This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Daniel (talk | contribs) at 11:33, 15 June 2012 (Housekeeping (header levels)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

→ Important notes for all contributors to this case This case is highly contentious, and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads up on the procedures we will be using. A) First off, we will be running under a "single warning" system. The clerks, myself and other arbitrators will be monitoring this case. Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight. Clerks have been given authority to remove such comments and give the commenter a single warning. If such issues happen again after a participant has been warned, the participant will either be barred from further participation in this arbitration case, or the person will be blocked for a period of time at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone. That includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether it is truly random or not). B) There will be NO speculations allowed. This includes the following: 1) No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it." That falls under a finding that we have endorsed less then three months ago: In apparent violation of the "No Personal Attacks" policy, (user) has persistently dwelt on editors' affiliations and has seemingly used the "affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views". (Extract from "What is considered to be a personal attack?") 2) No speculation of off-wiki lifestyle, behavior, orientation and/or private life will be allowed. We are not a gossip site, and making such comments during the case has no purpose. We are an encyclopedia, and our editors should be treated accordingly. If users here are violating that principle elsewhere, that information should be noted briefly, factually, and directly in evidence. 3) If your evidence is being posted against one or more editors, you must fully back up your comments with explicit diffs and/or links. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As I've said above, unsupported attacks on other editors will be removed and warnings/sanctions will be issued. If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand. Don't think it's "better to ask for forgiveness then it is permission". It's not. These rules will apply on all case-related pages, which explicitly include talk pages. We will be using the just-ratified limits on evidence (to wit, 1000 words/100 diffs for direct parties, 500/50 for non-parties to this case). If you're going to exceed either, ask myself or another arbitrator (on the /Evidence talk page) before you do so. To prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, we are taking additional measures to limit disruption. The case pages will be semi-protected and there will be additional scrutiny paid to accounts who haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. In other words, don't expect to try to avoid scrutiny with an IP address or an alternate, undeclared account. It will be counterproductive. If a new editor or an IP editor truly has something that needs to be said, they can ask a clerk to post for them. Finally, after I take the first few days to review the initial evidence and workshop postings, I will be posting a series of questions on the workshop page that I would like the parties to answer. I am primarily interested in what the parties have to say in response. This should be aimed solely at answering my questions and not going back and forth with other people's answers. Thank you for your attention, and hopefully, your compliance with these directives. For the Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Rich Farmbrough

Proposed principles

It is legitimate, in certain circumstances, to have two accounts

Per WP:SOCK#Legitimate uses an editor may have a separate account for privacy purposes (among other reasons).

Comment by Arbitrators:

The subheading is far too sweeping, and would be prone to being misinterpreted. Otherwise, I could agree to something similar to this. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is, but I don't see the relevance here. The issue is surely rather the circumstances in which the editor abandoned one account and took up another. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: heading changed per PhilKnight's comment. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC).

Posting personal information is harassment

Per WP:OUTING

• "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, ... whether any such information is accurate or not."
• "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy"
• "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found."

Comment by Arbitrators:

The last item relates to connecting a new account to one which had been abandoned because it had become associated with personal information. This can be OUTING - although I have seen quite a bit of community disagreement. I don't believe that is what happened in this case anyway, hence the first two items, although correctly quoted, would seem not to apply. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block

Per WP:OUTING - Direct quote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think we need some form of caveat to say that posting personal information which depend solely on public information is a slightly different situation, which should be discouraged but probably not by an outright block. Deryck C. 00:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Attempted outing should not be rewarded with confirmation or denial

Per WP:OUTING

• "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information.
• "Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts"
• "When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information."
• "Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar,"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

RFC on Fae was contrary to policy

The RFC on Fae was predicated on linking two accounts. If the two accounts were operated by the same person they were protected under the provisions of WP:SOCK (legitimate accounts:Privacy). The outing policy further makes it clear that we should never give credence to attempts to link legitimate socks, absent an overriding need. No such need has been shown, therefore no linkage should be made on-Wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. The RfC was not contrary to policy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposer seems not to have understood the chain of events or which policy to apply. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Rich. WP:OUTING is very narrow, mostly about disclosure of personally identifying information (specifically, legal name, street address etc). Connecting two accounts rarely does this. I suppose the other issue is whether the concerns raised at the RFC trump anything in the WP:OUTING policy (the WMF privacy policy, from which it derives, contains exceptions in the event of misconduct).  Roger Davies 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Thoughtful consideration of the situation showed that the underlying principle (deeper than the procedural principles which made the RFC merely invalid) was one of privacy. There is no substantive contention that the two accounts were linked by editing in the same area, and one account edited in an area where WP:SOCK legitimate accounts is a perfectly reasonable policy to apply. Given this attempting to link the two accounts without a compelling reason constitutes WP:OUTing. Rich Farmbrough, 01:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC).

Fae well advised not to be involved in RFC

Given the above assertion, Fae was well advised and to be congratulated for keeping away from the three ring circus that the RFC became. The Misplaced Pages community, especially admins (including myself) should be reprimanded for not closing this unproductive and divisive muck-fest much earlier.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No. He was not well advised. SirFozzie (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agreed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

He refused to participate but not did not keep away. In fact, he seems to say anyone involved with legitimate concerns about on wiki behavior was somehow entangled with some pretty crappy off-wiki events. Nobody Ent 20:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It has now been disclosed by Fae that he was advised by security professionals - including the police - not to engage with his harassers. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee to substitute its judgement for that of security professionals. Prioryman (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Um -- what was the literal advice? I suspect it was more on the order of avoiding Misplaced Pages if that is where all the harassers are. Like telling people to stay away from New Smyrna Beach if they do not want to risk a shark bite. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Isarra

Proposed findings of fact

Claims that linking accounts is outing ignore CLEANSTART policy

While there may have been genuine outing involved elsewhere, tying accounts together after a failed cleanstart is not outing. That folks can do that is precisely why it is a failed cleanstart; WP:CLEANSTART specifically says 'If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts.'

Fae was recognised.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Wnt: Like I was saying below, I think the problem is that when the Ash account retired, they left questions unsanswered in the RfC/U, like his non-participation in the the Fae RfC/U left questions that still were unanswered. Using information that is self-disclosed in the two cases is neither outing nor harassment. If he said "I am this person in real life" and then on his WMUK said, "I'm This person, and this account is my WP account, the fact that it's self disclosure means that linking A (old account)=B (real Life name, disclosed on A)=C (New account, disclosed by B) is neither outing nor harassment... or at the very least has a VERY high bar to clear. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Looking at the history, I see that the text of WP:CLEANSTART was extensively changed in February of this year by two editors User:WereSpielChequers and User:Thatcher, who specifically discussed the Fae RfC/U at the article's talk page (Misplaced Pages talk:Clean start#RFC). The text you cite is not present in the pre-RfC version () Thatcher explained his changes as being in response to that by saying "Policy is made by watching what actually happens, then writing it down so the next poor sucker has some warning". Whatever one thinks of these changes (I think a revert or two is in order, as the new text does encourage outing) they certainly do not apply to Fae. Note that the old version specifically advises to use the {{retired}} template on the old user page, and that contacting ArbCom before an RfA is sufficient. The old version carelessly used the word "recognized" once, in the statement "Editors who make a clean start and then resume editing in the same topic areas may be recognized by other editors in that area." This was clearly not a call for outing users based on WHOIS data. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Fæ was outed without the WHOIS information. The WHOIS information simply reaffirmed what the Misplaced Pages Review already knew. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&user=Ash – Ash (Ashleyvh at the time) outed himself with his very first upload, and Fæ = Ashley Van Haeften isn't a secret that Fæ is trying hard to keep. Ash and Fæ outed themselves. Common sense says that even the old version of WP:CLEANSTART isn't an entitlement to do a poor job of keeping a secret. Where in the old version of WP:CLEANSTART does it say that users must keep their heads in the sand and act as if they were clueless whenever a CLEANSTART user is around? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to look into the outing issue further before arguing it; I assumed it was pretty important or why was it brought up at all? But aside from that, you're missing the forest for the trees. A clean start is supposed to be a clean start. At least the old version made clear that you could reveal the old account to ArbCom or whoever you wished - there was no obligation to keep it a secret at all. A clean start was supposed to be a clean start period, unless you were "evading scrutiny" with the new account, which is a link to WP:SOCK and refers only to direct evasion of sanctions. Nowhere did it say you don't get a chance to start over unless you conceal every possible trace of identifiable information. Whereas WP:OUTING seems rather unambiguously opposed to posting the personal name of an editor to cause them grief. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Ash didn't have a right to make a clean start, but Fæ broke the clean start when he run for Wikimedia UK's Board of Directors by publicly revealing his name, which happened to also be Ash's name. Users and donors also ought to have the right to investigate who's running the charity and who's taking care of the money. The old version of the clean start policy is inadequate when it comes to explaining what happens after a clean start user is recognized. Does the clean start user (who happens to be a member of WMUK's Board of Directors) have the right to distance himself from the old account even after "linkage between the two accounts become public knowledge"? Once something has "become public knowledge", there isn't any point in censoring or denying it. The changes by WereSpielChequers and Thatcher were meant to settle the inadequacies of the older policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the old policy - the policy at the time for Fae - was that a clean start is a genuine fresh chance. He didn't list his accomplishments as Ash in support of his RfA, so why should the account's alleged problems count against him? I presume the rationale of the (original) policy is that someone who has contributed to Misplaced Pages in the past, not under active sanctions, should turn out to be at least as good an editor as one who joins for the first time. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie: the text I mentioned in the following principle, and have proposed as a principle in itself, appears to allow an editor to look up and mention the real name, which is not secret, but not to use the name to pull up other stuff on the Web, or indeed, it mentions, even on Misplaced Pages, in an irrelevant context. The actions of the account from before a cleanstart are not relevant to the actions of the new account, unless there is a continuing pattern of wrongdoing that brings prohibited uses of an alternate account from WP:SOCK into play. Wnt (talk) 06:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by The Devil's Advocate

Proposed principles

Outing and CLEANSTART

According to the policy on outing, when someone voluntarily provides links to identifying information on Misplaced Pages it does not constitute outing to bring said information to light. Per WP:CLEANSTART an editor is only entitled to avoid recognition. Should they leave sufficient clues to link them with an old account it is on them and not outing, even if that prior account contains personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The following text has remained unchanged in that policy for the past year: The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Misplaced Pages articles may be. Wnt (talk) 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly I am not talking about dredging up someone's off-line opinions. I am talking about linking two Misplaced Pages accounts based on information freely provided on Misplaced Pages by the user.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the policy speaks both of offline edits and past edits to Misplaced Pages, past edits by another account should be treated the same way. Whether you call them "off line" in the sense that the cleanstarted account was not online at the time, or "past edits" in the sense that they were past Misplaced Pages edits which should not be relevant due to the cleanstart, the conclusion is the same. Wnt (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

"Off line opinions" probably refers to off-line activities such as such as off-line participation in the Tea Party or in OWS. Wnt, I don't believe that "off line" is meant to be interpreted the way that you're interpreting it. WP:OUTING (where the "off line opinions" phrase appears) doesn't mention anything about CLEANSTART accounts, so I don't believe that your interpretation is the correct one. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Admin Accountability

Administrators are expected to behave in a manner consistent with the responsibility afforded to their position. Failure to accept accountability for one's actions as an editor and attempts to evade scrutiny are inconsistent with proper administrative conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Seems there is an issue of WP:ADMINACCT in here that hasn't been mentioned yet.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Fæ's attempts to evade scrutiny

Fæ has misled editors and administrators about his prior and recent conduct to avoid tougher scrutiny in a manner inconsistent with his position as an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

His conduct in the recent incidents as well as the RfC speak for themselves and this has been what I find the most disconcerting about the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Fæ's prior accounts

Fæ must publicly disclose on his user page any prior accounts he has operated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I think that the evasiveness exhibited regarding his prior accounts has served to create some of the enmity on this issue and as he has freely linked on his user page to the Wikimedia UK and acknowledges that he is a member of the foundation, where he is chair and listed on the site by name, there is little compelling reason for him continuing to be evasive about the link to prior accounts that used his actual name.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Point of clarification: he is not the chair of the Foundation; he is the chair of Wikimedia UK, an independent but affiliated local entity. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "not evading your past" and "brandishing your past in public". I think this proposed remedy has crossed the line into the field of unnecessary pedantry. Deryck C. 00:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Civility restriction

Fæ is put on a six-month civility restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Two problems. One) Defining civility is like defining obscenity (it varies from person to person, and usually the test to call something a civility violation is "I know it when I see it".. but not everyone sees it the esame way. And secondly, aren't we all under a civility restriction, in that we are required to work with each other in a civil manner when necessary? 03:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)

Comment by parties:

Given the general failure of such restrictions in prior high profile cases, I don't see this as a good remedy. Also, given the controversy in the other threads on this page relative to how to weigh and sanction different kinds of poor conduct, I think this is a recipe for disaster. MBisanz 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Allowing that Fæ has simply been under stress from the situation and the incivility merely being him lashing out I think a restriction is most respectful of the situation and gives the most room for observable improvement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What does "civility restriction" mean? Nobody Ent 02:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Fae has already been placed under the most relevant penalty, namely, being barred from User talk:Jimbo Wales. That's a brutal forum to participate in, with constant put-downs against whole groups of WMF contributors, and it's not going to get any better. Fae was "formally invited to permanently stay off my talk page" by Jimbo Wales, whereas several opposing users were not criticized for pretty harsh statements. To quote the newest continuation of this discussion, reputedly made more civil by Fae's departure, we were getting comments over the course of a few days from some of the same users like "planet Insane ... Wnt, just shut up... your opinion really has no place in intelligent discourse... bat shit crazy stuff ... held hostage to nutzoids like you ... try to be coherent ... trolling-tinged hysterics ... rich, white, first-world exhibitionists and perverts ... the, er, "gifted" editors on Wikinews ... arguing with a Commons admin or regular user over there is a waste of time because they live in their own fantasy world and cannot be reasoned with in the first place... conspiracy to circumvent laws against showing pornography to kids..." (from the present version) I asked Tarc one of SirFozzie's questions in the midst of that, and the answer I obtained was remarkable. Now, I understand that ArbCom isn't able to control how Jimbo chooses to run his own page, but let's at least recognize that this is the sort of atmosphere that Fae had to deal with which led up to his snarky (and arguably factual) retort about the bestiality video, and would have to deal with on that particular page in the foreseeable future. I'd like to think that the rest of Misplaced Pages is at least nicer than that. So I'd say that for him to be off that page should be sufficient "civility restriction" to address the problem going forward. Wnt (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, there's nothing really remarkable about being opposed to the Commons' no-holds-barred culture regarding a) excess pornography and b) unwillingness to deal with the Beta M situation. Both areas are colossal failures of the Commons administrators (obviously not all of them are corrupt, but the ones that aren't are quite outnumbered). That is the type of thing that my comment was directed at, as the person to who (to whom?) it was directed is one of the problem users there. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my response I gave you then. And Niabot is not required to agree with the majority. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

conspiracy to circumvent laws against showing pornography to kids is a statement of fact. John lilburne (talk) 18:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like an "extraordinary claim", considerably stronger than "promoting a bestiality video", which I maintain was not an allegation of criminal activity, at least in the U.S., where the historic video involved would be protected by the Miller Test. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@Fozzie I was trying to avoid being overly specific as I am not sure exactly how to cover all the specific civility issues brought up in this case. Cla's suggestion regarding discretionary sanctions seems to get at the core of the conduct I was thinking about, though there are also concerns about being misleading regarding the conduct of other editors. Under the circumstances I figured some form of probation or additional scrutiny that would lead to tougher action in the event of further incivility would be better than just sanctioning Fæ for incivility.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Wnt

Proposed principles

RfC/U is an informal non-binding process

1) WP:RfC/U is "an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with particular editors". No editor is required to participate. The mere existence of this discussion does not terminate any of an editor's privileges, including his right to make legitimate use of an alternate account for privacy or to make a clean start with a new account. Even if an RfC/U comes to conclusions critical of the user, these are not formal sanctions and do not in any way restrict the editor unless made official by administrative action.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While RfC's are not binding, administrators are expected to answer legitimate concerns about their behavior. I personally think it stretches credulity to try to claim that ALL, or even a majority of the people who posted that they had concerns were somehow illegitimate. In fact, I would say that to try to use such a tactic to avoid answering those with legitimate concerns could be seen a stonewalling or WikiLawyering. SirFozzie (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I disagree. While no editor is required to participate, failure to participate, particularly when done by administrators, is an indicator of poor behavior and can be taken into account in reviewing their conduct. MBisanz 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Indeed they can decline to participate, but a refusal to do so can and will be seen as a bad-faith rejection of legitimate community concerns, and may be validly cited as a reason to escalate the dispute resolution process. Tarc (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a sign that the two sides aren't speaking to one another, but who is acting in bad faith remains to be determined. Wnt (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There are no "sides", and an RfC is not a 1-to-1 discussion. Bad faith lies solely with the named person not showing up. Tarc (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said. Sometimes editors prefer not to participate in RfCs they consider unwarranted, as they feel they would be legitimsing witchunters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The point raised by SirFozzie and others is that Fae as an administrator must be willing to explain his actions. This is an important principle, expressed in WP:Admin, which prohibits "Failure to communicate – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought)" Nevertheless, I don't really see the Fae RfC/U asking for much to be explained. Citation 6 above is a principle from the Betacommand case, which focuses specifically on "administrative actions". Maybe someone could read the first sentence of that principle to mean that anyone must respond to an RfC/U, but my impression is that this is not general policy - I didn't notice any such statement on the RfC/U page. I should emphasize that my opposition to the RfC/U was solidified by the failure of anyone to raise any objection at all to Fae's administrative actions . I agree that if Fae's administrative actions had been criticized in any way that he would be obligated to respond to the RfC/U. In any case, I know of no obligation for him to respond to the Ash RfC/U. Wnt (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to make a general observation that applies here, as well as at a couple of other proposed principles on this page. I'd encourage the Arbitrators to consider how to draw the boundaries between: (a) the responsibility of administrators to respond to questions, and (b) the appropriateness of administrators "dropping the stick" when users hostile to that administrator ask unreasonable questions, in which event those hostile users then game the system by claiming that the administrator was unresponsive. Please understand that I am not claiming that (b) is the case here; rather, I think that this case lies in a gray area between (a) and (b), perhaps closer to (a), but not purely (a). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's declination to participate in the voluntary RFC/U process was perfectly fine in accordance with current policy. However, when an editor continues to violate policy (disruption) following an RFC/U it's logical they be bought to non-voluntary dispute resolution and that the concerns expressed in the RFC/U be reviewed. Nobody Ent 13:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U is the responsibility of participating editors

2) It is the responsibility of those who voluntarily choose to participate in an RfC/U to achieve a consensus if one can be had. Failure to achieve a consensus result cannot be blamed on the person it concerns, even if he chooses not to participate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, administrators are required to respond to good faith concerns about their use of tools or behavior. Despite perhaps not getting consensus, there wasn't any consensus that there was NO problem, either. SirFozzie (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The problem I have with these principles is that RFC/U is intended as a step in the dispute resolution process; where multiple editors have long term (i.e. non-urgent) issues to resolve with one individual. If the RFC/U doesn't resolve those concerns (either by non-participation by the user, or by third parties not addressing the concerns, or by community consensus showing a non-existent problem) then clearly the next step is to move on to a different form of dispute resolution. I agree, in principle, that not engaging with RFC/U is legitimate (although it might reflect badly it is not an end-game move in my book - and indeed that particular RFC was a disaster worth avoiding), just as I believe that those bringing the RFC/U can rightfully move to the next step of DR if they still hold concerns. RFC/U consistently fails to reach "consensus" and are widely held to be non-enforceable by the community, it is system designed to require voluntary participation by the subject, and in their absence it is mostly just an echo chamber to express issues. --Errant 08:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It does however serve as a useful collating point for everyone's issues. Rather than have them spread out all over the place. As a reference point for future dispute resolution it can be very informative.Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors are innocent until proven guilty

3) No editor should be treated as "under a cloud" or a "problem user" in the absence of a clear consensus that he has violated policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, but failing to respond to good-faith concerns about an administrator CAN be considered under a cloud. SirFozzie (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A "problem user" I would take as someone for whom there is "clear consensus that he has violated policy", while "under a cloud" I would take as someone for whom there is a reasonable and active enquiry into their conduct which has not yet been resolved one way or another. SilkTork 11:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Worth indicating that "under a cloud" means "suspicion of misbehaviour". SilkTork 11:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The 'under a cloud' terminology was, as I recall, introduced specifically to deal with situations where an editor/admin/functionary retires from editing part way through a process which focuses on their alleged problematic behaviour. The community wished to ensure that it was clear in such cases that the editor could not dispose of the allegations merely by time elapsed since last edit, and return to take up activity without addressing them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'd term it "clear evidence" - consensus is a fickle beast, and in RFC/U's you get a full crop of partisan editors. It's easy to obtain a "consensus" (or to claim one). This principle opens the gates to people vote stacking RFC/U's to put an individual under a cloud. --Errant 08:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you determine if it is clear evidence? Note that this principle does not say the converse that if there is a clear consensus that the editor should be treated as "under a cloud", though that may often be true. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The RFC/U had a strong consensus for the "problem user" term - consisting of 45 who felt he was "under a cloud" (57% of those holding one of the two dominant opinions - other opinions seem to hold a lot of "repeat customers" making summary difficult for them), 6 more (AFAICT) in Hobit's list stated similarly that there had been a "troubled past" or the like -- making 2/3 consensus that either the user left under a cloud or at least had a troubled past or has been a problem in the past. And I specifically oppse any admin being so foolish as to ignore vote-stacking (WP:False consensus), but frankly I saw no evidence thereof, and I think one editor stated that all of those who had voted on the RfA (which had a very large majority in favour) were notified, so if any vote-stacking occurred, it was undoubtedly not to Fae's disadvantage in the RFC/U. Collect (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I've disputed your numbers before, at your original summary and above, so we'll have to let the Arbitrators decide who is right. Wnt (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I know you "disputed" the figures which are verifiable as fact, also that I answered all your concerns, and that others concurred with my derived statistics. This is not a matter of "who is right" - I think you have posted at least three comments on this case, but a matter of "is it reasonable to say a large number of those at the RfC/U, sufficient to be considered a consensus, did, in fact, concur that the user at issue had had problems sufficient to be identified as a 'problem user' or not". I also trust you did not make this post as a personal aside, as that would be entirely non-utile in this process. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you want to go over this again: I'm citing the 34 editors signing Hobit's opinion, plus the 14 (TCO, ReaperEternal, Wnt, PaoloNapolitano, Herostratus, StaniStani, MtD, Sam Blacketer, Bidgee, Victuallers, Ϫ, Exok, Nanobear, Nick-D) who made statements supportive of Fae. You cite 46 editors plus 6 more; it would help if you listed those usernames for verification. That leaves some additional miscellaneous opinions which someone should count up and assess. My feeling is that if those opinions are truly neutral, they should still weigh a bit in Fae's favor here because they aren't clearly supportive of wrongdoing. I hope you understand that when you state a number like 57%, and my position is not counted in that, I don't think it's a very good count. The only reason why I didn't sign the 34-member opinion is that I didn't agree that Ash was a "problem user" before the cleanstart. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: StaniStani since pointed out that his vote (#4) was not actually supportive; this is now withdrawn. Wnt (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? OK -- let's list all those who saw any problem with Fae: 57 of them. (commented out at the start as I do not really see why anyone would really want to list them -- I trust Wnt has notified all the ones he listed above that they are mentioned here.) Collect (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I sorted those names on the spreadsheet, and there are the 46 from Themfromspace's opinion, plus six more I will acknowledge. However, User:Waiting for connection doesn't exist, and I don't find it in a search of the RfC/U. John Vandenberg, Nobody Ent, Mark Arsten, and Milowent look supportive of Fae to me. Additionally, from among the 46, AlexiusHoratius strike his initial endorsement and opposes a new RfA, and Tryptofish's vote says the community evaluated the RfA fairly. So I recognize 5051 of your votes, while claiming 4847 for Fae so far. I should also mention that DracoEssentialis and JN466 are husband and wife; I don't know if both votes are counted the way we do things. As for notifying these users, since only their vote is noted and not their actions, I don't think it is necessary, but I don't actually mind notifying 18 pro-Fae voters of this proceeding if I'm required to. ;) Wnt (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

WFC is the one you think does not exist - he does - I may have added a space - but saying he does not exist is silly. The others whom you think supported Fae - I read their posts quite carefully, and with support like theirs, Fae would be out in a flash - so try to accept my list. I trust you have notified each and every person you mention overtly however. As for your clear implication that JN466 and Draco are somehow operating as meatpuppets or a tagteam -- try posting that charge at AN/I and not here. I would recall the message at the very head of this page, and urge you to abide by it. There will be NO speculations allowed seems to apply to your post, cher Wnt. Collect (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I was counting votes, not calling for punishments. WP:FAMILY says "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Misplaced Pages's purposes if they edit with the same objectives."; its disclosure requirement is met, so I don't think that's any kind of offense, but it does reduce the vote count by one, which is what we're talking about here. If the clerk or any Arb suggests I notify these people, I'll notify them without complaint. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

this is supportive? Nobody Ent 22:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right - looks like I fouled up on your vote somehow. Acknowledged. Wnt (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of anti-gay bias are no worse than other allegations

Repeated unfounded allegations of harassment may constitute harassment themselves. But individual good faith allegations of homophobia raised when relevant to discussion or policy enforcement do not violate policy, even if the consensus of ensuing discussion weighs against them. An editor should not be more subject to sanction when accusing another of anti-gay bias than he would be for accusing an editor of any other form of harassment, incivility, or other violation of Misplaced Pages policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

In that none of them should be done, yes. However, accusations of Homophobia tend to significantly restrict any chance of a discussion remaining good faith and collegial. Editors must strive to not make undue accusations of this nature. If we use the phrase that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would say that this definitely falls under the term extraordinary claims. SirFozzie (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

