Revision as of 05:59, 28 May 2012

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

GoodDay

Initiated by Steven Zhang at 22:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• GoodDay

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoodDay
• Mentorship by myself and Danbarnesdavies (talk · contribs)

Statement by Steven Zhang

It is with great disappointment that I bring this request to the committee, especially in the position that I currently am in, however I feel that all other avenues have been unsuccessful in remediating the issue. GoodDay has been on Misplaced Pages since 2005, and to his credit has done some good work, but there have been a few sticking points - edits to articles relating to the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the use of diacritics within articles. He's currently under a community-imposed topic ban regarding the former (see ANI thread) and the modification regarding use of diacritics has been discussed in length, a few examples are here, and more recently here, however many other examples exist. GoodDay's general argument regarding diacritics is that because this is the English Misplaced Pages, no diacritics should be used in articles as they are not part of the English language, and at times he is rather uncivil when discussing his objections with other editors. When questioned on his edits, he will often remove the comments from his talk page, citing harassment (and see talk page history). I do not feel that anything short of arbitration will resolve this issue, and therefore ask the committee to accept this case. Regards, Steven Zhang 23:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

@Resolute, an admonishment I think would be insufficient in this situation. I think a topic ban may be in order, but the committee may find other action necessary here. This has been brought to ANI before, as well as the RFC. Advice that has been provided to GoodDay by myself and others has not helped resolve this issue, so arbitration seemed to be the best avenue. Steven Zhang 01:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, you're preaching to the converted mate. If only people would work on things like article improvement or dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages would be a much better place :-) Steven Zhang 03:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@ArbCom, I'd be open to a resolution of this by motion if it seems like the best solution. Steven Zhang 04:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

There's nothing for me to add here, accept that folks should take a look at the English alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Resolute

I've interacted with GoodDay for many years in the hockey project. We've agreed on some things, we've disagreed on others, and in the case of diacritics, we used to agree but now disagree. I don't know much about his conflicts in the realm of the British Isles, but his attitude around diacritics has become increasingly combative as of late in my view. I would also point this edit on Jimbo's talk page out. This type of non sequitur is a not-uncommon behaviour and is disruptive. However, I do not think we are at the point of needing a full arbitration case and at any rate, I am not certain what Steven is actually expecting out of this - admonishment? topic bans? site ban? I would think a topic ban would be the most effective solution, as GoodDay does do some good gnoming work unrelated to his problem areas. Something like that could be done via motion rather than full case if enough commenters of this RFArb support them (or if the committee directs Steven to go to AN to propose something on the community level). I don't particularly want to silence GoodDay on the diacritics issue, but he does need to step back from it in my view, because his obsession with it is bordering on zealotry, and I've seen plenty of zealots run themselves right off Misplaced Pages. Resolute 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by P.T. Aufrette

At recent WP:RM surveys involving diacritics in titles, GoodDay has often posted one-line statements that "this is English language Misplaced Pages & there's no diacritics in the English alphabet".( etc). In challenging this blanket statement, I brought up English words like "resumé" and American names like Zoë Baird as counterexamples. GoodDay proceeded to make this edit to Zoë Baird, which was brought to my attention by another editor, and which really seems a bit egregious. I reverted this edit and four other similar edits that he made in the same time period, all of which he re-reverted with the edit summary "stop stalking me". This is not an accurate characterization, as I don't recall any prior interaction with GoodDay's edits except on the talk pages of WP:RM surveys and on my own talk page. At that point GoodDay appeared to blow a fuse, several times deleting comments left on his talk page by myself and others.( and especially note this edit) I posted to his mentor's talk page and I guess we have arrived at this point. He's been occasionally mildly uncivil, but mostly a bit bullheaded, and somewhat uncollegial in the RM survey discussions in declining to engage in more than just terse repetitive restatements of his core position. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

Response to statement by Jclemens

As can be seen from his edit history and the user box he added to his user talk page, GoodDay's preferred edits are gnomish ones, applying small corrections repetitively. He is willing to take on tasks that others may find dull, and in this way can contribute positively to Misplaced Pages. I do not believe a complete ban is warranted. It may be more suitable for a limitation, with specified penalties, to be set on GoodDay being involved in his hot button issues. isaacl (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to statement by Courcelles

