| Revision as of 23:00, 9 July 2012 view sourceCollect (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,160 edits →Comment: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:35, 9 August 2012 view source Courcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits {{pp-protected|small=yes}} |
| (806 intermediate revisions by 80 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} |
|
{{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}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Just a bit longer.. == |
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize for the delay.. I'd explain why the PD is going to be late, but I guess the only proper response doesn't go to why it's going to be late, just say that it's late. It's going to be this weekend. Thanks for putting up with the delay, and again, I apologize. ] (]) 06:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Take as long as you like. If you get it "wrong" then a small portion of the community will become quite vocal about how the decisions are "wrong" - See the pending changes RFC arbcom request. ] / ] / ] 08:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh the decision is goign to be wrong. It's just a matter of waiting and seeing what it is and therefore working out who say it is wrong. (See ].)--] (]) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks again. Barring any further issues, like say, my computer becoming sentient and trying to take over humanity, a la ], the decision will be up tonight. ] (]) 06:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Appreciate the update. <small>]</small> 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Query == |
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to ] -- can a current ArbCom bind a future ArbCom? If the ban is lifted, wouldn't the terms of the unban be subject to ArbCom seated at the time? <small>]</small> 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the general answer to your second question is 'yes'. Future committees can discuss and vote on amendment requests of past cases, including those that adjust sanctions against users. For reference, go to the AC Noticeboard, where you will find examples of motions lifting topic bans based on changed user behavior. -- ] (]) 01:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:The answer to your first question is clearly No, Future arbcoms can amend decisions of this and past Arbcoms. Hence blocks and bans are indefinite rather than permanent. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 08:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non-article space restriction == |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't recall ever disrupting the non-article namespaces prior to or even during this case. What's the rationale for the proposal? Is this preventative or punitive? What problem is this proposed restriction attempting to solve / remedy? --] (]) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== PD fully protected == |
|
|
|
|
|
Folks, if I see another edit war on the proposed decision, people will be blocked. I've fully protected it for a brief period (the arbitrators and clerks may edit through protection). Nobody else should be editing those pages. ] (]) 02:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Risker, I'm sorry that I had to get involved in that but I feel as though it was necessary for reasons that I'm sure I don't have to explain. I hope you don't think I was out of line editing the page in that very limited circumstance. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 03:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::That's what clerks are for, Saedon; please leave it to them to manage the page. ] (]) 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Fair enough and will do. ]<sup>]</sup></font> 05:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<s>Can Lord Roem? They're not an admin, right? <small>]</small> 10:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)</s> Page back to semi <small>]</small> 18:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Image copyright concerns == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am confused by the references to image copyright in proposed finding of fact #11 and proposed remedy #7. I asked for (including asking specifically about Commons), but my questions were ignored completely, even after of the drafting Arb. There was no request made for specific examples of copyright concerns, despite the decision being delayed. I'm sure some can be provided if ArbCom wants to see them - do they? ] (]) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes please. May as well lay this to rest now. Sorry, I've been juggling a large number of things on-wiki so yes it would have been good to have evidence before now. ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::There are two distinct categories of copyright concerns with regard to Fæ's uploads. The first is the more straightforward concern of copyright violation (eg. a claim that something is one's own work when it is not). The second category is questionable claims about copyright status made by Fæ regarding their own uploads in order to have them deleted (and I note there were multiple instances of this during the course of this RFAR to belatedly obscure the source of uploads). I suspect that the second category of copyright concerns may be contentious. Is ArbCom interested in both types of copyright concern or only the first, simpler case? ] (]) 16:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a big deal, but a little confusing == |
|
|
|
|
|
The language in the proposed decisions seems to randomly switch from referring to Fae as "he" and "his" to "they" and "their". Perhaps it could be standardized <s>as "he/his"<s> throughout the PDs? ] (]) 04:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:My preference is to avoid a gendered pronoun to refer to my account on Misplaced Pages. Thanks --] (]) 04:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've adjusted my comment accordingly. ] (]) 06:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Parallel Universes== |
