Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Fæ Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:59, 11 July 2012 view sourceDelicious carbuncle (talk | contribs)21,054 edits →Is a compromise position possible?: Please say yes.← 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}} 
(770 intermediate revisions by 78 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)
:::Thank you 28bytes. I note that Arbcom members are not taking into account my stated preference. --] (]) 07:41, 10 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).&mdash; ] (]) 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)
:I agree with the concern about how a "personal attack parole" would work in practice, particularly if I do not have a right to ignore questions raised by others which may leave me in catch-22 situations. Presumably the intention is to provide me with a point of contact representing Arbcom who can advise in a timely way when I should reply to any extreme claims (such as claims about Flickrwashing from over 4 years ago) and advise how I can get the wording right in any replies I make during the indefinite parole period. --] (]) 08:27, 10 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. ''']'''&nbsp;<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)

::::::Why are you arguing for interaction bans in a post that itself infringes an interfaction ban?--] (]) 12:53, 10 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)
:::On the topic of interaction bans, let me quote part of from Elen of the Roads: ''"They may not directly engage with each other in threaded dialogue, '''or post about each other on case talkpages'''"'' (bolding mine, of course). My point being that interaction bans which are not enforced, or are only enforced against one party but not the other, actually enable disputes to continue. ] (]) 23:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
:Seems to me the wording is not suggesting that any incivility can be used as a basis for further action, but rather that specific types of accusations would lead to such such actions. If it is the case that this specifically means '''unsupported''' claims of harassment, homophobia, or other seriously negative personal comments will immediately lead to sanctions then I think that is perfectly fine. The desired outcome would presumably be for Fæ to only make allegations of conduct that he can back up with evidence rather than just innuendo.--] (]) 00:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::@TDA: Your hypothesis as to what remedy 2 really means is different from what it says. ] (]) 06:12, 10 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.
:::<s>I'm fine with a personal attack parole. It's not that hard if you're a grown up.</s> <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)
:::::Based on the reply in ''not a good decision'' , I've changed my mind. It's not reasonable to have to have an arbitrator (presumably already very busy people) provide mentoring services to Fae. It would be easily gameable. <small>]</small> 11:39, 10 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). --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<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)
:] &ndash; 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)

*Works for me. If the Commons admins can't clean their own house, sooner or later it will be done for them, i.e. Beta M. ] (]) 23:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

::The other development in recent years is the unified login, thus (WRT governance) linking two accounts more closely than, say, here and Facebook or some other non-connected site. The two entities (en and commons) are linked ''intimately'' WRT how images are used, and some form of responsibility thus can't be ignored. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Well, if you want to use that argument, by all means make the case to the community to widen your remit - but you can't simply unilaterally change it. You're limited to the English Misplaced Pages, as ] has always stated, and issues on other projects are issues for other projects. If there's an issue on Commons, the proper way of dealing with that is for those concerned is to raise it on Commons, not try to do an end run around the governance bodies on Commons. A request, suggestion, directive or whatever from you that another project should do a particular thing is by definition unactionable because you have no authority on that other project. ] (]) 07:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:::Prioryman, you are reading something into it that is simply not there, as you have been told both here and in the Commons discussion. We are not requiring Commons to take action, just suggesting we have concerns and suggesting the best course of action be a CCI-style investigation and make sure that the files uploaded on Commons and in use on en-WP are in Compliance with the rules. ] (]) 08:28, 10 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)

==Self-contradiction by SirFozzie==

From , again:

* "As no specific infringements of Fæ's file contributions have been entered into evidence"...
* "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"...

Which is it? ] (]) 07:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:There's enough evidence in the related discussions to have concerns, which is why I suggested the review, but no specific infringements has been entered into evidence in this case. ] (]) 08:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

::I think that SilkTork makes an appropriate rebuttal. If this is within ArbCom's jurisdiction, then you should determine whether or not something needs to be done, and if it's not, then you should simply defer to the appropriate mechanism on Commons without the need to weigh in with an opinion on something you haven't investigated.
::For what it's worth, I should point out that the copyright issues I've seen discussed on Commons are ''not'' easy to understand - they concern ], or the lack of it, in the UK. They're all neatly indexed in archives of his talk page, so I don't see how ArbCom can be unaware of the files, though I definitely understand why they would not want to try to evaluate them! The issue isn't, as PhilKnight was talking about, whether he uploaded other people's pictures, but whether he was allowed to ''take'' pictures. So he's been accused of taking pictures of a , etc. It's amazing how many things you're not allowed to take a photo of; maybe the government should provide photojournalists with "minders", like the Soviet Union, to prevent the misunderstandings that occur when tourists put their bourgeois liberties ahead of economic dialectic. Anyone who provides as many photos of as many different places and things as Fae is bound to run into the same sorts of alleged violations. Even so, there are many arguments concerning '']'', unoriginality, simplicity, mass production, and so forth that might have specific (but vague) interpretations in Britain that would permit some of these shots, if anyone knows the laws. However, it's absolutely crucial to note that these "copyright violations" may be subject to deletion under '''Commons''' rules, but Misplaced Pages permits ] even of photos people snatch from the Web. So here you are on Misplaced Pages, telling Commons to enforce rules that don't apply here, according to what is allowed under British law, on behalf of hypothetical copyright holders, many of whom might have effectively given permission for photography of their works on public display anyway. That's beyond ArbCom's jurisdiction. ] (]) 13:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Personal attack parole ==

