Revision as of 20:58, 17 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Courcelles 00:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Agree with the principle. Whether the RfC was valid, if we need to decide it, is for the findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. SilkTork 14:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Contra SirFozzie, I don't think the RFC was valid, as it was never properly certified. But that doesn't change anything here. Courcelles 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. This principle has been established in several prior cases. Misplaced Pages has become sufficiently prominent that it will inevitably be the subject of both criticism and satire off-site. It is entirely permissible for Misplaced Pages editors, including administrators, to participate in critic sites. We cannot and will not impose on-wiki sanctions because editors participate in a criticism site (I have done so myself, as has the author of this decision) or a satire site, even though the criticism at times may be harsh, strident, or in our view misguided. Only in extreme situations, such as those described in the principle, can the Arbitration Committee or the Misplaced Pages community impose sanctions here for conduct there. Where to draw the line is necessarily subjective; but it would be a mistake to say that for that reason no line can be drawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
9. I preferred the version on the workshop which contained the line "disruptive off-wiki conduct endangering the project and its participants", as that made it very clear when it would be appropriate to use sanctions. The last line of this, however, is useful as it makes it clear that the community can and should get involved. SilkTork 21:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
9. SilkTork 21:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. SilkTork 21:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 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)
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 00:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. SilkTork 22:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikimedia Commons and English Language Misplaced Pages

11) Files hosted on Misplaced Pages's sister-site, Wikimedia 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)
3. Commons disputes should ordinarily be resolved on Commons, to the extent that the dispute-resolution procedures there reasonably permit. However, when there is "spillover" onto this wiki, tne English Misplaced Pages ArbCom or community may also need to act. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. It's appropriate to note that Commons has a far less mature governance model than the English Misplaced Pages does. 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. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. And minor CE,  Roger Davies 13:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Uploading copyvios to Commons is dealt with by the Commons admins. Uploading problematic content there and using it here, however, does make it enwp's problem. Courcelles 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Courcelles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. SilkTork 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Biographies of living persons

12) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Misplaced Pages. As the English Misplaced Pages remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Misplaced Pages article mentioning an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Misplaced Pages articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy that enforces these precepts by requiring, among other things, that articles containing biographical information must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. There is widespread agreement in the Misplaced Pages community regarding the importance of the BLP policy, which was adopted and since its inception has repeatedly been strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through the BLP policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Support:

1. Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs, principles 1 to 3, and added here in connection with potential alternative finding and remedy proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editors and the Arbitration Committee

13) Editors are expected to be complete and truthful in statements and evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

1. Adapted from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Henrygb. This principle may be relevant to findings and remedies against one or more editors. Reminder to all that including a principle in a decision does not, by itself, constitute a finding that anyone has violated that principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:54, 17 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)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. With trivial CE,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 00:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Accurate statements. The locus of the dispute includes both Fæ's alleged (and by this point, to some extent, admitted) conduct as well as alleged harassment of him by other editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. The RfC was called by DC because of concerns he had over Fae's sourcing. SilkTork 15:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Use of multiple accounts

2) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) declared in their request for adminship that they were a returning user who had taken a clean start with no sanctions 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 their 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)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. CE (made the first sentence gender-neutral, to match the rest of the finding. Equally, the rest could be tweaked to match the first sentence if you prefer it). Please tweak/revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 00:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. I'm not sure that a pending RfC is a "sanction," but I do agree it would have been better to disclose it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. SilkTork 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I do think ducking out and changing usernames in the face of an RfC/U is anything but open and appropriate communication. Users who leave in the middle of dispute resolution or disciplinary processes may have legitimate reasons for doing so, but should either "face the music" upon their return or accept that the least favorable outcome may be presumed. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ has been the target of harassment

3) Fæ has been the target of a sustained campaign of criticism and some 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)
3. The first sentence bundles together the criticism and harassment in a slightly unfortunate manner. There has certainly been a sustained campaign of criticism, and in addition, there has been some harassment. PhilKnight (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Agreeing with PhilKnight and minor copyedit (added "some" before harassment). Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Per PhilKnight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. The criticism includes use of sources, understanding of copyright licences, and response to scrutiny - and those are the serious concerns, even if the images gained more attention. SilkTork 15:16, 14 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)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. While being brought up in such a venue is not pleasant, expected good-faith participation is a broad spectrum of conduct somewhere between saying nothing at all and abjectly endorsing all possible criticism. Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. At least some aspects of the RfC should have been addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Fae's reluctance to face and deal appropriately with concerns and criticism is key. SilkTork 15:22, 14 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)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. "Serious allegations need serious proof". Also, in this instance, he seems to have cried "wolf".  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose (for now, at least) as, per the comments below, the diffs used here aren't the greatest, and I further feel that #7 demonstrates this point a bit better and is sufficient. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