Instead of a case, perhaps similar to how Steven formalized GoodDay's self-imposed topic ban at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Steven can make a suggestion for a remedy at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, upon which the community can subsequently express its views? isaacl (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/1)

• I note GoodDay's non-response response, and am tempted to support opening the case based on the perspective of a former mentor--having been in that position before, I know the sense of personal failure when one realizes a mentee is just not understanding and/or improving. However, I would like to hear from other community members who have had recent experiences with GoodDay's editing before we have a whole case. If the user is completely intransigent and at odds with the community, a community ban may be more appropriate than an arbitration case. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• Waiting for more statements, but I'm currently going to vote Accept, as I think that GoodDay's statement indicates that there are issues that require Committee review. And as a personal note, I may seem a bit befuddled here, about some of the things people will get into endless arguments about. Hypens/Endashing... date linking/unlinking. And now, diacritics. Don't we have other, more important things to work on? Have the BLP issues that Misplaced Pages has faced solved? SirFozzie (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Provisionally voting to accept as GoodDay's response to the filing just extenuates the sense that this case is needed =. Open to being persuaded by others, or GoodDay, that this is not needed, however. Courcelles 03:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ

Initiated by MBisanz at 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Request_for_notification and notification by clerk

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Fæ
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz
• User talk:Fæ
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive235#User:Fae

Statement by MBisanz

Hello. Today I bring a matter to the Committee regarding fellow administrator Fæ. I bring this matter under clauses 1 and 3 of WP:AP#Scope_and_responsibilities, as the community has been unable to resolve issues raised regarding Fæ's conduct and I believe his poor conduct and tendency towards disruption renders him unfit to hold adminstrative access. Specifically, I cite Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Accountability, Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying_incivility, Misplaced Pages:Harassment#What_harassment_is_not, Misplaced Pages:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette, Misplaced Pages:Canvas#Stealth_canvassing, Misplaced Pages:No legal threats as policies and guidelines I believe Fæ has violated via his generally disruptive conduct and refusal to engage those who question his conduct.

Fæ has rendered himself unquestionable and unaccountable regarding his conduct because he responds in an extremely rude manner that personally attacks those who question him. This includes the broad mischaracterization of comments regarding his on-wiki conduct as harassment. See Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz, RFAR, talk page. While it's clear that Fae has been treated poorly by some users off-wiki (and possibly on), he now responds so violently to any commentary about him on-wiki, whether well-intentioned or not - that his behavior has become the issue itself. He also acted in an unacceptably rude and nasty manner when a technical correction was brought to his attention here. These actions are part of a broader pattern of unacceptable conduct and refusal to discuss that is evidenced in this response to an AFD notification and this AN thread.

His conduct has been discussed by the community to a stalemate at RFC (see also RFClose stalemate) and AN and he has been banned by User:Jimbo Wales from his talk page for his deception and poor conduct. His use of deception and mischaracterization has also been cited by myself and AGK in the prior RFAR.

As aggravating factors to his poor conduct, I cite his private canvassing of me regarding my participation in his RFC. I also cite his refusal to be held accountable for content he added under a prior account, in violation of the policy regarding failed clean starts. Misplaced Pages:CleanStart#Editing_after_a_clean_start

As a third aggravating factor, under line three of Misplaced Pages:AP#Jurisdiction, I cite his broad invocation of external legal authorities at commons:User_talk:Fæ/2012#Threats as a violation of WP:NLT because it is conduct designed to chill those who jointly edit EN.WP and Commons from questioning his conduct, lest they be investigated by the police at his behest.