They're no better and no worse than other accusations, such as those of anti-antisemitism, islamophobia, or racism and so on. When making such allegations, editors should have clear evidence to support these assertions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Allegations relating to an individual's thoughts or beliefs are always going to be more problematic than allegations relating to breaching Misplaced Pages-specific policies. Without sound, unambiguous evidence, such allegations are very likely to be perceived as falling into the category of personal attacks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to line up which forms of allegations are worse than others, nor get into real world political/social discussions such as the implications and impact of homophobic allegations. A comment which is made with the intention of unsettling another user is an unwelcome personal attack, be it in the form of suggesting they lack the knowledge to edit Misplaced Pages or that they are making homophobic allegations; however, it would be appropriate for someone to raise reasonable concerns in appropriate forums based on evidence. If someone makes an allegation without evidence then it is a personal attack: "What is considered to be a personal attack?" - "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." We cannot judge which attacks are more unsettling - some people put a lot of their personal values and identity into the work they do on Misplaced Pages, and accusing them of being unfit to edit Misplaced Pages could be quite distressing. Let's not get into judging who is hurt more - let's just clamp down on personal attacks of any form. SilkTork 12:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Totally disagree with this. There are accusations that relate directly to a persons character. Accusing someone of violating 3RR or even ordinary incivility are in a totally different category than accusing someone of being a Homophobe, Racist, Anti-semite, or similar allegations that say that someone didn't just break some community rule, but that they are evil to the core.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If accusations of anti-gay bias are more serious than accusations of incivility, are editors punished more severely when they make anti-gay or racist statements than when they make other uncivil statements of equal fervor? Can you link to a policy which says that anti-gay remarks are an especially serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy? Can you link to a policy that warns gay Wikipedians that they must be extra careful when making allegations of this type as opposed to, say, BLP violation or copyvios? Wnt (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You're proposing a principle codifying in case law that there's no difference between saying "You made a 4th revert" and "You're a homophobe" or I suppose the reverse "You're a <insert slur of choice>". I oppose that. If Common sense isn't reflected in current policy then it's policy that needs to be adjusted. Not signing off on a precedent that there's no issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with not accepting this principle is that it appears to set a different precedent, that homosexuals (or perhaps any minority group) are not entitled to seek policy enforcement unless the accuser is placed at countervailing risk. For example, I entered a discussion of whether the WR thread contained anti-gay bias, gave my opinion, and now the diff is listed twice in the Evidence section. Are you saying that when the question is asked whether a comment or discussion is homophobic, that those who look at it and say "no, nothing to worry about" should post in perfect safety, while those who answer "looks like there's a problem" are making an "extraordinary claim" that could put them at risk of administrative punishment? That would not be not a fair discussion, and it would work against the goal of protecting gay Wikipedians from harassment. Wnt (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're proposing a principle that impacts far more than this specific situation. If you want to propose a finding of fact that the acusations there were justified and appropriate, then make the arguement. Don't try to open the door for these sort of accusations to be greenlit encyclopedia wide.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree per the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" ideal. If you're going to claim that Person A is opposing or combating or arguing with Person B because of A's orientation, then there damn well better be some supporting facts to go along with that accusation. I faced something similar in the recently closed Muhammad Arbcom case, where a certain user or two were quite cavalier about lobbing accusations of "you're anti-Islamic" with nothing to support that. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'cavalier' part is key there. As I said in the text above, repeated unfounded accusations can become a form of harassment. The policy speaks of allegations of harassment but I would think it should be true of any sort of allegation. Merely saying the word "anti-Islamic" should not expose your detractor to sanctions, but if he follows you around saying you're a bigot over and over without evidence, that is something different. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On consideration, I think another basic issue underlying this is the question of how broad the "anti-X" view is defined to be, and thus how widespread anti-minority opinions and perspectives may be. For example, consider a hypothetical person editing Misplaced Pages in 1990, who substituted in "brave" and "squaw" to an article about a Native American tribe, saying "everyone knows those are the terms you use". And someone reverts him, pointing out that he's using an objectionable term. Does he follow the historically common usage, or hear the objection? Is he being "insensitive" to the minority, or hostile to it? It's not that easy to answer. Tolerance is not something people take in with their mother's milk, which is lost only if they fall prey to bigoted propaganda. People have to work at learning how to be sensitive to a minority, and often they do not, even should not, do every thing that they could to be perfectly favorable to it. For this reason, I don't see a claim of bias as being extraordinary, but a matter of course. Consider: how many gay editors have, in their heart, perfect tolerance and understanding for Muslims? (And indeed, is even asking that question an anti-gay expression?) To make good, balanced articles, editors need to put the collection of information from every point of view before all their prejudices, conscious and unconscious, acknowledged and unacknowledged. To facilitate that goal, editors must be able to ask candidly whether their colleagues are truly unbiased, and if so ... how unbiased. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the way to promote sensitivity is not to accuse people of 'seeking to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood' without having solid evidence that this is true.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I missed the diff for that. Who did this? Wnt (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. That was Coretta Scott King speaking about Homophobia as quoted in the lede of that article. That however is what someone is saying about another when they label them a homophobe.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That is what one person, a noted activist, said when making a comparison. The article begins by saying that homophobia is "a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality", which sounds much more general. Obviously, like anything else, there are stronger and weaker versions. To take a parallel case to avoid any specific claims of favoritism, consider that two-thirds of the American public polled opposed the "Ground Zero Mosque" (Park51 controversy), a position which CNN calls "Islamophobic" Now that's another one of those "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof", about a group which I don't think is subject to much more hatred and discrimination than gays. Yet in truth the "extraordinary claim" is more likely to be true than not! (Unless the European editors are a lot less Islamophobic, which somehow I doubt). Of course, not all those people are out there with baseball bats looking for Muslims to beat up, but they merit the word anyway. Wnt (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is drifting rather farther than it needs to be. Just to restate what I feel is relevant. The accusation of homophobia is serious, well above an accusation of ordinary technical policy violations. Arbcom should not by case law deem the two to be equivalent. With regards to specifics in this case they can be examined as to weather accusations made were justified, or mitigated by context or circumstances. This should be done through findings of facts, and not by unleashing a principle that would allow people to toss out similar allegations the same way one would throw out a 3rr accusation.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What I'm hearing when you say that is that gay Wikipedians should not feel as free as other victims of harassment to seek administrative recourse, and do so at their own risk. Do you think that wouldn't be the consequence? Wnt (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Wnt, that's not what he is saying. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow Wnt, I'm not sure how you turned what I said into that.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie and PhilKnight are right on the mark. Accusing people you disagree with of disagreeing with you because of their homophobic (or racist, or antisemitic) agenda simply ratchets up the drama level and dampens down constructive discourse. This is pretty much just a common-sense extension of Godwin's Law. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 23:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Fae appears to agree that accusations of homophobia are on par with accusations of misogyny or racism and all are unnacceptable . Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of Fae's phrasing was unfortunate, but it was clear that he was seeking to steer a civil but awkward discussion between two editors about one's own homophobic feelings, or lack of them, back toward a discussion of whether the article text made a BLP sound more (or less) homophobic than she was. Discussing that point, of whether the BLP was homophobic, was clearly permissible in that case. Likewise, in an arbitration case, RfC/U, AN/I, or other conduct based matter, it is appropriate to discuss whether a comment by an editor sounds homophobic, and it can even be appropriate to discuss, with suitable evidence, whether an editor's pattern of contributions is indicative of a homophobic bias. Such allegations may indeed "ratchet up the drama level", but the same is true of any other allegation. Whether or not one agrees that the first to mention Godwin's Law, when Hitler has not been mentioned, traditionally loses a Usenet argument, for having mentioned him by implication, one thing should be clear: unlike Hitler, homophobia is still very much alive and very much a threat in this world, and we cannot deem it irrelevant to our decision-making. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think an even sterner message is desirable, such as: "Allegations of anti-gay bias, as with other ad hominem allegations, constitute personal attack and detract editors from good-faith discussions to improve Misplaced Pages." - such as Cla68's proposal #Allegations of homophobia, racism, or bigotry. Deryck C. 00:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Opposition research" can be a form of harassment

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to constantly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Misplaced Pages articles may be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=28815&st=0&p=225600&mode=linear#entry225600 – "tarantino" outed Ash. Since the thread was about COI's and not an individual editor, it doesn't appear to be "opposition research". tarantino even revealed an undisclosed COI in the process. Also, it was memory, not "opposition research", that resulted in Delicious carbuncle recognizing Fæ as Ash. Delicious carbuncle didn't forget about the name "Ashley van Haeften". In November 2011, Peter Damian mentioned a "Ashley van H" in a WR thread. Delicious carbuncle saw it, remembered the name, and connected the dots (http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35679 – "I has the misfortune to look at the list of trustees for Wikimedia UK that was posted in the WR thread about Wikimedia UK's charity status. One name is particular jumped out at me - Ashley Van Haeften.") --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not searching for their opinions that is described as a form of harassment, but dredging them up and using them. Wnt (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So Fæ shouldn't be "dredging up and using" my connections to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Garrett E. Moore? , . Commons' "offsite discussions" discussion wasn't even about ED, yet he brought it up anyway. He also attack my affiliation to a website instead of addressing the point that I had made (the point being that Commons doesn't treat newcomers well). Dcoetzee later re-argued my point: , . --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes some sense, but there is a difference between "continually" dredging up edits as opposed to bringing them up in limited circumstances when they are relevant. My understanding is that at the time the Ash RfC/U was brought up, Fae (as an account) had no issues that would make it relevant to bring up these edits. It is possible, however, that in the context of discussing relations between you and Fae, that bringing up offsite activity there would be more relevant to the specific question. But I don't have the specifics of all of these interactions at hand; my purpose in pointing out this aspect of policy as a formal "principle" is to provide a starting point for evaluating these questions. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Fae's initial action in response to the arbitration request (where he attempted to show that it was part of some sort of plot drawn up in collaboration with Gregory Kohs) could certainly be characterized as "opposition research". --SB_Johnny | ✌ 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy does not absolutely prohibit dredging data from these sources, in limited contexts where it is relevant. It is possible that Fae had a reason to bring up these particular offline edits, e.g. WP:Proxy editing or WP:CANVASS. It is true that in this edit he came close enough to what is prohibited by the policy for it to be worth thinking about, but I would say he did not break it. By contrast, a clean start should be a clean start, and what happened before it should not be relevant, unless the editor has evaded an actual block, topic ban or the like. Wnt (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_1#Proposal_for_.22Posting_of_personal_information.22_section – Only three users were involved in the discussion that led to the addition of "opposition research" to WP:Harassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Right to respond to offsite activities

Dredging up an editor's irrelevant offsite edits is generally discouraged. Editors are not prohibited from criticizing and making light of one another's activity offsite. However, when they do so, their edits may become relevant to Misplaced Pages processes pertaining to their interaction with these editors on-site, where they can be cited and used as evidence in support of allegations of on-site violations of Misplaced Pages policy such as improper canvassing, proxy editing for banned users, harassing a user, raising complaints in bad faith, or disruptive editing based on ethnic or sexual bias.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

(This is in response to the conversation above and as an alternative to Prioryman's principles Wnt (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC))

Proposals by User:Anthonyhcole

Proposed findings of fact: Anthonyhcole

At Fæ's RfA the community was misled as to his standing at the time he took a clean start

1) Comments by Fæ at his RfA implied that he had taken a clean start when his previous account was in good standing, but, in fact, he was in the middle of an RfC/U when he took the clean start. The result of the RfA may have been different if the community had not been misled on this point.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I would say there would be "There are legitimate concerns that Fae would not have passed RfAdmin had his previous account activity been fully disclosed at the time of his RfA", and I think that question isn't fully answered because Fae has not responded to the RfC. That has left the situation unresolved, which led to the battleground mentality which led to this case SirFozzie (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As I've stated in principles above, the mere existence of the RfC/U does not put a person in 'bad standing'. It is not Fae's responsibility that the RfC/U was dropped without result. Note that the RfC/U was dropped for inactivity, not merely because Ash chose to retire his account - that inactivity was the choice of the participants. Wnt (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When the subject of the RfC quits (though we found out later, simply switched to a new account) then inactivity is to be expected. A user RfC is intended to bring about change in a user's conduct, or arrive at a finding that there wasn't a problem to begin with. If a user retires from the project, that process becomes moot. If "User:Ash" had not retired, I have little doubt that that RfC would've been closed with an actual summation. Tarc (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was reasonably foreseeable that a true problem user could create more problems with a different account - after all, it seems like admins spend a great amount of their time with such situations. Wnt (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

At least 34 editors disagree with you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but last I checked, 46 > 34. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A 23:17 ratio generally results in "no consensus". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No Suarez, it doesn't. Unless it is literally 50/50 or very, very close to it, "no consensus" findings are a cop-out to be avoided. When a dozen more editors agree with Option A than for Option B, then A should be affirmed as the majority POV. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

These numbers come from the summary by Collect, who was not a neutral party. I responded to Collect's summary by listing 14 editors who had signed opinions favorable to Fae, but were not among the 34 voters in the second-most-popular opinion. I don't think that an RfC/U should work like an American primary election, where you have to back a popular candidate in order for your vote to matter. I would say that 34 + 14 > 46, though it is possible you might find other miscellaneous votes critical of Fae to tip the 'consensus' back in your favor. Wnt (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that this was fully discussed at the RFC/U - and those who did not opine on the two most agreed with position are not just the 14 you cite - thus adding miscellaneous positions !votes is not utile, and totally irrelevant here. Nor can anyone surmise that people "supporting" (whatever that means in this context) Fae would automatically oppose positions they took no position on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