This is pretty weak evidence for an NPA finding, really, and I dislike in principle trotting out anti-arb rants as NPA. While anti-arb rants are still covered by NPA, a solid finding should have enough other diffs such that there is no need to bring anti-arb rants into an arbitration case. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much per Jclemens - I think for this finding we need something stronger. There had been some strong language and emotions thrown about so singling out these in this way doesn't work for me due to context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

We recently agreed among ourselves that diffs in decisions are illustrative, not definitive, so I don't think we need to enumerate a long list of personal attacks—and some of the name-calling, on all sides, would better be not further publicized. Nonetheless, I'd like to see my colleagues' concern addressed before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there don't need to be more than a few... but I'd like it to be a better few. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Bottom line: This was never a valid CLEANSTART. Courcelles 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support based the failure to abide by the purpose and spirit, not just by the letter, of the clean start policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. SilkTork 15:27, 14 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)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. (Although to an extent this is duplicative of some of the above paragraphs, and I don't want us to seem like we're "piling on" by making the same conduct the subject of multiple findings.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
10. SilkTork 10:45, 17 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)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 01:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
8. He also agreed not to seek a new RfA for a year; and he acknowledged some of his problematic on-wiki conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:19, 14 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 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)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 01:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Fozzie puts it well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Per my comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I am unable to make a decision on this, so I am abstaining. SilkTork 10:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

The "article" consists of images that Fae uploaded to Commons. Is the thinking that there is something wrong in the images themselves? Or that the selection and grouping of the images was harassment? I see no problem with the images in themselves. And grouping them together doesn't appear to suggest harassment, any more than grouping pictures I have uploaded of myself would appear to me to be harassment. I feel that in order to have a finding of harassment sufficient to site ban a user, we would need some evidence of repeated offensive behavior. Is there something in addition to this article? SilkTork 17:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still looking into this to trace the history behind the creation of that article. It was created three days after the images were deleted from Commons. The images at the time of deletion were in use in articles on Misplaced Pages, and a bot had to remove the broken files. The reason for the deletion of the files were self-request for privacy concerns. The stated reason for the creation of the page was "No, you can't delete images from the Internet." I am now looking into the reasons for the self-request for deleting the files. If was part of an harassment campaign, then I will support this finding. SilkTork 21:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The date of deletion came after one of the images was mentioned on Misplaced Pages Review. SilkTork 22:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see there is some uncertainty in the evidence as to Michaeldsuarez's motives, so I am finding it difficult to base a charge of harassment on a weak assumption of motive. Are people thinking the page is harassment because of the subject of the images. If the images were of a man playing golf would the page still be considered harassment? If the thinking is that it is harassment because of the linking of Fae, as the uploader of the images, to his real life name, that is a consideration, as for several months the page was changed to Fae's real life name after a talkpage request - but as it says in the talkpage request that information was found on Misplaced Pages, and is still there. SilkTork 15:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Michaeldsuarez's own evidence provides significant support for this finding.

He states that the article "isn't an attack article; it's an informative article." He states that "the article doesn't contain any attacks or assertions; it only contains freely licensed images." In context these assertions are absurd.

He states that although he initially didn't want the ED article to be titled under Fae, "I changed my mind due to the urgings of an ED community member.... As an ED sysop, I'm entrusted by the community to meet their needs and desires." I readily accept that the "needs and desires" of many contributors to Encyclopedia Dramatica are very different from ours, and that the standards of that site are not ours, and that there is not much we can do to bring them closer together. But given Michaeldsuarez's familiarity with how ED operates, it was entirely predictable that the article would be transformed into something even more harassing and distressing to its subject than it originally was meant to be.

He states that the ED article "was originally meant to fulfill an educational role; it was originally meant to teach people the downsides of using free licenses." I do not find Michaeldsuarez's statement that he posted these images on ED for "an educational purpose" to be believeable. But even if I did believe it, it would not help much. Michaeldsuarez knew (or at the very least should have known) what would happen with the images he was posting; that if not he himself, then some of his ED colleagues, would use them in an attempt to cause real-world harm to Fae.