The rest of the PD is unsurprising, but I'm not wild about this one. It really seems like an AE nightmare in the making, and almost anyone who enforces it is going to take ridiculous amounts of flak. If you must pass this, will you be open to reviewing it after 4/5 months if a bunch of drama ensues? Giano-style years-long epic repeated ANI threads do not seem like a desirable outcome. ] (]) 11:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:The more I think about it, the more I share this concern. Per the discussion ], it would really make much better sense to accomplish this via interaction bans, or, at the very least, set up an explicit (but it will unfortunately have to be rather bureaucratic and complex, which shows up the problems with it) procedure for Fae to be able to request permission from ArbCom to respond to, or otherwise deal with, situations where others may be trying to provoke. --] (]) 17:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::I'm taking it on faith that interaction bans don't work since someone else said so. I share the concerns of Moreschi and Tryptofish. I understand Malleus has provoked strong reactions and he may get dragged to dispute resolution or Arb enforcement frequently. Anything to avoid that result would be good because it's repetitive, draining, circular, and likely futile. Perhaps Fae could choose a mentor who would be willing to suggest responses to both potential constructive criticism and potential behavior that is out-of-bounds.] (]) 17:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Actually, they work better than civility paroles do. With interaction bans, it's pretty black-and-white if they've been violated. With civility, it's in the eye of the beholder. --] (]) 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::I don't know why the other user has that belief about interaction bans. He seems to feel sure about it. I'd like to see many interaction bans come out of this. If the other user is right and they don't work, I'm not sure what I'd do if I was on ArbCom. I don't think civility enforcement has been working well or is likely to work well in the near future.] (]) 17:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

::Ugh. The problem is almost entirely one-sided, this isn't a "takes two to tango" situation. The reason I despise i-bans so is that they are often used to shield someone from legitimate criticism. If Fae does something untoward from this point on, there shouldn't be any special restriction on, say, DC, from bringing the matter to the community' attention. Those with the greater familiarity with a problem user should not be shunted aside because of some beefs with said problematic user. Not to toot my own horn (though that's pretty much what I'm about to do), but I had a contentious history with both {{u|ChildofMidnight}} and {{u|Grundle2600}}; I knew their arguments and positions quite well, and was able to contribute info to the many (many many) times they were brought to ANI and related venues. Not egotistical enough to say that my input was essential to the outcomes, but IMO they were important. If an interaction ban has been enacted at any point, that'd have been nothing but a hurdle. ] (]) 17:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::I can see the need for constructive criticism for all Misplaced Pages editors. ] (]) 17:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:::{{ec}} I suspect that that ''if'' Fae were to do anything like that from now on, it won't just be DC who notices it. I also note that the Arbs are considering a site ban for DC, as an alternative. I was actually coming here to start a new talk section about ''that'', when I saw your comment and decided to reply here instead. From my understanding of the evidence, a site ban for DC would be excessive, and it would also be punitive rather than preventative. However, an interaction ban (two-way) between DC and Fae would be a much better alternative. --] (]) 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, I see the DC ban proposal, but I'd be rather surprised to see it pass. ] (]) 18:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== A Disturbing Precedent: Ban for Micaheldsuarez ==

I am troubled by the venom in this sole high-order proposal for punishment:

:''For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Misplaced Pages.''

The page was created on ED, a site that is a collection of parodies with a marked emphasis on matters scatological and sexual. The edit summary to the article creation under Junius Thaddeus, which is Michael's acknowledged persona on ED, is
:''(cur | prev) 22:08, 29 November 2011 JuniusThaddeus (Talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (http://commons.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&page=File%3AMan_in_stress_position.jpg – No, you can't delete images from the Internet.)''

The article at the time consisted of one photograph and the article name was "Teahot", one of Ash/Fae etc.'s user names. The whole short history of the article can be found here (encyclopediadramatica.se/index.php?title=Fae&action=history). The article, as it changed titles from Teahot to Fae to Ashley van Haeften and back to Fae, has never consisted of more than photographs originally uploaded to Commons by one of Fae's personas, and sometimes also the uploading information which clearly established the chain of ownership. The only reason the photographs are on ED is because they were being deleted '''entirely out of process from Commons by a user who has consistently argued against giving others the same opportunity to change their minds about embarrassing uploads properly licensed'''. <s>in what certainly appeared to be an abuse of Fae's admin status there.</s> Several other photographs have been added to the ED page as they, too, were being removed out-of-process. As Silk Tork points out, there is not a single word of commentary, not a single scatological, sexual or derogatory remark- not one; nothing at all in fact but what Fae freely released to Commons and thus to the Internet. It is a model of restraint by ED standards; it could be on Commons without a single change, and probably even on WP in the appropriate article.