People, the actual percentages in terms of opinion at the most recent RFC doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this particular proposed findings of fact. What the RfC/U numbers may provides is an indication as to whether the result of Fæ's RFA would have been different or not had the community been fully aware of the exact circumstances surrounding the clean start. Arguing over exactly which numbers is right is just argument for the sake of argument. -- KTC (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

@SirFossie, are you saying clean starters have to undo their clean start if they want adminship? It would be very difficult for some busy editors to fully disclose previous account activity without also making their previous account name obvious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that SirFozzie is likely referring to Misplaced Pages:Clean start#Requests for adminship. NW (Talk) 19:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Fæ's first edit was March 28, 2010, and his RfA was concluded March 21, 2011, so either the 2010 version of WP:SOCK, before WP:CLEANSTART was created), or the 2011 version of WP:CLEANSTART would apply. I've registered my opposition to recent changes to this section of the policy made in response to the Fae RfC/U. Wnt (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies: Anthonyhcole

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 desysopped

1) Fæ is desysopped and encouraged to resit RfA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Collect. Do you know if ArbCom has ever ordered a confirmation RFA in the past? And if so, for whom?  Roger Davies 14:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Collect. The proposal didn't pass on that occasion but thanks for the link. It's certainly food for thought.  Roger Davies 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Roger. The only instance I know of such a remedy is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Stevertigo#Remedies. Misplaced Pages:Standing reconfirmations indicates this might have been the only use of such a remedy. MBisanz 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It sounds like you're asking ArbCom to impose a serious sanction on Fae, not for any violation of policy as Fae, not even for any violation of policy as Ash, but solely because you feel he "misled" the voters at RfA. I don't follow the proceedings much, but I imagine pretty near every successful RfA has some points where someone could go back and argue that one word was misleading. Should ArbCom desysop them all and put them through a new RfA? Wnt (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You attempt to link "one word" being wrong with the intentionally deception of the Misplaced Pages community. Apples and oranges. If there is any current admin who once edited under a different name and left the the project in the manner that Ash did, they should be compelled to run again, yes. Tarc (talk)

I have been going through Fae's entire contribution history since 1 January 2012 gathering his edits where he disparaged his critics. One thing I notice is that he is extremely active in page and vandal patrolling. He appears to me to be doing a good job at it. I, however, have hardly any experience with admin-type work, because I just don't do that kind of stuff in Misplaced Pages. I recommend that some experienced admins look over his history to confirm what I am seeing. I agree that Fae's RfA was under false pretenses. If, however, he is doing a good job as an admin, it doesn't seem to me that it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to desysopp him, because I think, based on his behavior in unfairly disparaging his critics, that he would not pass a subsequent RfA. If Fae would admit that he messed up his clean start, made some mistakes with his BLP edits, has unfairly disparaged his critics, and falsely claimed homophobia and harassment, and promised never to do any of it again, then I would suggest that he be allowed to keep the tools. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't this project long turned the corner on the "good contributions outweigh bad behavior" model, though? ScienceApologist, Will Beback, Rich Farmbrough, Betacommand have all been sanctioned in one form or another within the last year, from blocks to topic bans and whatnot. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Did any of those editors/admins admit they were wrong, apologize, and promise never to do any of it again? Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for more gentle result: One week after closure of this case, a new RfA shall be initiated for Fæ. Thus removing a "formal desysop" from the result, while instituting something which has been suggestd by a large number of editors. Collect (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a fair suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally unaccepable. And you're wrong about it being more gentle. It would heap cruelty on injustice, by subjecting Fæ to an additional ordeal - with WR accounts able to canvass offsite, it would be impossible for Fæ to achieve concensus to regain the tools. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The "WR canvassing" thing is becoming almost a bad meme here. Any editor in good standing may cast a vote in an RfA (and half of the WR/'ocracy would be ineligible on that threshold alone), regardless of what other website they may be a member of. You act like it is some sort of secret base from which a monolithic army is just waiting to pounce. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

@Roger: The purpose is to reduce the drama level inherent in any ArbCom decision. ArbCom has frequently ruled that people who are desysopped must go to an RfA in the past - the only difference here is that the "formal desysop" and occurrence of an RfA are specifically linked - without the terminology of "formal desysop" being applied. The effect is the same as ArbCom has effectively ruled in the past. This sort of action is implicit in the boilerplace previously adopted by ArbCom:

Misplaced Pages administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this–administrators are not expected to be perfect–but consistently poor judgment may result in reapplication for adminship via the requests for adminship procedure or suspension or revocation of adminship Collect (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If desysopping were ordered, I see no reason for ArbCom to order Fae to undergo an RfA on some arbitrary schedule. It sounds like it would be simply another sanction meant to minimize his chances of success. If he had to undergo another RfA, he should at least have the right any ordinary user enjoys to make an application at the time of his own choosing. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And I would point out that my suggestion does not include a formal desysopping - and I suggest your feeling that an RfA would fail is precisely one of the problems here in the first place. Would you prefer that the "formal desysop" take place? I think that would be a worse place to start an RfA from than essentially a "continuation" RfA without the black mark of having the sysop tools first be actually removed. Collect (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't actually answer this because it is up to Fae and I cannot speculate what he might prefer, but I'll note that if I had suffered 1% of what Fae has gone through and were facing a second RfA vote anyway, a "black mark" on a log file would not seem like a big deal. Wnt (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What standard are you suggesting the bureaucrats use for pass/fail? 60%—Fae looses adminship; 80%—Fae retains adminship; 60-80%—bureaucrats' decision? Or something different? NW (Talk) 19:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the norms are for an RfA makes sense. Would you prefer than (say) 40% "approval" be a passing grade? 50%? IIRC, any attempts to reduce the figures have not met with success - and I doubt ArbCom would establish "special rules" here. Collect (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, as it would remove the "clouds" that many feel are still looming over his RfA. Considering the good work he does on behalf of WP in his work with WMUK, I don't see why he wouldn't pass if he can steer clear of the accusatory behaviors and disengage from the battle with the WR/WY groups for a while.

OTOH, starting one for him immediately isn't a good idea either, because arbcom cases don't necessarily clear the air immediately. Let him decide when the air seems clear enough, and when he feels ready. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In which case his history would show a desysop for the "interregnum" so to speak. Do you think he would prefer the formal desysop on his record rather than relying on the general goodwill of the main corps of Misplaced Pages editors at an RfA? I suppose he could be offered the choice, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This seems like a distinction without a difference—if Fae fails the RfA that ArbCom mandates that he run at a specific time, he will no longer be an administrator. Am I missing something with regards to your proposal? NW (Talk) 19:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

See the title of the section. It used the word "desysopped." The distinction is that in one case the desysopping would be logged and noted. In the other case, the initial and immediate desysopping would be avoided. Unless, of course, you would postulate that a person who fails an RfA has an immortal right to adminship? I daresay that would not be a majority opinion in the community. Collect (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae could at any time retire his tools voluntarily, rather than bringing it to the brink. He could have done that during or after the RfC, and he could have been forthcoming about his previous account (and it's cloud). He could also promise to try to do better (that would suffice for me, tbh). He could also just continue on as he has, and assume that those who disapprove of it are doing so out of bad faith.

If he's going to iron-hand this, defend his actions to the bitter end, and force Arbcom to decide for him, then Arbcom shouldn't have to make up a whole new system for his particular case. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose No evidence has been presented that in the year+ since Fae has had the bit there has been any misuse of admin privileges. The issues involve his contributions as an editor; therefore remedies should be in relation to his role as an editor. A desysop would clearly a be punitive reaction to past behavior, not a solution intended to minimize disruption going forward. Nobody Ent 13:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, nobody alleged any misuse of admin tools in this case either. Desysop was carried out without a finding of abuse of tools, only for broader non-adherence to editing policies (i.e. precisely "his contributions as an editor"). In that case as in this one, the desysop is a "conduct unbecoming" one, which (if my limited readings and very rudimentary understanding of how these things work are correct), is still kind of a hazy area of WP policy/custom/"law". If punitive desysopping is a slippery slope, we're already on our way down it as we see from the Cirt example; otherwise, it's a reasonable remedy legitimately on the table. Either way, the Committee should cite an explicit principle as to whether or not they will remove admin privileges punitively rather than proactively, that is where no misuse of tools has occurred and none can be expected. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 17:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Also as precedent, I would like to enter the case of Jayjg at the West Bank - Judea and Samaria Arbitration. Jayjg was stripped of all checkuser and functionary roles due to, quote, "behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust", not for any specified abuse of those tools. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would point at the Rodhullandemu motion, start of case, and shuttering of case. The majority of the case's pages are under seal, so Arbitrators should refer to the private archives. While not 100% exact, it does match the "Go re-sit for RfAdmin" request. Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:FeydHuxtable

Proposed remedies

MBisanz warned

MBisanz is warned against initiating RFCs and Arbcom cases against editors without first making significant attempts to resolve issues using low key DR venues. He is also requested to limit the number of diffs and accusations he makes to a manageable level, allowing the counter party a fair chance to fully address all concerns raised. Failure for MBsisanz to comply with this request may result in a desysop.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We give parties a certain amount of words and diffs for a reason to fully explain an issue. If we thought low level DR was required, we would not have accepted the case. I do not see anything that I would consider in this proposal. SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that the case was taken rather militates against this position.... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbcom's acceptance of a case implies that "low key DR venues" have been tried and failed to resolve the problem. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is process for the sake of process. Arbcom can and has taken cases before where prior steps in DR haven't been taken. Alexandria (chew out) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but the Arbcom acceptance and the wording of the arbitrators' opinions in doing so case clearly signify that it does not find the filing of this RFARB problematic, right? Snowolf 00:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom to discuss WP:NOTCENSORED

Arbitrators will review whether it might be advantageous to deprecate Misplaced Pages:NOTCENSORED .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Even if we wanted to, making or deprecating policy is not within our purview. When policies clash, or need clarification, but something like this... I think the community (and only the communiy) can make a change of this nature.SirFozzie (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SirFozzie, the role of ArbCom may at times be to clarify existing policy and practice, but we aren't empowered to depreciate a policy. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think not - would fall outside of scope. At most, if the proposer could demonstrate that it lay at the heart of the matter, the Committee could suggest an RfC. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree - that's bizarre. I don't even know what you want to censor, but in any case I'm against it. ;) Wnt (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ive gone into more detail on the talk page. Several editors have suggested that some of the ill will towards Fæ results from him editing topics related to porn. Better to change polcies rather than allow some to witchhunt those who comply with Policy in ways many dont like. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with participating in porn-related subjects. The users mentioning Ash's involvement in porn-related subjects claim that there are BLP concerns. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note here y'all. AC can't change policy. So a principle that says "remove/reconsider X policy" is likely a non-starter. Lord Roem (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC) SirFozzie beat me to it. -- Lord Roem (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the remit of this case was to examine Fae's behaviour on-wiki; I don't see any evidence which links the existence of NOTCENSORED to Fae's behaviour. --Errant 15:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:ReverendWayne

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 can stand for reconfirmation RfA

1) Fæ can open a binding reconfirmation RfA within the next 30 days without loss of admin privileges. If the 30-day period passes without his taking this action, or resigning adminship, he will be desysopped and may reapply for adminship at any time through the normal RfA process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To be candid, I'm not really very keen on this or the preceding very similar proposal. For starters, it's a complicated remedy without recent precedent. If it happened immediately, it's likely to be a horrid drama-fest. If it were put off for a month or two, the need cannot be that pressing.  Roger Davies 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is an alternative to the proposal by Anthonyhcole, based on the discussion there. The idea is to grant a limited time period during which the administrator would be able to stand for reconfirmation without first losing admin privileges. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Though this proposal is slightly more moderate, it still forces Fae to undergo the process at a low point in his time at Misplaced Pages. So far I haven't seen any allegations that he is misusing the administrative powers he holds. This proposal acknowledges that by acknowledging there is no need to desysop immediately, but if not, why set a 30-day deadline? Why not make it a year, and get more good work done? But I don't want to see such a requirement enacted at all, even if it were in five years, because I see no way to guarantee that his election will not be defeated by voters with a political agenda being brought in by discussions at external sites. It would be like trying to hold a jury trial in an area where a case had received extensive pretrial publicity - when your jury is made up of whoever comes down to the courthouse that day. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per myself in prior desyop proposal. Nobody Ent 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no chance whatsoever that a forcible reconfirmation RFA would be untainted by purely political considerations or external activism, particularly as this case is right now the subject of ongoing agitation on Wikipediocracy. Roger's statement that it would be a drama-fest is an understatement; it would be a hugely controversial, confrontational and divisive endeavour. If the aim of this case is to resolve controversies and end disputes, forcing a reconfirmation RFA would be utterly counter-productive. Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Nobody Ent

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 topic banned from conduct dispute resolution boards