The facts that once images are posted they may be online forever, against the uploader's wishes, and that free-licenced images may be used in ways distressing to the uploader or the subject, are well-known but should probably be publicized further. But this obviously was not any kind of way to do it. On Misplaced Pages, we have a guideline: Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. I would think that good people could generalize this: Please don't disrupt someone's life to make a point, either.

I have respect for some of what Michaeldsuarez does on Misplaced Pages, and also in criticizing Misplaced Pages, though not much for what he does on Encyclopedia Dramatica. His observations about the idiosyncracies and dysfunctions of Misplaced Pages and its contributors are often well-taken and sincere. And off-site, I don't begrudge Michaeldsuarez his choice of hobbies, or seek to regulate his sense of humor, or claim the right to interfere with his life, liberty, and the pursuit of lulziness.

But what he did to Fae was way over the line of decent behavior—and I think that in his heart of hearts he knows it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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 Fæ 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)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Minor tweak for clarity ,  Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Saying this was not OUTING gives a free pass to go digging into (and posting info on) editor's RL identities. Courcelles 01:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
6. In re: to Jclemens, I think that the OUTING policy is fairly clear that posting any info the editor has not disclosed themselves on Misplaced Pages is the issue, and thus DC's actions are a violation. Though the outing happened elsewhere if it has an effect on our "turf" it's still worth considering. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
7. I accept Delicious carbuncle's statement that he did not realize the full extent of the identifying information (such as the telephone number) that he was posting. This is a significant mitigating factor, as is the fact that he acted promptly to cause the information to be redacted when he was told that he'd posted this information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
9. This comes under the Off-wiki_harassment section of the Harassment policy rather than the Outing section, but it's the same policy. SilkTork 16:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Posting information NOT from Misplaced Pages, on a non-Wikimedia Foundation website, while objectionable, is not covered by WP:OUTING. If we reword this appropriately, I can support. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Misplaced Pages:Harassment says "Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." SilkTork 16:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

... and if the information was obtained from an off-wiki site in the first place? Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

   PhilKnight (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

    Roger Davies 14:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Striking pending further information,  Roger Davies 02:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. At the end of the day, this is an issue to deal with Commonsside. Knowingly placing copyvios into enwp is sanctionable here, but this is straying too far. Courcelles 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

   After investigating the only plausible claim, what we have is a lot of smoke created by Fae which initially appears to point to a cover up, but which is unrelated to Flickr washing. There is an email from the copyright owner which clearly shows that Fae had been given permission. SilkTork 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Per Courcelles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
3. This lies in the jurisdiction of Commons to handle, not ours. Hersfold 02:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
4. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of a serious problem in regard to copyright violations. In this context, I don't think we should repeat, what is in effect, an unfounded accusation. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
5. At this point, there is insufficient evidence of intentional or pervasive misconduct in this area to warrant a finding. To the extent that problems may exist, they can be addressed through the standard community processes, on Commons or here, as appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Concerns have been raised, and on examination those (actually quite few) files under question have been the result of mistakes or misunderstanding rather than deliberate and/or continuous abuse. Fae's use of several accounts on Flickr, and his decision to delete those accounts, coupled with his renaming of his Commons accounts, and the removal of file histories on Commons has given the appearance of a cover up of improper activities, and it hasn't assisted matters that Fae has not been helpful; however, we don't sanction users for simply being accused of impropriety, we do need evidence. SilkTork 10:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I'm going to give this some more thought. There are other files to look at. SilkTork 23:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still looking into this matter. My thinking at the moment is that a finding that Fae's understanding of copyright related to media is a cause for concern, coupled with a ban on uploading or placing media on Misplaced Pages would be a starting point, and if it does turn out that he deliberately altered licences in order to upload them on Commons and use on Misplaced Pages, and then attempted to cover up that fact, we should be looking at a site-ban. I think that would be the span: somewhere between a topic ban on the use of media files and an outright site ban. SilkTork 10:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Holding off on voting for another couple of days, to see if further evidence emerges. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ has attempted to deceive the community

12) Throughout this case, Fæ has attempted to deceive the community and the Committee as to the true status of their accounts and contributions, going so far as to request that Wikimedia Commons administrators not provide information vital to determining the truth of the allegations made against them, and attempting to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts. At the time the appeal to the WMF was made, Fæ served as an official of a WMF-associated charity.