This sort of conduct—the deception in his clean start RFA and since then in mischaracterizing comments, the gross assumptions of bad faith and harassment, the unwillingness to discuss mattes and conduct, particularly his blank refusal to comment at his RFC, and the continued disruption of numerous areas of the project, is unacceptable conduct for an administrator and warrants Arbcom intervention. MBisanz 21:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to Fæ

Fæ is mischaracterizing things, again. 1. I have never spoken to or met with Eric Barbour. User:Alison ,however, claims she met him in the recent past. 2. I have made three contributions to Wikipediocracy 1, 2, 3. They dealt with possibly meeting Greg Kohs in connection with his travels to DC for Wikimania, my cable television service provider whom he works for, that I think Greg's behavior is still incompatible with Misplaced Pages, and that I have no interest in involving Greg with my complaint against Fæ. I assume SBJohnny can attest to my non-use of Wikipediocracy's message system and I can see if Greg is willing to let me put the email followup I had with him regarding my television service on-wiki. Why Fæ believes my personal travel plans and my cable television provider are relevant to this complaint about his conduct is something I cannot understand. MBisanz 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Themfromspace

This confrontation stems from Fae's controversial RFA and subsequent user RFC. Views at the RFC were divided over the legitamacy of Fae's adminship when it was alleged that heleft his previous account "under a cloud". Questions were raised about the scope of ArbCom's involvement in the RFA (Fae stated that it was sanctioned by ArbCom; John Vandenberg stated that Fae was mistaken and that only he endorsed the RFA). Compounding the difficulty of the situation are allegations of harrassment, outing, and tendentious editing. I think there have been more than enough attempts at dispute resolution, documented above by MBisanz, to warrant an in-depth look. The committee should accept the case to examine the procedure of Fae's original RFA and post-RFA behaviour, as well as general user conduct in the dispute resolution process. ThemFromSpace 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

In my spare time I have delved into this a fair amount. It is fairly clear that had all the information been available at the time that the original RFA would not have passed, but then again the original RFA voters also knew that something was up and still passed it anyway. This was probably an error of judgment on their part, just as Fae and John V erred in judgment in not fully disclosing Fae's history, but errors in judgment do happen, and, well, it's hard to see how a mutual balls-up is cause for desysopping.

The broader issue seems to be that Fae feels persecuted by the WR crowd, who now seem to have migrated to Wikipediocracy (although Wikipediocracy does seem like a significant step up from WR). I can sympathise, as I've had Paul Wehage aka one half of User:Musikfabrik (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau) aka the fieryangel aka oscarlechien opening threads in these various places criticizing my every decision for 4 years, and calling me some rather nasty names in the bargain, almost regardless of whether what I was doing had any merit or not. It doesn't feel terribly pleasant, particularly when your fellow Wikipedians are apt to show a distinct lack of DefendEachOther. As a result, Fae seems to react extremely badly, causing large dramaboard threads where Fae and various Wikipediocracy posters (many of whom edit here in all good faith) snipe at each other. This is not helped by the ongoing controversy over the toxic culture and content at Commons, with which Fae seems to have become associated.

Now, it is my impression that although in quite a few of these dramaboard threads Fae is behaving quite badly, and too often resorts to a kind of catty tone that's both provoking, patronising, and not conducive to a collegial atmosphere, this does not really rise to the level of a desysopping, and I think that if ArbCom takes this case all they will do is succeed in giving Fae a slap on the wrists, which hardly seems worth the time and drama of a full case. IMHO the thing to do is pass a couple of open motions telling Fae to calm the bleep down and react much more coolly, and in a manner more befitting a sysop, to questions about his actions, even if he feels the questioners may not be acting in the best of good faith.

My own advice to Fae is this: 50 percent of what people say about you at WR et al is simply driven by hurt vanity: 40 percent is based on misinformation provided by those of the hurt vanity, and 10 percent (at best) might be fair criticism of some validity. If you can't filter out the white noise it's better not to read the threads at all, and just keep working quietly here without starting vast drama-filled BADSITES AN threads in which you then go make yourself look awful. Moreschi (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68: I'd forgotten that, but yes, that is true and does put this up a level in the seriousness stakes. Too many people have been called homophobes for no particularly good reason. That said I do not think the scope of this case should be widened beyond Fae and his conduct.