1) Fæ is banned from contributing on WP:WQA,WP:AN,WP:ANI and WP:RFC/U. Contributions in reply to threads initiated by others in which is he a named party are exempt. Fae may contact a third party editor of his choice if he feels initiating a thread on these boards is appropriate.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Ent: I suppose this wording protects against gaming, but I'm not sure it addresses his failure to communicate about his behavior. There isn't a workable negative remedy that addresses a failure to perform a behavior ("X is required to comment. . . ." for example). MBisanz 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Prioryman: I meant to highlight Feyd's comment that he was planning to email Fae to ask him how he would like him to participate in this Arbcase. If this restriction was worded to merely prohibit Fae from starting threads, he could email sympathetic friends and ask them to start a thread, which he could then participate in. MBisanz 23:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ent: I haven't finished researching for my evidence section, real life has intervened, but I'm not sure this proposed remedy or my comments in this section implicate the administrator/editor distinction or the desysop for general misconduct/desysop misuse of tools distinction. Am I wrong? MBisanz 00:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ent: This is more relevant to your comments in other sections, but Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466#Cirt_desysopped establishes the principle that a person can be desysopped for violations of policy that do not include misuse of the administrative toolset. MBisanz 00:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Adresses 80 to 90% of the current alleged problematic behavior.Nobody Ent 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he shouldn't reply unless he is specifically mentioned, or that he just can't start threads, but can contribute to them otherwise? --SB_Johnny | ✌ 17:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

He shouldn't reply unless the discussion is about his edits (specifically mentioned). Nobody Ent 18:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, the diff you give links to a message of sympathy from User:FeydHuxtable about the recent death of Fae's niece. Is this what you meant to highlight? If it isn't, please provide us with something that shows "gaming". If it is, then I suggest you reconsider, because it would be utterly inappropriate and deeply unpleasant to cite the death of a relative as somehow constituting "gaming". Prioryman (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The diff contains multiple sentences: from context (and good faith) I'd interpret MBisanz's concern as regarding the statement Dear Fæ, was just coming to your page to email you about whether and in what way you'd me to participate in the Arb case", not the more personal condolences which follow. Nobody Ent 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Ive never emailed or had any other form of off wiki contact with Fæ, either directly or indirectly. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@MBisanz I'm not aware of concerns regarding Fae's administration actions -- are there particular examples you could point out? Nobody Ent 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Which comments by Fae is this based upon? I mostly see diffs cited by Errant and Cla68 from Jimbo Wales' talk page, his own talk page, the discussion of this case. Granted, this one cited by Cla68 is on AN/I - but could it really be ArbCom's ruling that the proper response to this polite and understandable objection, asking for people not to repost personal information about him to AN/I, should result in Fae being banned from requesting assistance from that mechanism except by intermediary, even while comments from other editors that Fae "actually pursues such agenda" or describing a position that Fae's ability to act as treasurer could be questioned because his sexual activities indicate he accepts "an increased risk to health and safety" go unopposed? I hope that ArbCom will see just how unfair any such outcome would be. Wnt (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Prioryman

Proposed principles

Posting another editor's personal information without consent is harassment

1) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standing policy from Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting of personal information and Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. The wording is taken unchanged from that policy page. The policy explicitly sets two criteria: that personal information must be disclosed voluntarily and on Misplaced Pages. If the information is posted without consent in any circumstances, harassment has occurred. If it's available off-wiki but is not public knowledge on Misplaced Pages, posting it is also harassment. Editors have the right to expect their privacy to be respected. The availability of information about editors off-wiki is not and never has been accepted as a justification for obtaining off-wiki records about editors and posting them without their consent. Note that WP:OUTING does not speak of private information but of personal information. Personal information may be publicly available (e.g. in phone directories) but it is off-limits unless the subject has disclosed it voluntarily and on Misplaced Pages. Prioryman (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that the "on Misplaced Pages" condition applies when posting information outside of Wikimedia. Off-wiki is off-wiki. Off-wiki discussions should be able to reference other off-wiki discussions and information. Talking about off-wiki information on an off-wiki forum means that that off-wiki information remains off-wiki. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is flatly incorrect. Re-read WP:OUTING and note that it specifically prohibits editors to engage in off-wiki posting of undisclosed personal information. Prioryman (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The section of the policy that WP:OUTING redirects to isn't referring to off-site discussion; hence why Oversight is mentioned and why "off-wiki harassment" is in a separate section. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Read that section again - it refers specifically to off-wiki privacy violations and holds them to be more serious ("shall be dealt with particularly seriously"). As SirFozzie has said below, "Don't think you can act one way here, do your dirty work off site and claim that your hands are clear here." Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Particularly severely" is in Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment, not Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information. Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment doesn't mention anything about only being permitted to discuss information revealed on Misplaced Pages. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=20392&mode=linear#entry20392 – An off-wiki discussion about off-wiki information (a Wikia userpage) is what caused Essjay's web of lies to collapse. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If a Wikimedian has disclosed their real name, it is a step too far to say that anyone who, away from Misplaced Pages, refers to public WHOIS data related to that Wikimedian is automatically guilty of harassment. Perhaps if there had been a discernible intent that others should use that WHOIS information in inappropriate ways – but I am convinced that no one involved in this case who has made such references to public WHOIS information away from Misplaced Pages has done so for such an improper reason, and that it's quite absurd to imply otherwise. --JN466 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If that information had been posted on Misplaced Pages, it would have been revdel'd or oversighted and Delicious carbuncle would have received a very substantial block. There's a good reason why he posted it on Misplaced Pages Review rather than on Misplaced Pages, even though - by his own admission - he was trying to influence events on WP. Editors shouldn't have any expectation that they have impunity to carry out a privacy violation off-wiki to advance their cause in an on-wiki dispute. Prioryman (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw a Wikimedian – one who is a party to these proceedings, no less – post a link to WHOIS information on another editor, on-wiki, just a few weeks ago. (The diff is on the evidence page, in the "WHOIS information is public" section.) This too included an address and telephone number. Nothing happened to that Wikimedian. Do you advocate different standards for different people? --JN466 21:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't, so I think it is imperative that the Arbcom should clarify exactly what is permissible when it comes to using WHOIS for "opposition research". Personally I don't think anyone should do it. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking past and present accounts does not constitute outing

2) Misplaced Pages:Clean start does not prohibit editors from linking other editors' past and present accounts, even where such linkages have not been made public in conjunction with a "clean start". In addition, information about which accounts have previously been used by Misplaced Pages editors does not constitute "personal information" as defined by Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting of personal information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

IMO, one of the biggest weaknesses of WP:CLEANSTART is that nothing is done to discourage other editors from trying to find out what your previous account name was. This has proved disruptive in practice, as it's encouraged amateur sleuthing and provoked unnecessary controversies. However, we are where we are. Under the present policy sleuthing isn't prohibited, and account information isn't "personal information" anyway, as this proposal recognises. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

A "clean start" implies that one is returning and not planning to do what one did that necessitated vacating the original account. If discovered, IMO that tends to implay the start wasn't so clean after all. Tarc (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a rather selective view. As the very first line of WP:CLEANSTART says, "The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment." Clearly, if you have to vacate an account because you are being harassed, it was not your actions that necessitated vacating it. The problem is that there are entire websites - Misplaced Pages Review and now Wikipediocracy - which are effectively dedicated to ferreting out confidential information about editors and have repeatedly been the venues for deliberate outing (see User:Silver seren/WR Outing for a partial list). In practice, what this means is that if an editor has to perform a clean start because of harassment from WR users, those users have a strong incentive - and no practical bars in Misplaced Pages policy - to try to uncover the editor's current account and breach their clean start, even if the editor is completely blameless. I do think there needs to be something in WP:CLEANSTART to discourage attempts by others to disrupt clean starts, but that's a debate for another day (and not one for this discussion). Prioryman (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this proposal is intended to address the question of whether linking Fae to the old Ash account constituted outing. Under the current terms of WP:CLEANSTART and WP:OUTING, it clearly did not. Prioryman (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's been a week since I stated my opposition to changes made by two users in response to the Fae RfC, or using them in order to decide this case. No one has responded to me there, and as this is the third time I've seen this current version raised here (which did not exist at that time) I'm going to go ahead and revert it. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Now see WP:CONSENSUS and follow it for your bold revert of that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, there I see "Misplaced Pages has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others." I don't think that two editors, with a third briefly commenting, meet that higher standard, especially when the change inserts +3,781 characters of policy! Where does WP:consensus say that you have to spot the change within a month? It may be that an RfC is needed here, but in the meanwhile - the +3,781 version is not established policy. Wnt (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

And 4 months is a considerable period of time in Misplaced Pages. For your revert to stand, it is clear that it is your position which needs to show it is "consensus" and I suggest you try to get it - even run an RfC if you desire, but that is how the Misplaced Pages system works. Until then, the version which stood for four months or more is policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the Arbitrators may need to rule on this, as accepting this as a consensus and accepting its application to this case would be tantamount to allowing those three editors to make much of their decision for them. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An interesting comment as "community consensus" is the only factor in establishing policy - it is absolutely not in the stated purview of ArbCom to establish policy as such. If you wish to suggest that ArbCom specify that a policy should be altered in any specific manner, do so. I suggest that the odds of such occurring are minimal. Collect (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Who does decide when a policy change has consensus behind it or not? Wnt (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The editors on the article talk page. Historically, edits lasting more than 3 months were presumed not to have been objected to - so I suggest you post now at the article talk page with an RfC to get more eyes, and see if a month of discussion backs your position or not. That is "Misplaced Pages procedure 101". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks made elsewhere

3) Personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's concerns about confirming that the two accounts are linked, as I said below, joe jobs would be horribly effective in such issues.. but where confirmed that they are the same, if they're meant to have an on-wiki effect, we're going to treat it like it is on wiki. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Again, a basic principle (from Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks) which is worth reiterating for the record, as it's a central issue in this case. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to comments Fae has made in Wikimedia Commons? I don't think any of those comments have been introduced into evidence in this case, because of the case instructions. Cla68 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not; I'm referring to personal attacks made on websites not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. (So in this context read "off-Misplaced Pages" in the quote above as "off WMF websites".) Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

So, you don't feel that personal attacks Fae or anyone else may have made at Commons falls under this proposed principle? Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because Commons is a WMF project with its own rules and its own dispute resolution processes under the aegis of the WMF. As far as I'm aware, the mandate of the English Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee doesn't encompass activities on Commons. It's certainly been the case for as long as I can remember (and I've been an editor for longer than almost all of the current arbitrators) that the Arbcom has been reluctant to get involved in matters that are the proper responsibility of equivalent bodies on other WMF projects. Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

How does Misplaced Pages ensure authors who claim offsite to be particular Misplaced Pages editors are, in fact, the same individual? Nobody Ent 23:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't "ensure" that. However, perhaps you might consider simply asking them? Most use their Misplaced Pages usernames off-wiki and many disclose their Misplaced Pages accounts in their off-wiki posts. I don't think there's any great secret about which editors are posting off-site. Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a banal truism not to believe everything (anything?) you read on the internet. Sanctioning editors for offsite behavior is easily subject to gaming. Someone could (or already has, AFAIK), create accounts named Nobody Ent on WR or WM and easily extrapolate my stylistic Misplaced Pages approach beyond the limits of civility I maintain here. Should I then be held responsible for offsite posts I didn't write? It's counterproductive to make findings/policies that you can't reasonably enforce. Nobody Ent 01:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, someone could create a fake Blogspot account in your name. However, in practice this is most relevant to what people are posting on Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy. I think it would be difficult to fake someone's posts on either site. MBisanz, for instance, is user 5693 on WR. Unless he shares his password with someone else, anything that comes from user 5693 will be from MBisanz. Further, there's nothing to stop us asking MBisanz to confirm that he posted a particular comment on a particular day. (Note that I'm just using MBisanz as a random example here and not in relation to anything he's actually posted.) Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, if you mean this proposal to be directed at Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy, then why not be more clear about it? How about, "Personal attacks made on Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation on those two sites is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy." Cla68 (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because that excludes attacks on other websites. I said it was most relevant to those two sites, not that it is exclusively relevant to them. It's a general principle, not an attempt to call out users of any particular site. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Isnt this just BADSITES via the back door? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's not what BADSITES says, but I agree it's going too far and would be improper ArbCom policy. I've submitted an alternative above. Wnt (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It can't possibly be "improper Arbcom policy" when it's taken, word for word, from existing policy - Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks. This has been an established principle since June 2006, when it was first introduced into WP:NPA. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you're right - and I'd just read that policy... That second sentence sounds more striking on its own; the third seems to lessen or limit it. Whether it does is another question. Wnt (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Attack pages