You are trying to punish Michael solely because you can. You know his connection to the ED article because he told you. (It seems he does believe in the same standard of transparency he expects of Fae.) At the time of the creation of the ED page, there was no communication between Michael and Fae, no argument and no conflict. The ban proposal sets a terrible precedent. Are you planning to ban every user you can identify who copies a WP photo or a quotation to another site, when the original was properly released to WP, and acknowledged, and not removed in the appropriate WP process? This needs re-thinking. Seriously. ] (]) 17:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:This is somewhat inaccurate. As , "Teahot" wasn't the original name for article. I changed the article's premise from teaching readers about the downside of using free licenses to teaching readers about Teahot one or two days later. --] (]) 17:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

:I also see an inconsistency in the approach here. While Michael's actions at ED only have an impact here if someone views that page on ED, Fæ's actions on Commons are being described as out of ArbCom's remit even when those actions directly impact the English Misplaced Pages. While I would generally concur with a principle of "what happens on Commons stays on Commons", these image uploads to Commons are not staying on Commons. If the image is only present on Commons I would agree that any issues associated with it are outside the purview of ArbCom, but if the image is added to an article here the violation by that editor also becomes an issue here.--] (]) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
::I still don't understand why, if Michael is going to be banned, why DC isn't going to be, considering what DC did and has done for months is far worse than creating an ED page made up of images from Commons. <font color="silver">]</font><font color="blue">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
:I agree with Bielle here. Commons (or meta, etc.) is outside the committee's remit, but ED (or GNAA, or /b/, etc.) are within its remit? That seems kind of back-assward. (I don't think Fae should be banned either, but the principle and precedent so seem less than well thought out.) --]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>✌ 00:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
:Bielle, there are a couple of inaccuracies in your summary of the out-of-process deletions on Commons. Fæ is not and has never been an admin on Commons, so it was not ''"an abuse of Fae's admin status there"''. Since Fæ was not an admin, they were deleted by others, based on Fæ's questionable claims. Although Fæ has in the past argued against uploader-requested deletion of images, he has generally supported such deletions in more recent instances. ] (]) 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks, DC. I have done a strikethrough in the sentence claiming admin status. It wasn't central to my argument, but I appreciate the correction. I have spent very little time at Commons, so I am hoping someone here can say how recently, with respect to the ArbCom case, the change to supporting deletions made at the request of the uploader began. If it was last year, for example, then I must make another amendment. Thanks again. ] (]) 01:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

== Admonishment ==

Should the admonishment include a reference to deceiving admins and/or the community? This has been a big part of the problem with the RfA and the Jimbo talk page ban. Failing to explicitly note this aspect of the problematic behavior in the admonishment would seem to be an oversight.--] (]) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

== Is a compromise position possible? ==

ArbCom now has two positions on Delicious carbuncle, one a warning, one a six month ban, with the Arbs divided between them. And I think most of us watching agree that Michaeldsuarez's proposed punishment is far too severe. Maybe an intermediate position might try to find a basis in principle.

* As a principle, you could propose that it is improper, in a way faintly akin to both ] and ], for an editor to hound another in an off-wiki forum (at some level of severity) ''while'' pursuing processes against him here. This would be explained in policy as an interpretation of the text that off-wiki harassment is an "aggravating factor". (Admittedly that's a bit ''strained'' interpretation, but I don't think I've seen any very clear way to read that paragraph) So an editor could raise RfC/Us and AN/I's here, ''or'' lampoon his target on ED or WO, but not both at once.

* As a remedy, you could impose on both Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle the restriction that they not take part in any "conduct evaluation" processes against any other editors for a year. (RfC/Us, AN/Is and AfDs, I think) If they have a complaint, they could present their case to one chosen admin, but that admin would then have the discretion about how or if to proceed. ] (]) 03:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
:Wnt, there ''are'' two proposed remedies which involve me specifically, but one of those is a complete non-starter. I will, of course, accept whatever remedy ArbCom decides to impose, but <s>any idiot</s> most people can see that I am not going to be banned as a result of this RFAR. I do like your second suggestion, but the only person I would be willing to select as my chosen admin would be yourself - will accept a nomination for adminship? ] (]) 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:35, 9 August 2012

This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The Arbitration Committee's decision is still in effect, and can be viewed at the main case page. The contents of the page can be viewed in the history.