@Casliber and Courcelles; there are of course a lot of problems with doing this by motion, but I can easily foresee a case becoming extremely ugly if the evidence and workshop are not strictly policed. My feeling is that this only 60 percent about Fae and is perhaps 30 percent BADSITES case No. 1,989,472.5 and 10 percent Enwiki vs Commons, Case No.1 <?>. Historically arbcom has not done well with cases that purport to be about one individual's conduct but are actually to do with - at least in part - sitewide cultural issues that the community itself is split on (i.e a number of the various Giano cases). I guess you probably do have to take this case, on reflection, as if not it will be back here in a couple of months, but I would give the clerks licence to kill on evidence/workshop stuff that goes offtopic (i.e doesn't really relate to Fae). Otherwise this could be quite teh dramafest. Moreschi (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Relaying a message from Fae

--Guerillero | My Talk 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Request from Cla68

If this case is accepted, could the scope please be set to include editors who made ad hominem and other personal attacks during the Fae RfC and in other forums in support of Fae? Some of the behavior from involved editors has really crossed the line, and I think should be examined. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Moreschi's comment: I think much of Moreschi's analysis is true and on target, with one key omission, and that is the ad hominem accusations or insinuations of homophobia that Fae and some of his supporters have lobbed at people who disagree with them. Accusing or insinuating that others are offering criticism or disagreement with you because they are motivated by some kind of prejudice or hatred (unless it can be backed-up with clear evidence) is unnacceptable. I'm sure that most of us have observed this occur in certain topic areas and would, perhaps, agree that there are few behaviors by Misplaced Pages participants that are more unhelpful, divisive, hurtful, dishonest and contrary to a spirit of congenial cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MZMcBride

I'll repeat what I wrote in the discussion following my attempted redirect of User:Ash to User:Fæ:

I don't necessarily have an issue with clean starts. There are certainly legitimate reasons one might need a clean start. But if it's truly a clean start and you've left your old account for being an asshat, it shouldn't be possible for others to figure out who your old account was or want to associate you with it. If it is possible or they do, it's almost certain you're still being an asshat. And that indicates that you need to either leave or start again. If you choose the latter, you have to change your behavior in the next reincarnation so that nobody is able to figure out who your former nasty self was and it's truly a clean start.

As true then as now. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

I've noticed drama in a few places on wiki which might be more suited for the evidence page. However, the events on Jimbo's talk page leading up to this post should be worth delving into. I don't always agree with Jimbo but the opinion he expresses there tallies with the one I have independently formed of Fae's actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SB_Johnny

While Fae has always been quite civil and collegial when addressing me individually, he does seem to have a bad habit of assuming bad faith on the part of people who associate with people whom he feels have done him wrong (his initial response to this case is a very good and current example).

A minor thing that bothers me about Fae is his insistence that we as a community must forget what he did as "Ash", because I don't see anything wrong with owning up to personal growth, and simply acknowledging that your opinions have "evolved". The major thing that bothers me about Fae is that he's very quick to accuse people who disagree with him of having a homophobic agenda. The other major thing that bothers me about him is that he doesn't intervene when his "defenders" are clearly being unfair and inappropriate.

This all comes down to a question of "conduct becoming of an administrator"... admins should (at least in my idealistic view) try to keep drama to a minimum, because drama distracts from the mission (writing and improving an encyclopedia). Admins should not create dramas that distracts from the mission, full stop.

There is also a simmering and seething undercurrent involved here, because apparently more than a few people believe that there was something deceptive about Fae's RfA. That issue really needs to be addressed here, because (if I understand correctly) ArbCom was perceived to have endorsed the view that "what happened before was no biggie", but it's pretty clear now that the "no biggie" would have been a serious issue for some of the RfA voters. I realize that the comment in question was just a committee member voicing his own opinion of the matter, but perhaps in the future the members of the committee might resolve to discuss such issues privately, and not comment as individuals on such matters unless there is some consensus on the matter (or offer a "minority opinion" if a committee member feels strongly that they need to speak against the majority). I understand the committee's reluctance to expand the case, but I really do think that it should expand it in this direction.

As far as results go, I would like to urge the committee to force Fae to do a "redo" of his RfA, in the interests of putting that part of the issue behind us. FWIW, I would vote in his favor, because I absolutely trust him not to use the buttons inappropriately. Let's have closure and move on, please. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Anthonyhcole

Please only accept this case if you, the committee, are prepared to fiercely curate the case pages for relevance and civility. I see several issues:

1. Fæ dropped his earlier account name and claimed to be leaving the project in the middle of an RfC/U that looked likely to sanction him in the area of BLPs. ArbCom agreed to a clean start. In his subsequent RfA Fæ said he'd changed his name after an RfC/U and that he'd never been blocked or sanctioned under the earlier name. This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that an RfC/U had found nothing sanctionable. There is some likelihood that he would not have passed RfA if !voters had known that he left in the middle of an RfC/U that was calling for sanctions.