|
|
{{done}} |
|
|
|
|
|
As Arbcom's writ arguably only applies in this Universe and not necessarily the whole Multiverse could "other then those specifically" be replaced with "other than those specifically". Ta '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And as long as you're copyediting, you might want to adjust it to say "sister-site, Wikimedia Commons" in Proposed Principle 11. Currently it says "Misplaced Pages Commons" (although perhaps there is such a thing somewhere in the whole multiverse).— ] (]) 13:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alleged harassment == |
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call the ED article harassment. It informs readers about what Fae wishes to hide, but the article in its current form doesn't tell readers what to think. Readers are free to use their own judgment based on the information (images) provides; I'm not imposing my own point of view on them. I wasn't the one who added the link to the examiner.com article to the article, so I wasn't even directing readers to Gregory Kohs' opinion. In addition, the article's connection to enwiki is nearly nil. The images were from Commons, not enwiki. Besides a template that I didn't even add to the article, the article doesn't even mention Misplaced Pages. How is this enwiki's problem? Because Fae is coincidental an enwiki user? --] (]) 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not a good decision == |
|
|
|
|
|
Let's go over some of the problems with this proposed outcome: |
|
|
|
|
|
* It invades Commons, causing editors' uploads ''there'' to be evaluated ''here'', indeed, calling for such a review of all of Fae's work, declaring Commons' governance to be invalid. This is much of what the WO crowd was calling for from the start, and I suppose this decision delivers. I suppose that within the next case or two you'll be sanctioning people for "violating BLP on Commons", "doing original synthesis on Commons", etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
* It comes up with wildly varying outcomes for Delicious carbuncle versus Michaeldsuarez. One is warned, the other banned for a year and told in advance he won't really be accepted as a proper contributor even then. And of the two, Michaeldsuarez's role seemed to me to be less - all his little ED article was was a simple rehash of CC-licensed Commons uploads! The only reason why you're even able to sanction him is that he disclosed his connection. Looking at the principles, this isn't just a matter of who has the better friends - it's based on the goofy principle #7 where you ignore external comments until an arbitrary line into "overt or persistent harassment" is crossed, and then you come down on them very hard. But did Michaeldsuarez cross that line? I don't think you give him any credit for just how ''mild'' that article was, compared to the kind of treatment ED has given some people. Having applied your harshest penalty already, you'll have no power left in reserve for when people go further than that. |
|
|
|
|
|
* You've said that "Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks". The third diff you cite in your finding of fact #5 shows just such discrediting of remarks by some people Fae was responding to. It sounds like you're enforcing your principle against very debatable infringements while ignoring others that are much more clear cut. |
|
|
|
|
|
* The "personal attack parole" is an impossible situation. Fae will be accused of violating this every day, and if he says someone is falsely accusing him, that's a personal attack. If he tries not to respond, people will say he doesn't engage in dispute resolution, and if he says it wouldn't be productive, that's a personal attack. This decision was supposed to end this political war, and instead, it guarantees that there will not be one hour when there isn't some gripe going on against Fae for as long as he attempts to keep an account active on Misplaced Pages. (I would suggest that he should ''unofficially'' reduce or stop involvement in WP, in favor of other projects if he wishes, to avoid the victory dancing accompanying a formal retirement) |
|
|
|
|
|
With this decision, the balance of power shifts from admins and ArbCom to sockpuppets and Wikipediocracy - who, in these proceedings, have often seemed to have the upper hand as they started a whispering gallery to torpedo the clerk's RfA and seemed to expect and receive a deferential attitude from the presiding arbitrator (e.g. ). The only way to keep a "cleanstart" seems to be not to get caught; the way to avoid being punished for anything you write anywhere on the web, or uploads you make at Commons, is not to disclose your accounts. We change from a situation of collegial editing to one in which ''every'' editor will need to think of himself at heart as a vandal to avoid serious long-term sanctions. ] (]) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Remedy 2 is game-able == |
|
|
|
|
|
As the proposed decision stands, the personal attack parole for Fae is potentially game-able by people who don't like him. If they play the poke-and-complain game repeatedly, unless he has suddenly acquired much ''more'' self-restraint than the typical Wikipedian, he will, at a minimum, occasionally say something that can be spun as a personal attack. Then, since Arbitration Enforcement has a first-mover advantage for blocks, which any of hundreds of admins can use, they will sometimes manage to get him blocked. Then all the rhetoric about "He still hasn't learned his lesson!" and "How long will this behavior be tolerated?" will come into play, and the blocks will escalate. The end result is likely to be an indef or forced withdrawal, after much drama. Note: I'm not claiming Fae's behavior has been perfect. ] (]) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I agree; this remedy is a return to the days of civility paroles, which were the least effective and most disruptive idea ever implemented by the Committee. These sorts of "paroles" sound good in the theoretical confines of the case pages, but they're a disaster in terms of practical implementation. <p>There's typically a good deal of subjectivity around the margins of "personal attacks" (and even more subjectivity around "discrediting other editors {{sic}} views based on their perceived affiliations"). And there's effectively zero cost to reporting every utterance that's anywhere near the borderline. The net effect is that Fae's opponents will continually report his every utterance, and given the arbitrary and subjective nature of the parole, they will occasionally (and unpredictably) be rewarded with blocks against Fae.<p>The combination of the subjective nature of the parole and the lack of any mechanism to address vexatious litigation create a bad set of incentives. I'm all for preventing personal attacks, and in my superficial reading of this case it appears some sort of remedy may be warranted against Fae in that regard, but we have an extensive track record with these sorts of parole which should be raising a huge red flag right now about this specific approach. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It might work if accompanied by a few interaction bans. Without them it is pretty much a guarantee of Dwamah. '']]<span style="color:#CC5500">Chequers''</span> 19:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I totally agree. Interaction bans are absolutely essential here. This is a very unusual case in that it's not been driven primarily by on-wiki disputes but by an off-wiki campaign against Fae, closely related to his off-wiki activities with Wikimedia UK. Normally arbitration cases aim to shut down disputes. In this case, there is every likelihood that Fae's enemies will seek to use this decision to step up the dispute. It's very likely that the campaign will continue whatever Fae does. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::At the very least there needs to be an interaction ban between Delicious Carbuncle and Fae, as DC has been the driver of the vast majority of the controversy up to now (every single one of the threads on Fae posted on WR was started by DC). I recognise that the dispute may have metastasised to some extent and that others prominently involved in the anti-Fae campaign - here I'm thinking in particular of Bali ultimate (Dan Murphy), Peter Cohen and Jayen466 - are not covered by sanctions (yet). However, I think there needs to be, if not an interaction ban with those individuals, an explicit statement from the Arbcom that attempts to continue the anti-Fae campaign or game this decision will not be acceptable. Otherwise this is going to continue indefinitely with those involved having no incentive to disengage. ] (]) 19:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I would also like to encourage the use of interaction bans. --] (]) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I strongly oppose any of that horse-puckey, i-bans are a needless bureaucracy of red tape that create more problems than they solve. Normal NPA restrictions are sufficient. For the record, this has nothing to do with this particular case, I always oppose interaction ban proposals at ANI. ] (]) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Thing is, NPA only covers personal attacks. I think ''any'' form of interaction between these particular users is, on the whole, going to cause more problems than it's worth. If the aim is to reduce or end this dispute then some kind of interaction restriction - be it a ban or something else - is needed. ] (]) 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comments on the proposed decision == |
|
|
|
|
|
On the whole the proposed decision appears just and fair, so thanks to SirFozzie and the rest of ArbCom for the evenhanded assessment of a complicated situation. I have a few minor comments on the proposed wording: |
|
|
*''Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks'' The title may be true, but I don't think the three diffs linked go far enough to back the assertion. |
|
|
*''Michaeldsuarez harassed Fæ'' Again I agree with the finding, but the wording may be read to imply that creating any article, regardless of the content, on an editor off-wiki is ''de facto'' harrassment. |
|
|
*''Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ'' Concur with Jclemens that this skirts the line of ], although it definitely comes under the broader scope of ]. Replacing ] for ] would be a simple solution. |
|
|
*''Michaeldsuarez banned and placed on non-article space restriction'' Why the third sentence? If/when he is let back, he should have learned enough to edit all namespaces without trouble. |
|
|
*''Fæ personal attack parole'' Agree with others above that, as worded, this is GAMEable. One solution would be to tighten the wording, perhaps focusing on ''ad hominem'' attacks and "casting aspirations" while leaving out the catch-all phrase "personal attacks". |
|
|
:''']]]''' 18:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Concur with the just and fair. Since we're ] metaphorical lice .... |
|
|
:::The evidence is part of the case, so it's not necessary for ArbCom to list more than an example or two in a finding. Regarding "unacceptable personal attacks'' ... aren't they all?'' Or there a list of acceptable personal attacks? |
|
|
:::Concur that the restriction listed with the ban is problematic -- my understanding is that conditions regarding a future unbanning would be up to the then seated committee. |
|
|
:::I'm fine with a personal attack parole. It's not that hard if you're a grown up. <small>]</small> 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If you're suggesting that I and the others are childish for suggesting this is a problem, isn't that a personal attack... (you see what I mean?) ] (]) 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::If you believe that's a personal attack ] and ] await. Beware of boomerangs. <small>]</small> 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::What I ''believe'' is that "civility" is Misplaced Pages's "War on Drugs" - the more that is done to enforce it, the more that people will be at each others' throats. ] (]) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Point, clearly missed == |
|
|
|
|
|