Support:

1. We have tried to get to the truth of the matter here as Arbitrators, so to come up with a set of principles, findings and remedies that not only reflect the ACTUAL situation as it stood in the past, the current situation, and what steps we need to take going forward. However throughout this case, we have been met with stonewalls, obfuscation, and attempts to deflect the situation, to avoid revealing the true picture. At this point, whether the situation with the copyright is truly infringing, carelessness in cutting corners, or innocent mistakes, the cover up and attempts to obfuscate the true situation have created an intolerable situation. The old saying is "The cover up is worse than the original crime". Fæ has even gone so far as to request to a member of the WMF that they act as an intermediary with the Arbitration Committee to avoid being forced to list all their accounts, as the currently passed remedy states that they will need to do going forward. The reason they gave is "ongoing security risks". If providing an accurate list of the accounts they have controlled in the past and going forward is an ongoing security risk for Fæ, I think that it's time to formally restrict Fæ from editing. SirFozzie (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
3. SirFozzie puts it well - and approaching a WMF staff member to request that they intercede in an ongoing case is simply unacceptable. Hersfold 05:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   Second choice; while it may not have been discussed, I can't help but feel that this is still relevant. As a chapter official, Fae, more so than just about any other editor, should know that the Foundation doesn't involve itself in matters like this and approaching them to that end is highly inappropriate. Hersfold non-admin 14:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

4. In the course of this case, there are several cases where Fae has had a choice between doing things above-board, and working in the shady under-currents. At Wikimania, he chose to try and leverage his positions in other organizations to once again evade the investigation of this committee. The truth is so difficult to get out of Fae at this point, because he has tried to throw roadblocks using his ties to other groups in front of the road to truth. This is unacceptable. Courcelles 05:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Second choice. PhilKnight (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
6. In my investigations I have found misunderstandings and errors by Fae in use of sources and the understanding of copyright and use of licences; these mistakes are not serious in themselves, and are to be expected of a number of busy contributors who are learning on the job. However, Fae's response to queries and concerns about these mistakes, is a serious cause for concern - and that he has attempted to thwart our legitimate investigation into these matters is a very grave matter. SilkTork 09:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I would support this finding absent the mention of Fae's association with other aspects of the Wikimedia movement, which I believe is irrelevant in this context. In particular, given my observations of the accessibility and openness of WMF staff at Wikimania, I do not believe that his ability to contact WMF staff was in any way related to his non-Misplaced Pages roles in the movement. Risker (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Per Risker. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
3. prefer below, with non-relevant bit removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Per Risker, among other concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Prefer 12.1,  Roger Davies 16:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ has attempted to deceive the community (2)

12.1) Throughout this case, Fæ has attempted to deceive the community and the Committee as to the true status of their accounts and contributions, going so far as to request that Wikimedia Commons administrators not provide information vital to determining the truth of the allegations made against them, and attempting to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts.

Support:

1. As I believe Risker is on the mark, cutting the Wikimedia note. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
4. First choice, since we've received clarification since then that Fae's positions within Wikimedia were not discussed. Hersfold non-admin 14:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Did Henry II need to mention he was the king while uttering "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Don't really think the difference between these findings amounts to a hill of beans, largely per Jclemens reasons, so, whichever is fine. Courcelles 14:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Both findings are true, and I don't mind which is used as it makes no real difference. Fae is an official of a WMF-associated charity - a role which though it is not directly related to Misplaced Pages, does have an association, and so one would hope that a responsible official would take more care not to blur the boundaries. Be that as it may, the manner in which Fae has conducted himself in this case, and in previous attempts to examine his conduct, has been poor, and we would be sanctioning him regardless of his roles elsewhere. SilkTork 14:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
8. As SilkTork says, both findings are true, and it doesn't really make a difference. SirFozzie (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies 16:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Fæ's conduct with relation to the English Misplaced Pages has been problematic in several ways, including some mentioned in this decision, as well as with respect to BLP issues (a topic that could and perhaps should have been part of the decision). His failure to be candid with this Committee has compounded the problems (there is a principle in the Henrygb case that could also be part of this decision). I'm not convinced that mentioning Fæ's communication with a WMF staff member in the decision is helpful, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Awaiting statement from Fae (forthcoming within the next day or two, as stated on the talkpage) before voting on this and the remaining findings and remedies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If anything, per the talk page discussion, it might be better to clarify in the text of the finding that the attempt was to get a staffer to intervene in an active case, not an appeal of an enacted ArbCom sanction. I don't think any of the arbitrators have a problem with anyone seeking counsel from the WMF, especially someone in Fae's position; I certainly do not. What I do have a problem with is the multiple attempts to prevent the committee from doing its work in accordance with ARBPOL and our procedures, and the fact that one of the attempts to subvert this process involved seeking special intervention from a WMF staffer is very relevant. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
2. Unless he is site banned for a year or indefinitely, in which case this isn't required. PhilKnight (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. (Oppose if the site ban passes, as unnecessary. Courcelles 20:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC))Courcelles 01:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
6. (Though I would prefer to copyedit by deleting "based on perceived affiliation," as it's not necessary and not completely clear.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Hersfold 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Unless something more serious is passing, in which case this is moot. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Pending resolution of my concerns with a couple of the underlying findings, I'm going to hold off voting. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ personal attack parole