   You may want to address Fæ's fitness to edit BLPs, which is still an open question.

   Perhaps ArbCom should have insisted he return and complete the RfC/U before agreeing to a clean start.

   The obvious right thing to do, given his (possibly inadvertent) misleading evidence at his RfA, would be for Fæ to ask the community to reconfirm his adminship. It is argued that the value he adds to the project as an admin is too great to jeopardise with a reconfirmation RfA. You'll have to decide this.

2. It is claimed that Fæ and his supporters have accused critics of homophobia. This is a serious charge and you should call for (a) evidence of accusations of homophobia, as well as (b) evidence supporting such accusations. If Misplaced Pages users can reliably be associated with homophobic comments those users should be site banned. If unfounded attributions of homophobia have been made, the record should be put straight, and those making such accusations should be sanctioned.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Lankiveil

I am of the school of thought that while obviously the diffs cited in this case are less than ideal, that Fae has done nothing wrong or actionable, and is being hounded far more than other editors who do exactly the same thing. With that said, I urge the ArbCom to take this case and resolve it quickly, which will hopefully lance the drama boil and clear the air sufficiently that everyone can get back to writing articles and creating content, rather than stirring up drama and being internet detectives. Lankiveil 11:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

Comment by Wnt

This proceeding is the outcome of a widespread political conflict in Misplaced Pages over whether "offensive" and especially sexual topics should be covered, which governs everything from what the Ash RfC was about to why many of these accusers have been calling for the destruction of Wikimedia Commons on Jimbo Wales' home page. Cla68 and Anthonyhcole have called for a narrow focus on Fae and those making accusations of homophobia. But a proper arbitration should examine both sides with equal scrutiny, including WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment itself, WP:OUTING of Fae based on WHOIS sleuthing, WP:CANVASSING of editors on off-wiki sites, even the violation of WP:Child protection by false allegations that Ash kept an image of a naked child on his page, a situation curiously occurring by the alteration of a Commons file a few days after that account ceased editing. I do not want it to be that Misplaced Pages editors' first consideration, even above Misplaced Pages policy, should be to think of how it will look for their name to be plastered all over the Internet next to a selection of anything embarrassing that can be extracted from their entire editing history by a few dozen editors dedicated to suppressing coverage of certain topics - nonetheless that is absolutely so, and it will continue to be the case unless ArbCom makes some wise and seemingly unexpected choices as this proceeding progresses. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by ReverendWayne

To me the important question is this: can an administrator ignore dispute resolution processes, or otherwise fail to answer community concerns, and still keep the bit? I think the answer ought to be no. Fæ offered no substantive response to the (admittedly messy) RFC. On his talk page, I raised a particular concern to give him an opportunity to address it outside the context of the RFC, but he chose not to reply. Admins must be accountable; that's policy. This is sufficient grounds for a desysop. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Inserting for reference my comment at the RFC/U:

The issues regarding the prior account, the RFC/U closing, and the new account then applying at RfA are real and substantial. Those indicating a concern have evinced no anti-gay, homophobic or other concerns here at all. This is not a "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist" debate at all, it is a discussion about whether Misplaced Pages procedures have been fully and properly complied with. Nor is this a venue to discuss abrogating WP:BLP or any other fundamental policy of Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And my summary of the entire RFC/U at which I regard as accurate in all respects. Collect (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Should the committee decide to hear this case it is important that they remember the basic principles pertaining to the case which I have already spoken to them about.

Moreover, while action on Misplaced Pages is important, should the scope of the case tend far enough to include all the matters raised by the person bringing the case, then the action of other editors to act as a concert party, contrary to WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET should be considered as necessary, just as it was in the Eastern Europe email list case.

Arbitrators should also take note that there has been no attempt at 3rd opinion, mediation or other DR per se. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Statement by Fæ

Reading MBisanz's complaint, I am confused by the random scattergun evidence or what the expected outcome is here given the lack of prior appropriate dispute resolution by MBisanz. I am open to recall, if MBisanz feels there is a case for obliging me to hand back the mop, that would be the correct process to follow, as it always has been.

Examining the items of evidence in order, where possible linking to the original full discussion rather than the selected partial diffs given above:

1. WQA This was raised on 2 May 2012 by MBisanz, invalid as it was opened on the same day as the last RFAr raised against me. The RFAr was declined as MBisanz failed to attempt any form of dispute resolution in advance of approaching Arbcom. I struck my comments in both WQA and RFAr, once Arbcom said that any comments I made could be interpreted in my role as Wikimedia UK chairman. If there are complaints about me as a trustee of Wikimedia UK these must be raised for investigation by the charity or the Charity Commission, I will be unable to reply on-wiki. MBisanz's claim that I "rendered" myself "unquestionable and unaccountable" is a confusing response to these governance processes which formally deal with questions and ensure accountability and transparency for trustees of charities.
2. My talk page comment, on 8 May 2012, this was deleted by me before anyone replied to it. My edit comment was clear on why I withdrew; "Too pointy, and I need more thyroxin before writing this". MBisanz made no objection and should have followed the policy for personal attacks if he thought my comment unfair, in fact I was under the impression that he never noticed it.
3. User_talk:Fæ/2012#Sig_comment, raised on 6 May 2012 by MBisanz on my user talk page just 3 days after the RFAr. MBisanz has called this a technical matter, others in that discussion called it obsessing and trolling on his part. It was an incorrect complaint, clearly pointed out. Re-reading my reply to MBisanz, I see nothing there that supports an allegation that I had "an unacceptably rude and nasty manner". My key comment was "Please go away, seriously, I can see no possible good coming from you writing here again with further warnings or unwanted advice, and it now looks as though you are on a personal campaign to hamper my enjoyment of this project", though I am open to alternative explanations of what this was about if I missed the point.
4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, 15 May 2012, this had nothing to do with MBisanz. Rather than following the clean start policy, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz decided to start notifying me about an AFD on a gay porn actor that predates my account and that I have never edited using my account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is fully aware of the background of my long term hounding. This is not evidence of "unacceptable conduct and refusal to discuss that is evidenced", in fact I did discuss the matter, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's user talk page.
5. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Fæ, 25 January 2012, MBisanz raises this as evidence that "His conduct has been discussed by the community". This is no evidence of any misconduct on my part. The RFC/U was created by Delicious carbuncle (DC) in conjunction with a series of canvassing threads of Misplaced Pages Review that included a large number of personal allegations that then were partially duplicated on Misplaced Pages, in particular speculation about my sex life and HIV status was posted by DC on ANI. A total of 29 members of the community, some held in very high regard, supported the view that "This request is simply an extension of harassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harassment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety." The RFC/U was raised on the claim that User:Ash manipulated BLP sourcing, this was not demonstrated despite several people hunting for evidence. It should be noted that since the moment when DC posted my home phone number and address on Misplaced Pages Review, swiftly after s/he stated how sorry they were to see a personal direct threat against me on Commons, I have followed DENY and not replied to the multiple questions s/he has raised on any Wikimedia project apart from on the talk page of this RFC/U. Unlike MBisanz' characterization, I did not "refuse" to comment on that RFC, it was blatantly used as a tool to harass and out me and I could see no benefit in engaging directly with DC.

Based on Risker's advice, I am limiting my statement to the first 5 items of evidence chosen by MBisanz to meet the word limit. As this is the third time that MBisanz has quoted the same private email, I am prepared to publish the email of 26 January 2012 where seeing that MBisanz was a trusted user, I highlighted key evidence for DC's extensive hounding and the off-wiki smear campaign against me. I named a number of independent people he could approach before deciding how to take the RFC/U against me further. I neither asked for specific action one way or the other, and I did not ask MBisanz to avoid the RFC/U. MBisanz replied by email and made no complaint or that he considered it canvassing. I would prefer not to publish this email, I believe in the ethical principle that private personal correspondence should be kept private.

