Revision as of 03:20, 9 July 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

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

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

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

Proposed motions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

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

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

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

Support:

1. Standard Fare. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct of Misplaced Pages users

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Escalating conflicts

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

Support:

1. This is aimed at the conduct in and around the dispute. There has been issues where both sides escalated the dispute where it wasn't necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Disruption by administrators

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

Support:

1. With an emphasis on the last sentence. "learn from experience and justified criticisms of their actions." SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Editor decorum

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

Support:

1. Again, aimed at the underlying behavior in this dispute. There has been numerous violations of this principle. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

RfC/U and dispute resolution

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

Support:

1. We have heard from various places that the RfC was invalid (It was not, it ran the full 30 days, despite a lack of participation from the administrator at the heart of the RfC)... and the WQA. This led to a situation where all criticism, whether justified or not, being lumped in with "those who are harassing me". This does not work. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Participation on non-Misplaced Pages websites

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

Support:

1. Generally, there's a two part test that we must apply to this principle. A) Can we confirm that person X is the same person as editor X on Misplaced Pages, and B) was it intended to have an on-wiki effect? In this case, there was two key postings on external websites that yes, we could confirm who it was that posted it, and both were intended to have a chilling effect outside that permissible by Misplaced Pages standards. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Comment on the edits, not the editor (1)

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

Support:

1. From the TG case. Unfortunately, one of the defenses that were presented here was "These people are associated with a band of people that were harassing me".. when that link had not and could not be proven to the satisfaction of Misplaced Pages's norms and policies. It became too easy a crutch to avoid justified good-faith criticism. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Comment on the edits, not the editor (2)

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

Support:

1. This is aimed at the campaign against Fae. While there were quite a few people with good faith concerns, there was some who decided to take aim at Fae due to his preferences, and the files he uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Return of administrator tools

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

Support:

1. Long standing policy SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikimedia Commons and English Language Misplaced Pages

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

Support:

1. Wikimedia Commons is heavily involved with English Language Misplaced Pages. We may not be hosting the files, merely linking to the files that it hosts, however, if the copyright status of a file is invalid on Commons, we are on the same hook. So it behooves us to make sure that the files are properly licensed. Such concerns must however be worked through hand in hand with Wikimedia Commons as the file's host. SirFozzie (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. yes. important. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of Dispute

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Use of multiple accounts

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has been the target of harassment

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ's lack of response to good-faith criticism

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

Support:

1. One of the key issues here. He failed to respond to good-faith criticism, and instead dismissed all criticism as associated with those who were campaigning against him. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Issues with Fæ's WP:CLEANSTART

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ resigned administrator status during case

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Michaeldsuarez harassed Fæ

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

Support:

1. There were right ways and wrong ways to criticize. This was a wrong way. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ

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

Support:

1. I may be of two minds about connecting the dots in the outing policy. Jimbo Wales may believe the OUTING policy needs to be changed. However, it is currently the policy of Misplaced Pages that what happened here was a violation. SirFozzie (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has been accused of infringing copyright

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Fæ admonished

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ personal attack parole

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ limited to one account

3) Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. This account must publicly link on their user page to any and all past accounts they have controlled.

Support:

1. This is necessary, due to the amount of accounts that have been used in the past, and the incorrectly applied CLEANSTART account. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ administrator tools

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

Support:

1. The link at RfA is to avoid any chance of suggestions that Fae would be deceiving the community again by running without disclosing any and all accounts that he has controlled during his time on Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Michaeldsuarez banned and placed on non-article space restriction

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

Support:

1. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Delicious carbuncle severely admonished and warned

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

Support:

1. I think the fact that he quickly realized he had gone too far and did his best to take down the information puts this in the confines of a severe admonishment and a caution, rather then a site ban. However, I think it's clear that it's not a line they should ever be approaching again. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions

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

Support:

1. Again, no specifics were provided the Committee.. but there has been enough general information posted (here as well as on external sites) that I think a proper review needs to happen, and any infringing files removed. SirFozzie (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

Proposals which pass

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which do not pass

{Failing principles}

{Failing findings}

{Failing remedies}

{Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

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

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

Support

Oppose

Comments