2) Fæ is placed on an indefinite personal attack parole. Should Fæ 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)

   PhilKnight (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

2.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Courcelles 01:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In the case of a negative finding on personal attacks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
2. The implementation of personal attack parole on Misplaced Pages hasn't been especially sucessful. PhilKnight (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
3. These sorts of remedies only serve to cause more drama than they prevent, and it's impossible to consistently enforce them. Hersfold 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 10:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Per Hersfold, I prefer simpler remedies, such as the currently passing site ban. While it would be excessive for this activity alone, the fact that it is separately justified renders the need to craft an intermediate level of response moot. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I'd like to understand this a bit better before we enact it. For example, are we presuming that blocks placed per this personal attack parole are AE blocks? Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to think a bit on this one. Civility restrictions appear to be difficult to manage as there are varying levels of acceptance of robust and frank discussion among individual admins. Decisions about blocking for "personal attacks" would make sense if it were done by reaching consensus through a discussion - however, such discussions can produce more heat than light. SilkTork 20:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• I am now wondering if what should be on the table is an interaction ban between DC and Fae. Looking through the evidence and the histories of the two individuals here and on Commons and elsewhere, what has occurred is an extreme mishandling of a dispute between the two which was initiated when Fae (as user Ash) questioned DC's motives for bringing unsourced BLPs on gay porn actors to AfD. The history of Fae closing down accounts on Misplaced Pages and Commons, deleting the file history of images he uploaded on Common, and later the deletion of images which later ended up on the ED page, all appear to be directly related to the sour relationship between the two. As they have been unable to resolve the matter themselves, and it appears that much of Fae's conduct issues (separate from questions about his understanding of copyright law, and sourcing), including misleading the community in his RfA, stem from his desire to conceal himself from DC, a ban might resolve other civility issues surrounding Fae. DC himself appears to have been excessive in his desire to bring Fae to account for what appears (so far) to be minor infringements and possible errors (of judgement as well as understanding), so much so that his focus on and sifting through Fae's activities on and off-wiki can reasonably called harassment. I am at the point where I feel that the level of enquiry from DC into Fae, and the impact that has had on Fae's life is such that I am giving serious consideration to support the proposal to ban him from Misplaced Pages in addition to proposing an interaction ban. SilkTork 10:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also thinking a bit on this. In the past few years we have moved away from the "civility paroles" and "personal attack paroles" that were frequently found in earlier decisions of the Committee. Partly this was a linguistic change (to avoid legalistic-sounding language, we used "behavioral editing restriction" instead for awhile), and partly it's based on bad experiences at the enforcement stage. My preference frankly is that Fae refrain from commenting at all on the people he would be tempted to personally attack—and vice versa, of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username.

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)
2. yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Added language requiring him get permission from ArbCom before changing username. Revert if you disagree. Courcelles 01:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 17:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork 19:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:38, 14 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 adminship. 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)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 06:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 01:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
8. SilkTork 22:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
9. It's worth adding that Fæ has stated he won't pursue a new RfA for at least a year. This is in everyone's best interests under the circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Hersfold 02:38, 14 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 than 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)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice, prefer 5.1. PhilKnight (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Courcelles 01:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In light of alternatives below. Hersfold non-admin 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Ditto,  Roger Davies 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I am unable to make a firm conclusion regarding the finding on which this is based, so I am abstaining. SilkTork 10:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Not very keen on the third sentence. I'm okay with a one-year ban but the terms for return could perhaps be simplified or made as a separate remedy? (Also, trivial CE "other then" > "other than")  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the value of the last sentence either; I don't think Michaeldsuarez has misconducted himself on-wiki more in one namespace than another (and the ban isn't being proposed for anything he's done on-wiki at all, as best I can tell). As for the siteban, I am interested in seeing Michaeldsuarez's response, if any, to my comments on the finding of fact before I vote. This is not a demand for feigned contrition in an attempt to avoid a sanction (I would never ask for that, nor do I think Michaeldsuarez would provide it), but I think what he has to say may give us some insight into what best should be done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the last sentence is worded very confusingly. Can that be rephrased as "Should they have the indefinite site ban lifted, they are restricted to only the article, article talk and file namespaces, as well as their own userspace as necessary"? Although I'm also not sure I see the merit. Hersfold 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think, even if it was a form of harassment, it is serious enough for a ban. As there is also a proposed restriction on editing outside article space, I am assuming there is more to Michaeldsuarez's Misplaced Pages conduct than has been presented on this page. Should there be another finding? SilkTork 16:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez banned

5.1) 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.