Should Arbcom investigate this case, then they should take into account my request for help and advice from AGK with regard to threats, hounding, harassment and off-wiki canvassing back in January 2012, my summary report that he forwarded to the committee at that time, and the decisions that they took in response. The Foundation has recently improved the terms and conditions of use of the projects explicitly to address harassment, stalking and threats and I recommend these are considered a basis for action.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse - Tiptoety 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• I will be mostly inactive starting 1 June - 28 July --Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note: The clerks have been advised to hold back on opening a case until 2359 UTC on 28 May 2012, should the usual net-4 acceptance level be reached more than 24 hours before that time, to permit Fae to respond, and arbitrators holding their acceptance/decline vote to have the opportunity to read and consider his statement. Those commenting on this request may wish to bear this in mind. Risker (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse, I have previously been vocal in my support for Fae, and will most likely continue to do so. That obviously precludes me from any involvement as a clerk in this case. Lankiveil 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/2/4)

• Recuse. AGK 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. Statements should focus primarily (if not exclusively) on Fae's editing of this wiki and reference off-wiki communications, if at all, only to the extent they directly affect this wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In view of the comment from Fae above, just posted, I do not plan to vote until well after Fae's return to editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements also. Note that according to this edit Fae won't be available 24/25 May. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept I am aware that concerns have been raised regarding Fae. I'm also aware that Fae feels harassed at times. I feel a case looking into the issues would be worthwhile, and it would be useful to get a range of statements to map out the parameters of the case. Statements should focus on conduct on Misplaced Pages as that is the only place where the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction. SilkTork 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. I have been keeping an eye on this unfortunate situation ever since the last time this case was before the Committee. There, we declined to hear a case because the matter presented to the Committee (supposed misconduct of someone with advanced permissions) had not went through DR (informal, formal, or specialized like AUSC). Since then, the conflicts have raged both off the en-WP site (which we couldn't necessarily control) to on the english Misplaced Pages site. This matter is both unduly divisive amongst the community (see the RfC) and has been through the prior steps of dispute resolution. Therefore, the Committee must accept this case, in my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse. Kirill  01:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting Fae's statement, but leaning acceptance, as I think a lot of what SirFozzie says is spot-on. One thing I wonder is this, we we decline this case, it should be with the expectation that there won't be a third such request here this time next month. I'd like to see statements urging decline to spend time on convincing that a decline is a step towards resolution, rather than delaying. Courcelles 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Aceept I'm not sure anything Fae could have said would have left me to vote decline after reading all the comments, and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. That said,I do think there might be more parties conduct worth examining that just those listed as named parties. Courcelles 03:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
• Also awaiting Fae's statement and leaning toward acceptance. As to Cla68's request, I am hesitant to expand the scope of any case to matters that were better addressed more temporally, but should the case be accepted there is little doubt that the RFC in itself will be in evidence. Risker (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept Leaning Acceptance - Moreschi has a view which we may end up agreeing with and we may very well come to the same conclusions. However, we'll need to look at the issue longitudinally firsthand to come to the same conclusion. Many of us are familiar with segments of this, I can't see how that can be done by motion unless a quorum of other arbs feel confident enough to do so. Should have learnt from last time we proposed complex motions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think this can be dealt with in one or two motions unless they're large "omnibus" type motions, and as someone said on a request last year, paraphrased, when you get to that man motions, you don't have motions, you have a case. If accepted, we might get to PD ad find Moreschi right, we also just as likely could find him well off base once the evidence is in, but I'm skeptical a small number of true motions (as opposed to "PD-in-form-of-motions") can resolve this. The idea of looking at this longitudinally is important, because almost all surely have heard some aspects of this issue, ad a case rather than motions, lets us have the time/space/outside input to do that. Long winded a of saying I'll be voting either accept or decline when all the statements come in, not to a solution by motion. (Not really directed at Cas, sorry for the indentation, but general thoughts on solving this by motions stuck down here just because Cas is the first one to comment on the idea) Courcelles 03:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept given the scope and issues, there is simply nothing Fae could say which would convince me that a case is unnecessary. We tried to defer this earlier, without apparent success; I do not see a credible argument that we can continue to do so. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

<Antony Price>-Requests_for_arbitration-2012-05-26T09:58:00.000Z">

Initiated by Gaslett (talk) at 09:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)"> ">

I am new to Misplaced Pages and I am in connection with the Fashion Designer Antony Price.