I assume the members of the committee share a common interest in shaping this decision to avoid (or at least try to avoid) a repeat of this whole drama. leads me to suspect that the message has not been clearly received. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fae (like any active contributor or admin) will on occasion be on the receiving end of random slights from random trolls. During my more activy and contributish days I even had a couple of them call me at work! The point that really needs to be sent home is that random trolling isn't evidence of a conspiracy, much less a homophobic/racist/satanic/fascist/etc. conspiracy. That point has clearly been missed (look at the diff, and his edit comment for restoring it). --] | <sup>]</sup>✌ 19:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe we should un-oversight everything from my talk and user pages as well, if we're all in a spirit of abuse-sharing here. What Fae has dug out of his archives isn't in any way unique or extraordinary. ] (]) 19:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Arbcom's non-existent remit over Commons== |
|
|
|
|
|
Remedy 3.3.7 () is unprecedented, as far as I know - here Arbcom appears to be attempting to extend its authority onto Wikimedia Commons, a sister project with its own governance arrangements. ] states explicitly, in the first paragraph, "This Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction extends '''only to the English Misplaced Pages'''". As far as I know (and I've been involved with arbitration cases for eight years now), Arbcom has never previously attempted to direct any actions outside the English Misplaced Pages. I can't see how this particular remedy can possibly be actionable given that Arbcom is explicitly limited in its jurisdiction. What is it expected to do if Commons declines? ] (]) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:] – ArbCom is opening a can of worms. Such a remedy could be seen as permitting Pieter Kuiper to view other users' contributions for copyright violations. --] (]) 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Commons is unique among the sister projects in that files uploaded there can be directly transcluded here (thus having a direct effect on what people view when they read articles here). I agree that ArbCom doesn't have the remit to direct that there be a review of the files uploaded to Commons, but it ''is'' possible to review file uploads done locally, and to review how an editor's images uploaded to Commons are used here (i.e. edits made here to use the images here). That is definitely within the remit of ArbCom, and arguably falls under the heading 'file contributions'. Also, the arbitrator comments in ] are worth reading. It is something that probably does need more discussion, though. ] (]) 20:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::So in other words, this remedy only applies to copyvio files uploaded to Commons and subsequently transcluded here, and it is limited to removing the file from en.wikipedia and ''suggesting'' that it be removed from Commons as well. - ] (]) <sup>(])</sup> 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Is there some precedent for an image that people on Commons think is OK, but en.wikipedia ''bans'' because it is copyrighted? Is there a ]? Is there any plausible reason to have two levels of review? What's so abhorrent about the notion of simply saying that "if copyright problems are suspected, please raise the issue on Commons"? ] (]) 21:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for highlighting those comments, Carcharoth. I note Jclemens' comment in particular: "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." Again, this seems like a new approach to me. I don't think anyone would suggest "immunity" but in all honesty, has there ''ever'' been an example of someone "who engages in inappropriate conduct on Commons" being sanctioned for the same on the English Misplaced Pages? Can anyone point me to an example of that ever happening? ] (]) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{edit conflict}} Note: The section ] was mentioned at Commons at ] I'm not sure if this is relevant for ]. |
|
|
:::If you wish to prevent English Misplaced Pages from using some Commons images, you could in principle add them to ] if the Commons community doesn't want to delete the images. |
|
|
:::I know almost nothing about this arbitration case, so I have no opinion on the outcome. However, I do not like the idea of extending the arbitration committee's jurisdiction to other projects. Of course, English Misplaced Pages users are welcome to visit Commons and propose files for deletions if they feel that the files violate any Commons policy. --] (]) 21:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::::FYI, I mentioned the matter at Commons because those responsible for governance there have an obvious interest in what's being discussed here. It makes sense to invite their input to get a better idea of the implications of what's being proposed. Since this is unprecedented, as far as I know, it's worth talking though it before the decision is finalised. ] (]) 22:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment == |
|
|
|
|
|
If I read this correctly, the main result is to ban MichaelSuarrez for a "prior bad act" on another site, raher than for any of his acts ''on'' Misplaced Pages. Fae lost adminship - which would have ''short-circuited the RfC'' in the first place, and made all of this foofaraw moot. Commons is directed to ''actually'' obey copyright law, which is slightly ''less'' likely than the tides obeying Canute. Some of those who added extraneous material which ArbCom well might have thrown out as I earlier suggested, are now calling for more tumbrils for the accused hatemongers. I here iterate my earlier proposal, which simply requires Arbitrators to just say "no" to anything more than the existence of Fae's ''voluntary'' relinquishment of adminship, and call it a day. Else I fear dozens of AE discussions on all sorts of stuff which should really be past us by now. Cheers. ] (]) 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) |
|