Support:

1. First choice. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Weak second choice. I would prefer to keep Michaeldsuarez away from drama on his return. SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Weak second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
5. First choice. Hersfold non-admin 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
6. If and only if 5 does not pass, otherwise this is an oppose. Courcelles 18:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
7. First choice,  Roger Davies 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

Crafting this because the non-article space prohibition seems to be a sticking point, given that underlying evidence is not presented in an FoF. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez admonished

5.2) For creating a page on an external webpage designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is admonished. In the future, he is expected to pursue dispute resolution entirely on-wiki and with appropriate decorum and discretion.

Support:

1. Second choice. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
2. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Hersfold non-admin 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Strongly, at that. Not a choice at all. He has been given a chance to explain it, and still doesn't see anything wrong with what he's done. SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Prefer 5.1. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Amazingly inadequate. Courcelles 18:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Prefer 5.1,  Roger Davies 19:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment:

Adding a lighter-weight alternative, since a ban is not passing at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle

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)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Second choice. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
6. First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Per SirFozzie and per my comments on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Equal preference. Hersfold 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Equal preference. SilkTork 14:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. At the end of the day, too mild. Of the two, I think this party's conduct was worse than that of Michaeldsuarez. Courcelles 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

   Given the amount of negative attention DC has paid to Fae, the length of time it has been going on, and the impact on Fae's life (and the knock on effect on Misplaced Pages), a site-ban is more appropriate. There is a fine line between legitimate investigation into potential infringements of our content policies, and harassment of an individual. There are, as people have said, appropriate ways of doing it, and inappropriate ways which end up with the target feeling victimised and scared. DC crossed that line when it became clear that he was no longer interested in purely investigating the possible infringements, but was focusing on other aspects of Fae's life, some of which, such as his role in Wikimedia UK or where he worked or who his partner is, have no relation to the infringements he wished to investigate. It has become clear that he has personal issues with Fae himself, and has gone too far. SilkTork 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

   Striking "where he worked". While looking at the evidence I conflated DC with another user. SilkTork 15:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Delicious carbuncle banned

6.1)For participating in and instigating off-site harassment, including posting of personal information, Delicious carbuncle is banned from the English Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than six months. After six months have elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:

1. After sitting down and reading everything, including more WR threads than I cared to, I think this is necessary. There were ways that Delicious carbuncle could have raised their concerns without violating policy, but he chose other methods. At the end of the day, his conduct is at least as bad as Michaeldsuarez's, and it is not limited at all to the incident of posting private information. Courcelles 01:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2. In light of conduct seen in prior cases, the severity of this conduct, and the editor's attitude towards the process as shown here. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies 02:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Equal preference. Hersfold 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Equal. Supporting for now - though I feel we still need a finding for the general harassment, and would prefer 12 months, so may offer an alternative. SilkTork 16:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I feel this is excessive, per my rationale above. SirFozzie (talk) 05:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Per SirFozzie above and per my comment on the finding of fact. I do urge Delicious carbuncle to moderate his approach a bit, however, both on- and off-wiki. Beyond a certain point, it can start to be perceived by some as harassment and unnecessarily piling-on, even if not intended that way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