The article that was on previously for Antony Price from 2008-2012 was inaccurate and was using Antony Price to advertise their own product.

I created a new article based on facts about Antony Price's career and edited the inaccurate article in April 2012. Like I stated I am new to Misplaced Pages. After one month this article was edited and when I asked the editor why and to not edit it because the information was not accurate I got aggressive responses from the editor Sarahj2107. I did feel bullied however I did not know all the Misplaced Pages guidelines. However the inaccurate version of Antony Price's article remains. Having studied more now Misplaced Pages guidelines there are cases of articles being not biased even though the person writing the article may know the person involved. I assure you we are want only facts on there and I am trying to create an article that fits in Wikipedias policies.

However I feel I'm being bullied by Jac16888 as this person keeps leaving inaccurate assumptions about my participation on Misplaced Pages and also makes false allegations that I spam and vandalise. I'm furious and I resent an administrator using their administrator rights peversely. I've directed Jac16888 to read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers but Jac16888 keeps being very rude and does not make constructive comments to help a newcomer. I am using material in MY sandbox to create an article. This administrator has no right to make an allegation and assumption that I'm doing so for promotional material when the article has not even been submitted. Frankly, I do not think this administrator is up to it and is deleting my sandbox and in my view has no right to do so and make allegations. This administrator needs to "butt out".

I paste what Jac16888 states below:

________________________________________________________________

Thank you for unblocking me. Apologies to all.

You were not unblocked, your block expired because it was set at 31 hours. Any repeat of your previous behaviour will result in an immediate, and this time indefinite, block. I suggest you read our policies and guidelines closely before you go any further--Jac16888 Talk 20:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Hello, Gaslett. You have new messages at Sarahj2107's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}. or ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}. template. Hey, Jac16888, I have been reading through the guidelines more and I don't appreciate your judgement. I'm new on Misplaced Pages and I made a mistake that I owned upto. I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers - Don't wade into other people's disputes is a general rule in life if not Misplaced Pages. Behaviour? Yours leads alot to be desired i.e. going around condemning others. Go and aim that at yourself.

When you come onto wikipedia and start spamming it is my business, and since you are apparently still adding promotional content which I just removed from User:Gaslett/sandbox, it's clear you haven't learned from your mistake at all, nor have you read our policies yet. If you continue as you are, your ability to edit Misplaced Pages will be removed--Jac16888 Talk 14:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC) My sandox is for my own edits and it is not an article as I understand it. To make an asumption and an accusation like that is OUT OF ORDER. So again read : http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers . I'm so fed up with your comments I'm reporting you to Misplaced Pages for bullying.

It doesn't matter whether its your sandbox or not, promotional content is not allowed. Anywhere. Well I'm fed up with spammers thinking they can just come here and promote things without consequences, it's not bullying I'm trying to make you understand your current behaviour of adding promotional content will not be tolerated, because if it continues you will be blocked --Jac16888 Talk 19:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Gaslett&oldid=494359951"

Involved parties">

• Template:Jac16888, gaslett
• username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by {Party 1}">

Statement by {Party 2}">

Statement by {Party 3}">

Clerk notes">

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)-2012-05-26T22:28:00.000Z">

• Hi Gaslett, I am not sure that this has followed the steps of dispute resolution to this point. Mostly, I'd like to see one or more experienced Wikipedians help you to understand what the issues are with your work on this article, and perhaps help all of those who have been working on it to bring it up to acceptable standards. As it stands right now, none of the versions of this article meet even minimal standards of verifiability. While on the surface this is mainly a content dispute, there are also some fairly significant communications issues all around. I'd encourage ALL of the editors of this article (including you, Gaslett) to keep all discussion about the article on-wiki, so that there is a reasonable chance to bring it up to a minimal level of acceptability. Any volunteers to help Gaslett and the other editors out here? Risker (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)