at least as bad as Michaeldsuarez's, and it is not limited at all to the incident of posting private information. Courcelles 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Per this. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I feel this is excessive, per my rationale above. SirFozzie (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

@SirFozzie: The problem here is really more serious than the finding of fact against DC indicates: In addition to the outing, DC's creation of threads on WR, and forcing so much attention on Fae goes against the spirit of WP:HA beyond just the outing. It likely won't continue against Fae, because the goal has been achieved, but what happens next time DC gets it in his head that he needs to expose another editor? The way he handled this mess would have driven plenty of editors right off this project if targeted at them, and it cannot be tolerated. Courcelles 20:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, anyone thinking this is a first-time incident of DC wikihounding someone should go back to the Cirt/Jayren466 case and read the way DC used the same playbook on Cirt he did here on Fae. I'm disinclined to create more links to WR, so I'll just link to an evidence submission from that case , though not necessarily endorsing the commentary, the links are very telling. Courcelles 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's prior behavior that's leading to this ban, we need findings to that effect. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions

7) As no specific infringements of Fæ's file contributions have been entered into evidence, the Committee cannot rule on whether their submissions violate copyright. Instead, we suggest that a review of files that Fæ has contributed. This review should be similar to that done at WP:CCI, and any infringing files be removed from Commons and use on Misplaced Pages.

Support:

1. Again, no specifics were provided the Committee.. but there has been enough general information posted (here as well as on external sites) that I think a proper review needs to happen, and any infringing files removed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Good idea,  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. If we're going to do this, we should have the findings annotated in the case page such that an exoneration is as prominent as the review. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't feel this is part of Arbitration Committee remit or area of jurisdiction. We don't deal with content issues, and we have no influence on Commons. If there is concern in the Committee that Fae's conduct is in question in regard to copyright violation on Misplaced Pages, then we should investigate that matter and provide a finding. Though I understand the concern not to ignore possible copyright violations, having a finding which suggests that someone has done something wrong and ask people to see if they can find the evidence seems the wrong way round. If we are concerned as individuals about a contributor's possible copyvios, then we can post our concerns at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations without a need for an ArbCom remedy. SilkTork 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. In regard to Fæ's Misplaced Pages image uploads -Special:ListFiles/Fæ - these are mostly non-free images that have rationales, and there doesn't appear to be a problem. In regard to his Commons uploads - Commons:Special:ListFiles/Fæ - I agree with SilkTork that we don't have jurisdiction. For what's it worth, most are of high resolution, so there is no reason to doubt that Fæ took these images. The lower resolution images seem to be either retouched free images or have an OTRS ticket, so again, I don't think there's a problem. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. While it might be a good idea, it is a matter for the admins Commonsside, and not this Committee. Courcelles 01:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Given that one of our briefs is dispute resolution, this was another issue brought up which has been a bone of contention in this dispute. It really needs resolving one way or the other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering most of Fae's uploads are not hosted on En.WP, or with the name we most expect it under, there's been enough evidence of possible "Flickr-washing" (ie, moving pictures etcetera onto flickr from videos or pictures, often with slight retouches), and then putting it on Commons that I felt it necessary to suggest a review be done. While Commons itself is not under our remit, the fact that these files are being USED on en-wp makes this finding actionable. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a serious allegation which we cannot let lie on this case. I feel we need to suspend this case and fully explore these allegations to either clear Fae's name, or to find that it is true - in which case we'll probably need to look at a site ban. Looking at this discussion on Commons, which has impact on Misplaced Pages as it involves an image that Fae (under the Ash account) placed on a Misplaced Pages article, it appears there's a claim that Fae had a Flickr account which took a copyrighted image belonging to someone else, and then gave it a false licence in order to upload it on Commons. Fae denies the claim, and stresses he had permission via email which he forwarded to OTRS. It is unfortunate that is difficult to follow the evidence thread because Fae's Flickr account with the cropped image has been closed and the history of the Commons image in question has been overwritten with a new copy of the same image - uploaded by Fae about two weeks ago. Either this is a mistake as Fae claims, and the closing of the Flickr account and the recent uploading of the image have reasonable explanations, or this is inappropriate uploading of an image onto Commons, followed by denials and cover ups. Making a mistake with a copyright file can happen. Deliberately falsifying information is bad, but can be forgiven with an apology. A constant denial, followed by a cover up is totally unacceptable. I feel we should check Fae's story, and ask to see the email, and look at any other claims of License laundering. SilkTork 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a helpful communication regarding this matter on my talk page. SilkTork 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Lord Roem (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) by SilkTork.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Misplaced Pages	8	0	0		·
2	Conduct of Misplaced Pages users	8	0	0		·
3	Escalating conflicts	8	0	0		·
4	Disruption by administrators	8	0	0		·
5	Editor decorum	8	0	0		·
6	RfC/U and dispute resolution	8	0	0		·
7	Participation in non-Misplaced Pages websites	7	0	0		·
8	Comment on the edits, not the editor (1)	7	0	0		·
9	Comment on the edits, not the editor (2)	7	0	0		·
10	Return of administrator tools	7	0	0		·
11	Misplaced Pages Commons and English Language Misplaced Pages	7	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	6	0	0		·
2	Use of multiple accounts	6	0	0		·
3	Fæ has been the target of harassment	6	0	0		·
4	Fæ's lack of response to good-faith criticism	6	0	0		·
5	Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks	4	0	0		·
6	Issues with Fæ's WP:CLEANSTART	6	0	0		·
7	Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others	6	0	0		·
8	Fæ resigned administrator status during case	7	0	0		·
9	Michaeldsuarez harassed Fæ	5	0	0		·
10	Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ	5	1	0		·
11	Fæ has been accused of infringing copyright	5	1	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Fæ admonished	4	0	0		·
2	Fæ personal attack parole	4	0	0		·
3	Fæ limited to one account	6	0	0		·
4	Fæ administrator tools	6	0	0		·
5	Michaeldsuarez banned and placed on non-article space restriction	4	0	0		·
6	Delicious carbuncle severely admonished and warned	4	0	0		·
7	Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions	4	3	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

Oppose

Comments