@SirFozzie: The problem here is really more serious than the finding of fact against DC indicates: In addition to the outing, DC's creation of threads on WR, and forcing so much attention on Fae goes against the spirit of WP:HA beyond just the outing. It likely won't continue against Fae, because the goal has been achieved, but what happens next time DC gets it in his head that he needs to expose another editor? The way he handled this mess would have driven plenty of editors right off this project if targeted at them, and it cannot be tolerated. Courcelles 20:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, anyone thinking this is a first-time incident of DC wikihounding someone should go back to the Cirt/Jayren466 case and read the way DC used the same playbook on Cirt he did here on Fae. I'm disinclined to create more links to WR, so I'll just link to an evidence submission from that case , though not necessarily endorsing the commentary, the links are very telling. Courcelles 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If there's prior behavior that's leading to this ban, we need findings to that effect. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I feel a site ban is in order due to the nature and impact of DC's investigation/harassment of Fae, though I agree that we do not yet have the findings to support such a ban. I will write something up later unless someone else does it first. SilkTork 10:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Good idea,  Roger Davies 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
4. If we're going to do this, we should have the findings annotated in the case page such that an exoneration is as prominent as the review. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't feel this is part of Arbitration Committee remit or area of jurisdiction. We don't deal with content issues, and we have no influence on Commons. If there is concern in the Committee that Fae's conduct is in question in regard to copyright violation on Misplaced Pages, then we should investigate that matter and provide a finding. Though I understand the concern not to ignore possible copyright violations, having a finding which suggests that someone has done something wrong and ask people to see if they can find the evidence seems the wrong way round. If we are concerned as individuals about a contributor's possible copyvios, then we can post our concerns at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations without a need for an ArbCom remedy. SilkTork 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. In regard to Fæ's Misplaced Pages image uploads -Special:ListFiles/Fæ - these are mostly non-free images that have rationales, and there doesn't appear to be a problem. In regard to his Commons uploads - Commons:Special:ListFiles/Fæ - I agree with SilkTork that we don't have jurisdiction. For what's it worth, most are of high resolution, so there is no reason to doubt that Fæ took these images. The lower resolution images seem to be either retouched free images or have an OTRS ticket, so again, I don't think there's a problem. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
3. While it might be a good idea, it is a matter for the admins Commonsside, and not this Committee. Courcelles 01:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Outside our jurisdiction as worded - if this is restricted only to Misplaced Pages files, I may support, however as Phil notes that's probably unnecessary. Just because images from Commons are used here does not place them under our purview, as any editor can add any image to an article. Misplaced Pages wouldn't be sanctioning JoeSchmoe if he added a potentially infringing image to an article when it was BillyBob that uploaded it to Commons. Hersfold 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Per my vote on the finding of fact. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Given that one of our briefs is dispute resolution, this was another issue brought up which has been a bone of contention in this dispute. It really needs resolving one way or the other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

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 of possible "Flickr-washing" (ie, moving pictures etcetera onto flickr from videos or pictures, often with slight retouches), and then putting it on Commons that I felt it necessary to suggest a review be done. While Commons itself is not under our remit, the fact that these files are being USED on en-wp makes this finding actionable. SirFozzie (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a serious allegation which we cannot let lie on this case. I feel we need to suspend this case and fully explore these allegations to either clear Fae's name, or to find that it is true - in which case we'll probably need to look at a site ban. Looking at this discussion on Commons, which has impact on Misplaced Pages as it involves an image that Fae (under the Ash account) placed on a Misplaced Pages article, it appears there's a claim that Fae had a Flickr account which took a copyrighted image belonging to someone else, and then gave it a false licence in order to upload it on Commons. Fae denies the claim, and stresses he had permission via email which he forwarded to OTRS. It is unfortunate that is difficult to follow the evidence thread because Fae's Flickr account with the cropped image has been closed and the history of the Commons image in question has been overwritten with a new copy of the same image - uploaded by Fae about two weeks ago. Either this is a mistake as Fae claims, and the closing of the Flickr account and the recent uploading of the image have reasonable explanations, or this is inappropriate uploading of an image onto Commons, followed by denials and cover ups. Making a mistake with a copyright file can happen. Deliberately falsifying information is bad, but can be forgiven with an apology. A constant denial, followed by a cover up is totally unacceptable. I feel we should check Fae's story, and ask to see the email, and look at any other claims of License laundering. SilkTork 13:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a helpful communication regarding this matter on my talk page. SilkTork 16:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

After being provided with the OTRS ticket number I can confirm that Fae was given permission by the photographer on 8 July 2009 to use that and any other London Pride pictures. With no other reasonable claims for Flickr washing being brought forward there is no evidence to support the allegation, and we should not proceed with this. SilkTork 21:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm giving this some more thought. SilkTork 23:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Holding off on voting for a couple more days pending additional evidence, and additional analysis of evidence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ banned

8) For numerous violations of Misplaced Pages's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. This ban may be appealed one year after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Support:

1. As stated above, at every opportunity the Committee's attempt to determine the truth of the situation has been hindered, misdirected, and stonewalled. At this point, it really hardly matters if the original allegations are true. Fæ has attempted to ask the WMF to intercede, stating that being forced to truthfully list all the accounts he's used in the past (and possibly continues to use) is too onerous, due to "ongoing security risks". If that is the case, then this solution is that Fæ needs to be removed from Misplaced Pages. If not the case, then Fæ has continued to try to dodge and deflect good-faith concerns at every turn. in which case Fæ also needs to be restricted from editing Misplaced Pages. SirFozzie (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Two separate and unconnected allegations of attempts by Fae to subornsubvert the committe's investigations into his conduct were reported to the committee in the past couple of days, including an attempt to use his position as a chapter official to compel WMF interference in the internal workings of the committee. If ever there was a cause for an IAR-insta-perma-ban, that would do it. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

   Or perhaps to be more precise "including an attempt to have a Foundation official intervene in the committee's internal workings, communicated to that official while Fae held a position as an official of a Foundation-related charity". Even in the best possible light, still completely unacceptable. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Through his actions, Fæ has demonstrated that he considers himself to be above Misplaced Pages's policies and has no intention of abiding by them. If doing so presents a "security risk" to Fæ, then for his own good he should not be editing the project. In any event, if the sort of conduct documented in this case - including the unprecedented step of attempting to suborn WMF staff members - is what can be expected when good-faith concerns are raised about his conduct, then Misplaced Pages has no place for Fæ. Hersfold 05:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
4. The sad thing is that whatever Fae wants to hide at this point likely isn't as bad as the extreme measures taken to prevent this Committee from reaching the truth of his conduct. What we know Fae has done is bad; but the level of misconduct committed in the course of this case is so much worse that at this point there can be no choice but to separate Fae from this project. Courcelles 05:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
5. I differ slightly from my colleagues in regard to my assessment of Fae's conduct. I'm unconvinced that Fae's original conduct, such as uploading images, or creating alternative accounts was especially problematic. However, Fae's attempts to evade scrutiny are unacceptable, so I'll reluctantly support this remedy. PhilKnight (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
7. The recent disclosure of attempts to use the WMF as a way of avoiding scrutiny is beyond the pale. As Phil says, I don't think there was a lot of veracity to many of the claims, but the actions resulting from trying to hide it has been far worse. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Awaiting Fae's statement before voting on this ban proposal. If I wind up opposing a siteban, I may offer an alternative proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement

Standard enforcement provision

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Lord Roem (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 20:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC) by Daniel.

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Misplaced Pages	10	0	0		·
2	Conduct of Misplaced Pages users	10	0	0		·
3	Escalating conflicts	10	0	0		·
4	Disruption by administrators	10	0	0		·
5	Editor decorum	10	0	0		·
6	RfC/U and dispute resolution	10	0	0		·
7	Participation in non-Misplaced Pages websites	10	0	0		·
8	Comment on the edits, not the editor (1)	10	0	0		·
9	Comment on the edits, not the editor (2)	10	0	0		·
10	Return of administrator tools	10	0	0		·
11	Wikimedia Commons and English Language Misplaced Pages	10	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	10	0	0		·
2	Use of multiple accounts	10	0	0		·
3	Fæ has been the target of harassment	10	0	0		·
4	Fæ's lack of response to good-faith criticism	10	0	0		·
5	Fæ has made unacceptable personal attacks	5	1	0		·
6	Issues with Fæ's WP:CLEANSTART	10	0	0		·
7	Fæ has used ad hominem attacks to try to discredit others	9	0	0		·
8	Fæ resigned administrator status during case	10	0	0		·
9	Michaeldsuarez harassed Fæ	8	0	0		·
10	Delicious carbuncle posted identifying information on Fæ	9	1	0		·
11	Fæ has been accused of infringing copyright	3	5	0		·
12	Fæ has attempted to deceive the community	6	5	0		·
12.1	Fæ has attempted to deceive the community (2)	9	0	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Fæ admonished	7	0	0		·
2	Fæ personal attack parole	3	3	0		·
3	Fæ limited to one account	10	0	0		·
4	Fæ administrator tools	10	0	0		·
5	Michaeldsuarez banned and placed on non-article space restriction	5	0	0		·
6	Delicious carbuncle severely admonished and warned	9	1	0		·
6.1	Delicious carbuncle banned	6	3	0		·
7	Encourage review of Fæ's file contributions	4	6	0		·
8	Fæ banned	8	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
None proposed

Notes

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

1. The case is drawing to a close; only a few more things need tweaking. I don't expect for us to hit "net 4" today, but I am done. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Temporary oppose. We can't possibly close this until we receive and evaluate Fae's statement (to be posted in a day or so per his comment on the talkpage), and also finalize the remedy with respect to Michaeldsuarez. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments