| Revision as of 05:18, 29 May 2012 view sourceRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits update preamble from updated template← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:34, 9 August 2012 view source Courcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits {{pp-protected|small=yes}} |
| (380 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-semi-indef}} |
|
{{pp-protected|small=yes}} |
|
{{Casenav}} |
|
{{NOINDEX}} |
|
|
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|The ]'s decision is still in effect, and can be viewed at ]. The contents of the page can be viewed in the .|}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Notice}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
{{notice|Create your own section to provide evidence in, and '''do not edit anyone else's section'''. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and '''do not edit another editor's section'''. |
|
|
By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 ] for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning. |
|
|
|
|
|
You ''must'' use the prescribed format in your evidence. 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. Never link to a ], an editor's contributions, or a ] for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute. |
|
|
|
|
|
General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the ]. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included '''in your own section''' and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at ], which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at ]. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page. |
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough == |
|
|
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=110|diff=0|link=0}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===RFC on Fae was contrary to policy=== |
|
|
The RFC on Fae was predicated on linking two accounts. If the two accounts were operated by the same person they were protected under the provisions of ] (legitimate accounts:Privacy). The outing policy further makes it clear that we should never give credence to attempts to link legitimate socks, absent an overriding need. No such need has been shown, therefore no linkage should be made on-Wiki. |
|
|
|
|
|
===Fae well advised not to be involved in RFC=== |
|
|
Given the above assertion, Fae was well advised and to be congratulated for keeping away from the three ring circus that the RFC became. The Misplaced Pages community, especially admins (including myself) should be reprimanded for not closing this unproductive and divisive muck-fest much earlier. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole == |
|
|
{{User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header|word=86|diff=3|link=1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
===Fæ misled the community at his RfA=== |
|
|
Fæ took a clean start in the middle of an RfC/U that was seeking sanctions due to his use of sources. The RfC/U was closed with "User has stopped editing Misplaced Pages. Delisted due to inactivity." In his subsequent RfA as ] he said he'd taken a clean start ''after'' an RfC/U rather than "during" and that he'd never been blocked or banned under the earlier name. This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that a completed RfC/U had found nothing worthy of a topic ban. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by Isarra== |
|
|
===Claims that linking accounts is outing ignore CLEANSTART policy=== |
|
|
While there may have been genuine outing involved elsewhere, tying accounts together after a failed cleanstart is not outing. That folks can do that is precisely why it is a ''failed'' cleanstart; ] specifically says ''{{'}}If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts.{{'}}'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Fae was recognised. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Evidence presented by {your user name}== |
|
|
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person'' |
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. |
|
|
|
|
|
==={Write your assertion here}=== |
|
|
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. |
|