4) Maintaining off-site attack pages concerning other editors is not compatible with Misplaced Pages's requirement for editors to behave with civility and treat each other with consideration and respect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'll put it plainly. Don't think you can act one way here, do your dirty work off site and claim that your hands are clear here. We do have the problem where it's hard to link the accounts, joe jobs and the like are a possibility here, but for example, if someone maintains a page designed to harass a Misplaced Pages user on another site, and comes here and says "Yes, I maintain that page, but there's nothing you can do about it".. they're going to find out they are wrong. SirFozzie (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would hope this is self-evident, but you never know. Based on Misplaced Pages:Civility. Prioryman (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#.22Attack_article.22_.28reply_to_Prioryman.29 – What if the creator of the article contends that it isn't an attack article? Your proposal will also create a chilling effect. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/04#My_ED_page – "ED has a page about me, for some reason. And while of course it's not favorable, and ED is not the NYT, its still a valid data point and contains information that would help another editor in forming a picture of who I am." At least one Wikipedian appreciates the article that I wrote on him or her. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that ED is in the spam blacklist and links to it aren't permitted from Misplaced Pages. There's a reason for that. As for whether it's an attack page, Hobit has posted a good test on the evidence page: would it survive a CSD nomination under category G10, "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose"? Clearly it would not. Going forward, I think you need to make a choice between your role on ED and your role on Misplaced Pages, as they are not compatible. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Michael's specific role on ED is not compatible, or are you asserting that it is incompatible for any WP participant to also participate at ED? Cla68 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO it is well beyond the scope of Arbcom, and especially a simple user, to dictate to another user what other internet venues they may or may not participate in. I have an account at ED as well as editing here. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You, ArbCom, and the WMF don't have the right to say which websites I can or can't contribute to. The only reason we're having this discussion is become I'm transparent. I entered this case with a disclosure statement. You're proposing that ArbCom punishes me for being open, when so many people create articles on ED anonymously. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand if the community decides that what is hosted off-site is an attack page I think it is within our right to block or ban the maintainers of that page to avoid chilling effects etc. Which I think is the point of this finding. --Errant 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

While seconding Tarc's and Michaeldsuarez's comments I'd like to point out the parallel between this and issues regarding WP:CLEANSTART. Some people here have argued that you can "break" a clean start if you can sleuth out a connection between a new account and an old one - that an editor's right to a clean start exists only if he maintains an entirely secret identity. This principle merely extends the same flawed position to an account on a different site. If you make it legitimate to raise processes against a person based on anything he has ever done under any account on any site, you are creating substantial incentives for anyone in the future who can effectively use private-eye tactics against other editors. We should not always ignore off-site harassment, but we should act on it only when an editor involved in it comes back to Misplaced Pages and makes it an issue via some problematic interaction with his victim here. (I speak of such interactions broadly, recognizing that users on the harassing site can collaborate) Wnt (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem informing people about those photographs, especially when they portray a board member of a charity. The public has the right to know about who runs the charities collecting their money. ED isn't all about attacks. It also informs, often satirically. There's information about subcultures, histories of websites, Usenet (e.g. alt.tasteless, Meow Wars), rms and other persons important to the Internet, shock sites, and memes. Unpleasant information is still information. Just as you can't stop newspapers from publishing unpleasant facts; you shouldn't be trying to stop ED from revealing unpleasant facts, especially when Fæ's role in WMUK is both public and significant. Not forbidden to create an article on Fæ is nearly the same as being forbidden from creating an article on Jimbo Wales. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Untrue on every count. Fae is not a public figure. And we're not talking about "publishing unpleasant facts". You seem to think of ED as a great outlet for investigative journalism. The truth is that we're talking about you maintaining a virulently homophobic attack page that its contributors have categorised under "Faggotry" and "Homosexual deviants". You can't get much more attack-y than that. Prioryman (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Paramountcy of personal safety and wellbeing of editors

5) The personal safety and wellbeing of individual editors is of paramount concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This should be self-evident. There is no issue on Misplaced Pages that's so important that it's worth putting someone's personal safety or physical wellbeing at risk to pursue it. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are to take this responsibility upon ourselves, than we have to accept the only way we can carry it out. The only way we can protect those who's safety is at risk due to their wiki participation it to indef block them for their own protection. Anything else and we're kidding ourselves.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think you're misinterpreting the point of this principle. See the principle immediately below which follows on from it. The bottom line is that while we might like people to jump through all the hoops we give them, sometimes there are good reasons for them not to do so. Prioryman (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Words have meaning and principles exist on their own after the case is past. Paramount means it's our chief number 1 concern. What you're sugesting when you look at the principle below is more like this. "Concern for personal safety and wellbeing of individual editors should be considered as a mitigating factor or extenuating circumstance."--Cube lurker (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's implicit really, isn't it? (Actually, I will be making the argument you suggest in findings of fact due to be posted shortly). What I'm getting at is that there is no policy or editorial convention that should be considered more important than preserving the personal safety and wellbeing of individual editors. Prioryman (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My concerns are more general, not specific to this case. No good faith editor wants bad things to happen to other editors. Reasonable accomodations should be made. However those at risk also need to understand that reasonable accomodations can do so much and in the end if they truly are in danger, they alone need to weigh the risk vs. their continued participation.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I note that according to Fae he was indeed advised to consider withdrawing completely from Misplaced Pages. Though I have to say that in this case I doubt that would have worked, as his opponents would certainly have pursued him again if he had resurfaced a few weeks or months down the line. Fae is quite obviously a passionate advocate for Misplaced Pages and has done a huge amount in promoting it in the UK, so I can appreciate why he wouldn't want to be harassed off the project - nor should we let people achieve such a thing. Prioryman (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as it's a mistake for non-lawyer to act as if they were lawyers, it's a mistake for non-counselors to act as if they were professional counselors. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. This means that editors have to find some way to interact with each other, especially since Misplaced Pages's active, core admin/editor base currently appears to number only several hundred people. If an editor has really been advised not to interact with a significant portion of Misplaced Pages's editor base, the reason being that those editors have criticized the editor in question, then that editor needs to seriously consider taking a leave of absence from Misplaced Pages altogether. Also, alleging harassment does no allow someone to abstain from taking part in the dispute resolution process, especially an admin. Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"The reason being that those editors have criticized the editor in question" is not the basis being asserted here; the evidence demonstrates conclusively that Fae was actively being harassed through threats, privacy violations and homophobic personal abuse on and off-wiki. That goes far beyond mere criticism. I agree that criticism is not a reason for abstention, but harassment and potential real-world endangerment are. Prioryman (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Declining to participate in community discussions

6) If an editor declines to participate in community discussion in a way that may ordinarily be expected of them, either because they have a good-faith belief that they will suffer harm if they do so, or because they have received professional advice against participation, that should not be held against them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

We should never put editors in a position where they potentially have to chose between being sanctioned for non-participation in community affairs or potentially risking real-world harm through participation. This is particularly the case where they have been advised by competent authorities, such as the police, other organisations involved with personal security or the WMF, that they should avoid interactions that could put their personal safety or wellbeing at risk or could have other harmful real-world consequences for them. Prioryman (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The gist of this is just plain wrong. If the community judges someone's transgressions to be serious enough to justify holding an RfC, in essence a public hearing, then that person's standing within the community is being called into question. Personally I cannot envision participation in such bringing about real-life, off-wiki harm, but if a person really feels that to be the case, then they should simply withdraw themselves ("self" being the real-life person, not just an editor account) from the community entirely. One cannot expect to be a functional member of a community while refusing to accede to its basic norms. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree but in this particular case extraordinary circumstances of threats, personal abuse, harassment and outing were involved in the prelude to the RFC/U and while it was actually ongoing. We now also know that Fae had been advised by off-wiki authorities not to engage with his harassers, one of whom initiated the RFC/U. I think we have to recognise that in some exceptional situations, non-engagement is a permissible course of action. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As an admin or editor, you need to be responsive to constructive criticism and feedback. Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think such a thing has to or should be recognized. If one has a choice between what they perceive as real-life harm vs. continued engagement in a website, the choice to withdraw should be clear. At this point I'd also have to ask why participation in an RfC is not ok, but then participation in this Arbcom case is a-ok. Seems a little...fishy. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense. The RFC/U was back in December/January and ever since the editor, that you say has been advised not to interact with those that you say are responsible for harassment, has indeed been interacting with those very same people in multiple venues across enwp (Wales talk page, ANI, AN) and commons (AN, ANI, various sub pages, and talk pages). Either the people, that you have labelled as the harassers, aren't the harassers the editor was advised not to interact with, or the editor has singularly failed to heed the advice. John lilburne (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal information about editors available off-wiki may not be disclosed by other editors without consent

7) Personal information about editors may be available through a number of sources, such as social networking websites, telephone directories, WHOIS databases etc. However, unless that information has been voluntarily posted or linked to on Misplaced Pages by the editor concerned, it is harassment and a violation of privacy for another editor to disclose that information without consent.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

An argument has been advanced by Delicious carbuncle and others that because personal information on editors may be available off-wiki, such information is "fair game" and can be used against editors in the course of disputes. This is categorically wrong; WP:OUTING specifically prohibits the disclosure of any kind of personal information without the consent of the subject. If DC's viewpoint is accepted, nobody can have any expectation of privacy on Misplaced Pages. There would be a free-for-all, with everything from drivers' licences, birth and marriage certificates, electoral rolls, WHOIS databases and company records open to being exploited in order to undermine editors' privacy on Misplaced Pages. I urge the Committee to endorse this principle, which reflects the long-established principles set out in WP:OUTING. Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad law. According to this definition, Wikimedians would not have been allowed to mention the newspaper-reported pedophilia conviction which, among other reasons, recently led the arbitration committee to ban an editor from the English Misplaced Pages. The same goes for cases like Bell Pottinger employees' surreptitious editing: unless they had disclosed what they were doing on-wiki, your proposed rule would turn it into "harassment" for a Wikimedian to talk about it, not just here, but even in the comments section of a newspaper article in the Telegraph. An investigative reporter writing an article in the New York Times about political staffers' conflict-of-interest edits, using WHOIS information to establish that they were editing from a political campaign office, would become a "harasser". Your rule would make it a sanctionable offence for a Wikipedian to discuss any of these cases in writing: not just on Misplaced Pages, but anywhere in the world. In fact, you and everyone else would not be allowed to comment in the way we have seen on what people have said on Wikipediocracy, or any other venue online, and to whom they have said it. For example, it has been discussed here that MBisanz is planning to meet up with Gregory Kohs, based on something he had said away from Misplaced Pages. According to your rule, anyone who mentioned this here would be guilty of harassing MBisanz and violating his privacy. And they would be guilty of that, and punishable in Misplaced Pages, even if they mentioned it in any other forum anywhere on the Internet. Ultra vires. JN466 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Mbisanz's future meeting plans, whatever they may be, are not "personal information" as defined by Misplaced Pages:Harassment and certainly aren't in the same category as a person's home address and telephone number. I don't know the circumstances of the alleged meeting plans but I would guess that they were voluntarily disclosed on WR or Wikipediocracy by one of the two parties. Bell Pottinger is also not directly relevant as we already take into account personal affiliations such as employment to determine whether a COI exists. Now, I'm not claiming that I've drawn the line in the right place and I'm sure my wording could be improved, but the point of my proposal is to ensure that using personal information as a tool for "opposition research" should not be tolerated. In this particular case, the domain name data had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages, there was no suggestion of any COI, and it was not disclosed by Fae on Misplaced Pages. It was used by DC to determine the real-world identity of Fae, and in the process of doing so, DC also revealed Fae's home address and phone number at the same time that Fae was under threat of real-world harassment. That kind of personal exposure is simply not on. Wherever the line is drawn, what DC did must be on the impermissible side of it. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, and repeated here for completeness' sake, I saw a Wikimedian – one who is a party to these proceedings, no less – post a link to WHOIS information on another editor, on another Wiki, just a few weeks ago. (The diff is on the evidence page, in the "WHOIS information is public" section.) This too included a private address and telephone number. Nothing happened to that Wikimedian. Do you advocate different standards for different people? --JN466 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The comments section of #Posting_another_editor.27s_personal_information_without_consent_is_harassment already contains what I would say against this. The section of WP:Harassment that WP:OUTING redirects doesn't refer to posting information off-site. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the section on off-wiki harassment specifically deals with off-wiki privacy violations and treats them as being in a higher category of seriousness. Prioryman (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

True, but you're attempting to redefine the meaning of privacy violations by claiming that discussing public off-wiki information off-wiki is a privacy violation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite. And inasmuch as it does that, this proposal is odious and oppressive. --JN466 17:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2778&st=0&p=20392&mode=linear#entry20392 – It was information outside of Wikimedia (a Wikia userpage) that exposed Essjay. According to Prioryman's proposal, talking about that Wikia userpage on a forum would've been against policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I made this point earlier: WP:HARASS does not talk about public information, it talks about personal information. Personal information may indeed be in a public record, and almost certainly will be - for instance, a phone directory, a registry office, a company record. But the criteria that WP:HARASS sets is two-pronged: has the information been voluntarily disclosed by the subject on Misplaced Pages? If one or both prong is not met then the disclosure of the information by a third party is impermissible. Editors should have a reasonable expectation that if they contribute to Misplaced Pages, other editors will not trawl unrelated public records to find personal information that they can use against them in the course of disputes. That's why this proposed principle, however it might be worded, is so important. WP:HARASS clearly makes it off-limits to use personal information not voluntarily disclosed on Misplaced Pages. Arbcom needs to affirm that principle, otherwise editors will have a free rein to use personal information from off-wiki sources to attack each other and we might as well forget about privacy. Prioryman (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

One additional point: the terms of use for WMF projects explicitly forbid "Soliciting personally identifiable information for purposes of harassment, exploitation, violation of privacy, or any promotional or commercial purpose not explicitly approved by the Wikimedia Foundation". Prioryman (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Information wasn't solicited. Delicious carbuncle wasn't phishing. Ash wasn't tricked or manipulated into sending the "Speculation" Email. I hope that you know know what solicitation is. The "on Misplaced Pages" portion of the policy doesn't apply to discussing information off-wiki. You took one sentence from one section of the policy and moved it into a completely different section. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decorum

8) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Decorum, and noting that this applies to all sides. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Perceived harassment

9) Any user conduct or comments that another editor could reasonably perceive as harassing (as defined in Misplaced Pages:Harassment) should be avoided. On occasion, an action or comment may cause someone to feel harassed, with justification, even if the action or comment was not intended as harassing. In such situations, the user's discontinuing the objected-to behavior, promising not to repeat the behavior, or apologizing is often sufficient to resolve the concern, especially where there is an isolated comment rather than a pattern of them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Perceived harassment. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I call shenanigans on this one, as it would give anyone free reign to play the Victim Card(tm) to deflect criticism. It isn't enough to feel harassed; you gotta prove it. If ever there was a prior Arbcom finding that the current crew should vacate, this is it. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The arbcomm disagrees with you. Anyway, this doesn't say that people should be sanctioned for a comment that makes another feel harassed, it says that if your actions make someone feel harassed, you should stop, apologise, and not do so again. Which is eminently reasonable (and pretty much the basis for civil interaction between people). Guettarda (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"The arbcomm disagrees" ? Well no kidding, I kinda addressed that aspect of it above. If someone says "I feel harassed", it isn't enough to simply say it, there has to be actual proof. Criticism, even blunt criticism, is not harassment, for example, even though undoubtedly the receiver may feel harassed. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that if someone feels harassed by something we say, we need to stop. We need to find other ways to say it. We need to find ways to express opinions that are, if not kind and just, then at least not so personal that they result in someone feeling harassed. Now if, say, someone feels harassed because you keep "picking on" their editing style when, in fact, their editing style involved adding illiterate uncited prose to featured articles, then yes, you are saying something that's valid. But the question still is whether you are saying it in a way that is likely to bring about improvement in their behaviour. It's not going to make them feel welcome and it's unlikely to change their behaviour. Reasonable people can find a way forward that doesn't have to involve either tolerating substandard editing or making the editor in question feel unwelcome.

Now in this specific context, the issue here is entirely different. Here we have people like DC and Michael saying that their aim was not to harass Fae. And the point is that in many cases it's not about intent, it's about effect. There's a reasonable way to apply that ruling that protects editors without hamstringing the mission of Misplaced Pages. Guettarda (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree fundamentally, as I generally do when people try to carve out exceptions and soft landing pads for the thin-skinned. Again, this is a Get Out of Criticism Free card as far as I am concerned. That's all I have to say on the matter really, just registering a disagreement with this general principle, not just as it relates to Fae. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If we had no retention problem, if we had no civility problem, if new editors were banging down the doors to get in...then we'd still have to try to be decent people and protect editors from harassment or perceived harassment. I can think of dozens of good editors we have lost because they felt harassed. Are there examples of editors who used the claim that they were being harassed to exempt their editing from all scrutiny? I'm honestly not aware that this is a big problem.

Fundamentally, Misplaced Pages should not be "an project to write an encyclopaedia that only the thick-skinned can edit". It's a project to write an encyclopaedia, and that means that we need to value editor retention over freedom to say "fuck" in any conversation. You know, the whole "not a social experiment" thing? Guettarda (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree, particularly as to the broad sweep given the language. "Reasonable" people are often incorrect, and editors with imperfect, sometimes grossly deficient understanding of more complex Misplaced Pages policies are often ready to see harassment where none is intended. In this matter, rational observers might conclude both that Fae is not unreasonable in perceiving elements of homophobic harassment in the responses to his uploads of sexualized images, and Fae's critics are not unreasonable in perceiving harassment in the broad and sweeping allegations of homophobia and bias in comments by Fae and his partisans. Silencing both sides is not a constructive step. The limits of discussion on important Misplaced Pages issues should not be determined by those with the thinnest skins. The most imperfect language in the Racepacket findings needs to be re-examined rather than applied mechanically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a principle that was written with good intentions, but could definitely use tightening. There's a fine line between telling people they shouldn't behave like asses, and giving people liberty to avoid criticism because they "felt harassed".--Cube lurker (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Conduct outside Misplaced Pages

10) A user's conduct outside of Misplaced Pages is generally not subject to Misplaced Pages policies or sanctions. This includes actions such as sending private e-mails, or commenting on Misplaced Pages and its users in other forums. However, a user who engages in off-wiki conduct which is damaging to the project and its participants may be subject to sanction. An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's employment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Conduct outside Misplaced Pages. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

11) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Misplaced Pages do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As stated in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Sanctions and circumstances. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Fae's previous account was not a major issue in his RFA

1) Fae disclosed the existence of his previous account (but not its name) at the start of his RFA. The great majority of editors, including a majority of those opposing his RFA, did not mention the issue in the RFA discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A review of the RFA (in which I wasn't involved) posted here shows that 87.9% of those who participated, including 56% of those who opposed, did not comment on the previous account issue. This demonstrates that the issue was simply not treated as a major concern at the time. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I did participate in the RfA as well as in the RfC/U. I would strongly urge the Arbitrators to look carefully at what the RfC/U discussed about the role of the previous account in the RfA. My personal take is that the community did, indeed, not assign much importance to the previous account when the RfA took place, but the community was also strongly influenced by an Arbitrator vouching for the past account not being something that should have been of concern in the RfA. We simply do not know what would have happened if that "stamp of approval" had not taken place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had been known at the time that the previous account had been brought through DR because of BLP issues, and that he had switched accounts while that process was ongoing, it certainly would have been an issue for those who have concerns about BLP. Regardless of whether this would have affected the opinions of those who weighed in on the RFA, it would have also attracted the attention of those that are hawkish when it comes to that issue. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 14:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that disclosure has significantly changed minds among supporters

2) All of those who participated in Fae's RFA were notified of his RFC/U, in which the link between Fae's current and previous accounts was publicised. Most of those who had participated in both the RFC/U and in the RFA as supporters of Fae's nomination indicated that they did not feel that they had been misled.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A review of the RFC/U (in which I wasn't involved) posted here shows that by a margin of more than 2:1, supporters of Fae supported the view that they had not been misled in the RFA. Only a very small minority of former supporters (8 out of 128) took the opposite view. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

True but limited to the precise wording. With only a fraction commenting at the RFC/U as well as the fact that we can't turn back the clock and find out how a full disclosure RFA would have progressed, it's also true that there's no evidence that the RFA would have passed had more info been provided.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There can't be evidence of that either way since it's based on a speculative proposition. The problem with saying that Fae "misled the community" over his RFA is that 99.9% of the community didn't participate in it. What we can say with certainty, though, is that of those editors who did participate in it and supported Fae - the actual people who were prospectively "misled" - considerably more have said that they weren't misled than have said they were. That's a significant finding. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to identify in what way people are claiming Fae misled the community. The overlap in editing of the two accounts was made clear at the RfA. Was there something else? Hobit (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole on the evidence page and here at the workshop has identified his claim as to how he feels Fae misled the community. (I don't believe I've taken a position on it one way or the other, just pointing you in the right direction.)--Cube lurker (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer. I'd read it, but had misunderstood what issue was being raised. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I will note that at least one opposer (me) would have likely supported if he'd known of the details of the previous account. Can't honestly say if I'd have supported or abstained otherwise, but I'd certainly not have opposed. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hobit, I don't understand what you have written above. It seems you are saying that you did oppose ("opposer (me)"), but would likely have voted to support if you had known about the open RfC at the time. Then you say you certainly would not have opposed. I thought you did oppose. Sorry, but I am hopelessly confused. Bielle (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, I wasn't referring to the RfC/U. If I'd have known what the previous account was I'd likely have supported (and certainly not opposed) given the improvement in the Fae account. I just wasn't comfortable taking someone else's word for how I'd feel if I did know the details of the account. There was also a CSD issue that worried me with the Fae account, but it wouldn't have been enough for me to oppose on. Does that clear my comment up? Hobit (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, if it had been known at the time that the previous account had been brought through DR because of BLP issues, and that he had switched accounts while that process was ongoing, the RFA would have attracted more contributors, including some of those who participated in either of the RFCs, but not the RFA. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If it had been stated up-front that this person was once Teahot, I would have done an "Oh, that guy? and strongly opposed. I rarely vote in any RfAs, but this is one vote I'd certainly like to have back. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention

3) Fae has been the subject of 11 threads posted to Misplaced Pages Review (WR) and Wikipediocracy (WI) between November 2011 – May 2012, 8 initiated by User:Delicious carbuncle and 3 by the indefinitely blocked User:Vigilant. The tenor of these threads has been predominately hostile.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As set out in evidence. It's worth noting that User:Vigilant is under an indefinite block for harassing another editor. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not exactly what the block log says. It says, "Sole purpose to harass banned user, Jeff Merkey". Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At least some of that attention was brought about because of the rather hostile "on-wiki" attention Fae has directed at the members of the forums in question. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 14:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting, I believe, that much of the discussion on these pages has come from the same small number of Misplaced Pages Review / Wikipediocracy users who were or are still involved in the anti-Fae threads posted there: you, Mbisanz, Michaeldsuarez, Delicious carbuncle, Tarc, Cla68, John lilburne, Bali ultimate and Jayen466. It's unsurprising that you should all be rushing to the defence of your fellow WR users but it does rather emphasize the way that this dispute has been aggressively driven by an off-wiki faction. Arbcom has previously addressed the harm that can be caused by the collective behaviour of blocs of editors. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I should point out that the above (though I think we can agree that it's true) is the sort of statement that normally ought to be supported by citations to facilitate closer examination, but my question and Michaeldsuarez's related question about that weren't formally answered. Should citations be given, or not given? Wnt (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have given citations to Arbcom by email - as it involves linking to threads that are essentially attack pages and contain personally identifying details concerning Fae, it's not appropriate to post those links on-wiki (else I'd be guilty of the same violations I've cited against others). Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This dispute has been "driven" by Fae's admitted on ANI and on AN behavior et. al. following the RFC/U. There is no policy against discussing WP off wiki. If Prioryman has specific information the above named editors are violating policy I encourage him to present evidence in the appropriate way (Not sure what that is? Email arbcom?) I've observed that in Prioryman's (currently) 17 findings of fact the theme Delicious Carbuncle has done bad things is repeated with slight variations. However, it takes two to both tango and certify an RFC/U. The other certifier was myself and I don't participate in factions on or off-wiki. This is supposed to be about Fae's behavior, not an end around a well-deserved interaction ban. I'll note further that during the declination of the previous request multiple arbitrators expressed concern about Fae's behavior.Nobody Ent 13:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate harassed and personally attacked Fae

5) User:Bali ultimate posted a message on Fae's user talk page that was characterised by User:Fred Bauder, a former arbitrator, as "a nasty personal attack", and by User:AGK, a current arbitrator, as "harassment". The message was subsequently revision deleted and oversighted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As set out in evidence. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this at all and chriso/prioryman should be ashamed about the games he's playing (though he's being allowed to carry on with the smearing and unsubstantiated claims).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The edits in question have been hidden but can be viewed by the arbitrators. Do you deny that you wrote the following, which was also revdel'd by AGK? "There is no harassment. I'm going to write a piece about governance at Wikimedia. He has received my email (identical to this except the inclusion of my email address and phone number) and he will either respond, or he won't. is a board member of Wikimedia UK (i.e. not a garden variety editor or admin) and has disclosed his identity voluntarily, so there can be no "outing" (though as a reporter, which is how i'm approaching this now, I'm only interested in the truth). He is also welcome to delete or retain whatever he likes on his talk page. I will continue to publicly disclose all communications going forward in the interest of transparency. None of this is "harassment" (which, btw, is a claim that i'm doing something borderline illegal. You've hurt my feelings). If you'd like me to continue talking about this with you on wikipedia, simply respond, and we'll carry on a conversation about it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)" Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely wrote that (and indeed, still intend to write a piece; I find all this fascinating). I had forgotten it was "oversighted" (if indeed it was). If it was, that's completely absurd. That Mr. Van Haeften="Fae" was voluntarily disclosed by Mr. Van Haeften in April 2011 . How you get from all this to unsubtantiated accusations of criminal behavior on my part ("harassment") can only be explained as a form of logic-free smear tactic. Shame on you.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In referring to harassment, I'm not referring to the criminal offence but to the way the term is used on Misplaced Pages; see the first paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Harassment. Conduct sanctioned under that policy usually doesn't rise to the level of criminal activity and I'm not suggesting that anything you did was criminal. But if a sitting arbitrator describes your conduct as "harassment", in terms of Misplaced Pages's definition, then that's good enough for me. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The evidence does not, in fact, appear to support this allegation. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, newspeak. This sounds like someone living in a private world, who uses words with a well defined meaning, like "harassment" and "personal attack", but claims that they don't mean what they used to mean any more. --JN466 19:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle harassed and outed Fae

6) Delicious carbuncle posted a record containing Fae's real name, home address and telephone number in a thread on Misplaced Pages Review. Although Fae had previously disclosed his real name, he had not publicly disclosed his address and phone number on WMF projects. The seriousness of the privacy violation was exacerbated by the misuse of private off-wiki correspondence and the fact that, as DC had acknowledged only 18 minutes prior to the violation, Fae had received an off-wiki threat earlier the same day. This was a categorical breach of WP:OUTING, as it involved the posting of personal information not voluntarily disclosed by Fae on or in connection with Misplaced Pages, and constitutes harassment. In addition, DC reposted to Misplaced Pages Review a message originally posted by Bali ultimate on Misplaced Pages, shortly after it had been revdel'd and oversighted on the grounds of being a personal attack and harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per Fae's evidence and mine. In closing a thread that I started on AN/I on this topic in January 2012, User:28bytes referred to "clear WP:OUTING violations by User:Delicious carbuncle". While DC did not violate Fae's privacy by posting his real name, which Fae had previously disclosed, there's no doubt at all that he did commit a serious privacy violation by posting the address and number, at the worst possible moment for Fae. WP:OUTING states: "Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Misplaced Pages.". No exceptions are given that would permit posting personal information which editors may have disclosed off-wiki for purposes unrelated to Misplaced Pages. DC's action was functionally equivalent to, for instance, obtaining Fae's birth certificate or record of parking fines and posting that online.

I refer the Committee to the comment made by another admin, User:Madman, which I feel sums up the situation well:

"This sort of harassment is something, I hope, that Misplaced Pages will not tolerate. I've seen absolutely nothing above which justifies what was done, and the precedent in policy for this community ban is clear. It doesn't matter that Fæ chose at one point to allow his registrar to publish the address and telephone number it required of him to register a domain (it especially doesn't matter since you have to buy a proxy service in order to avoid doing so). Fæ did not choose to publish that address and telephone number on Misplaced Pages or on Misplaced Pages Review. For someone else to do so is inexcusable especially considering Fæ's stated he's been subject to off-line harassment. That doesn't automatically make Delicious Carbuncle an accomplice of that harassment, but it makes his judgment execrable." Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought it had been agreed that Fae was not outed, because his real name was clearly linked to his Misplaced Pages accounts? Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Red herring. Fae's real name was not the subject of outing because he had disclosed it voluntarily in connection with his Misplaced Pages accounts. Fae's phone number and home address were the subject of outing because he had not disclosed either on Misplaced Pages. Just because Fae chose to disclose his real name, that does not mean that all his other undisclosed personal information is "fair game" for anyone with an axe to grind. Prioryman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So, where were his phone number and residence revealed on wiki? If that information was openly and publicly available off-wiki, then why is it outing if someone else repeated it off-wiki? Cla68 (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

They were not revealed on-wiki by Fae, which is the whole point. It would not have been a privacy violation if he had voluntarily disclosed them on-wiki. He disclosed those details to a domain name registrar for a purpose completely unconnected with Misplaced Pages. That does not mean that he gave any Wikipedian permission to publicise those details. Prioryman (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WHOIS information is public information. By registering the domain, Fæ made the information publicly available. As someone who had made claims of harassment and threats to his "safety" when abandoning the Ash account, one might have expected that he would take steps to prevent this, such as registering the domain through a proxy service, which he did after the WHOIS information was posted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's actions were intended to influence events on Misplaced Pages

7) In the thread in which he posted Fae's home address and telephone number, Delicious carbuncle made it clear that he had acted to influence events on Misplaced Pages: "It appears that has been doing some long overdue damage control and disappearing some things from the internet's prying eyes. This can probably go back into the publicly viewable area now. I think WR regulars are probably already convinced about the Ash/Fæ connection, but it is visitors from WP who really need to see this."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Statement of fact. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking in general terms, Wikipediocracy and Misplaced Pages Review do exist, at least in part, to influence events in Misplaced Pages. There are several reasons why Misplaced Pages editors and interested, outside observers find it useful or necessary to discuss Misplaced Pages and its participants in outside forums. Prioryman, have you ever obtained an account on Wikipediocracy and participated in a discussion in that forum? Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because strangely enough I don't have any desire to interact with banned editors. Prioryman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

True. Now lets have the context which was the Commons RFA and the concerns being raised concerning Fae's prior accounts. Ottava Rima, and Peter Damian had made mention of images being deleted out of process, which had alerted Commons admin Saibo to inquire into the background of Fae's prior accounts. Bali ultimate was blocked for making the links in the Commons RFA and the linking information, which did not consist of WHOIS data, was blocked and the information deleted, and Peter Damian was banned at WMUK. Meanwhile Fae was perceived as being less than frank about the prior accounts, giving an impression that the linkage Fae->Ash->Teahot etc were "unproven allegations". It seems to be this chain of events, the dissembling and evasion of the questions being posed, that ultimately resulted in DCs comment "This latest episode has rubbed me the wrong way and I am tired of Van Haeften's lies, so for anyone who still doubted the connection between Van Haeften and Ash, this should put any doubts you have to rest." and the WHOIS posting with the address and telephone number. John lilburne (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Statement of fact"

It would appear that the statement of Delicious carbuncle's you have quoted is from a forum accessible only to registered users of Misplaced Pages Review. Since you are not a registered user of that site you cannot have checked the source for yourself, unless it has in fact now been returned to a publicly viewable area. If it has, could you please provide a link to it. If it hasn't could you please cite the actual source from which you obtained the quotation.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Silly request. Withdrawn with apologies

David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle has engaged in battleground conduct

8) Delicious carbuncle has engaged in battleground conduct, as evidenced by his engaging in a sustained off-wiki campaign against Fae, which culminated in the posting of Fae's home address and telephone number on Misplaced Pages Review in the course of an attempt to "expose" Fae.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

DC has already been found to have been engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct, per 28bytes' comments cited by Fae in evidence: "The WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and clear WP:OUTING violations by User:Delicious carbuncle are simply appalling, as many of the participants in this discussion have noted. DC seems to have participated in an "ends justify the means" campaign to bring the alleged wrongdoing of another editor to light. Well, the ends don't justify the means here, and it is simply unconscionable to publicly post private information taken from an e-mail sent in presumed confidence, and further use that information to play detective in an attempt to "bring down" that editor." Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, over the last six months, you have requested an interaction ban with DC in at least two, if not more ANI threads, and you attempted to persuade User:Atama to block him. If you wanted an interaction ban with DC, why are you focusing so much of your effort here on DC? Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#My new evidence and findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Bali ultimate has engaged in battleground conduct

9) Bali ultimate has engaged in battleground conduct, as evidenced by his posting of an intrusive personal attack on Fae's user talk page and his hostile response to administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As set out in evidence. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle has a prior history of targeting other editors off-wiki

10) Delicious carbuncle has previously used the tactic of posting intensively about other editors off-wiki as a prelude to an RFC/U, as documented in evidence in the Cirt–Jayen466 case in August 2011.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I brought this to the Committee's attention in the Cirt–Jayen466 case - my statement there is linked above. Fae has described this kind of conduct as "canvassing". I think he is mistaken in that interpretation. I think of it as a strategy of "chumming", metaphorically throwing blood into the water to elicit a reaction from an audience known to be sceptical of or hostile to Misplaced Pages and with a relaxed attitude to personal attacks and privacy violations. When the feeding frenzy has got underway the focus of the action moves to Misplaced Pages, with further chumming taking place simultaneously off-wiki. This is more sophisticated than simple canvassing and seems to me to effectively be a form of incitement. Its key indicator is the repeated posting of hostile off-wiki threads, focusing on an individual editor, posted at short intervals over a sustained period of time, followed by some kind of on-wiki action. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The RFC/U was initiated in abnormal circumstances

11) The RFC/U was preceded by a repeated series of hostile off-wiki threads by its initiator, Delicious carbuncle, culminating in a serious privacy violation which he committed against Fae. Immediately following the posting of the RFC/U, Delicious carbuncle started a Misplaced Pages Review thread about it. Prior to and concurrent with the posting of the RFC/U, Fae was subjected to threats of real-world harassment, personal attacks and homophobic abuse on his user talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, this seems to be an attempt to declare the RfC/U invalid to remove Fae from the "He should have responded to this issue". There was enough people with good faith concerns that I can't see this as anything more then an attempt to Wikilawyer around it. SirFozzie (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with the title, but not with the facts stated. The RFC/U had an abnormal certification after being restarted, which is why I got involved in the first place, to ensure it would not remain in existence without proper certification. MBisanz 10:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It needs to be emphasized how abnormal the circumstances of this RFC/U's initiation were. The initiators of RFC/Us do not normally carry out intensive off-wiki campaigns against the subjects of the RFC/U, nor do they commit serious privacy violations against the subjects, nor do they post off-wiki threads about the RFC/Us that they initiate. The only comparable sequence of events that I can think of is DC's campaign against Cirt, as highlighted above. Note that this does not render the RFC/U "illegitimate". As noted by others, its form was legitimate, and as such it was allowed to stand. This finding of fact relates to the impressions formed at the time as a result of these circumstances (for which see below). Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I've made it explicitly clear above that I'm not suggesting the RFC/U was invalid. This is not about the validity of the RFC/U. It's about the circumstances and atmosphere in which it was posted. Let me ask you a question: have you ever seen an RFC/U initiated by someone who had just committed a privacy violation and an off-wiki campaign against the target? I certainly haven't, and I've been an editor for quite a bit longer than you have. DC's actions didn't make the RFC/U invalid. They most certainly did give grounds for people to doubt his motives - participants explicitly referred to this. That is the point of this FoF. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle had unclean hands

12) When he initiated the RFC/U, Delicious carbuncle had very recently engaged in clear battleground conduct and privacy violations against Fae, and thus came to the RFC/U with unclean hands.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As I understand it, RFC/U requires prior engagement for DR purposes, but does not require clean hands to certify a matter. See Misplaced Pages:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#Qualification. MBisanz 10:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a logical conclusion from the findings that DC had repeatedly targeted Fae off-wiki and had violated the privacy of Fae's personal information. DC came to the RFC/U with a substantial and very recent record of misconduct towards Fae. As with the finding of fact immediately above, this does not render the RFC/U "illegitimate" by itself. However, it serves as a basis for the following finding of fact. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, correct, but I'm not arguing that RFC/U requires clean hands. I'm addressing this finding of fact towards the perceptions that DC's conduct raised, which are the subject of my next finding of fact. Prioryman (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae and others had grounds to believe that the RFC/U was tainted

13) Fae and others had grounds to believe that the RFC/U was tainted by the personal agenda of its initiator, who had very recently engaged in clear battleground conduct and privacy violations against Fae, and had a track record of conducting off-wiki campaigns against other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Fae, and others, may have held this belief. I do not believe it was a reasonable belief on which to base non-participation once community consensus indicated the page would continue to exist beyond 48 hours. MBisanz 10:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

29 editors agreed with Russavia's admittedly harsh view of the RFC/U. To my mind, a key question is why did so many editors - including a number of experienced admins and a former arbitrator, Sam Blacketer - agree with him? Many of them referred to their impression that the RFC/U was an extension of a campaign of harassment being conducted against Fae, with specific reference to Misplaced Pages Review, and one stated that s/he believed "DC had some kind of agenda". In my view, DC's conduct prior to and during the RFC/U was such that they had reasonable grounds to doubt his motives. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This one definitely doesn't fly, as the majority of editors who commented in the RfC did so with good faith that there was grounds for concern and that their opinions were desired and valued. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The majority certainly did comment as you say, but that does not obviate the fact that a substantial number took the opposite view. I'm not trying to establish who was right or wrong, merely to bring to light the circumstances that led people to take that particular view of the situation. Many of the editors who supported Russavia's statement specifically referred to their impression of a harassment campaign or ulterior motives. The point of this FoF is to establish that their concerns were based on real problems that had occurred in the runup to the RFC/U. Prioryman (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's worth bearing in mind that there was a rather serious battle going on at commons around the same time, in which Russavia was deeply involved. To some degree the numbers on both sides of the issue were probably bolstered by that. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae was professionally advised not to engage with his harassers

14) Fae received advice from professional security advisers (the police/Stonewall/Victim Support) not to engage with his harassers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

To call all the people who had good faith concerns about his previous accounts and behavior harassers, stretches credulity well past the point that it snaps. SirFozzie (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This may have occurred, but I don't see how it's relevant to a review of his on-wiki behavior. I remember getting at least one email in my time on Misplaced Pages from the parent of a child I had blocked for one policy violation or another saying their child needed to edit Misplaced Pages for self-esteem or because of emotional issues the child had relating to others. That may have also been true, but equally irrelevant to determining if they should be unblocked when there had been a community review of the block or other on-wiki, limited due process review. Also, while it may be true in this case, it is also inapplicable because it would be far too capable of gaming in the general case to be taken into account in on-wiki transactions. The police may have advised Fae, but what about the handful of individuals over the years who have represented themselves as police and said they were here to investigate various things? I believe they were quickly blocked, with community support, despite their professional position of expertise. MBisanz 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disclosed in Fae's evidence. This is of crucial importance. DC had recently carried out an act of overt harassment by posting Fae's home address and phone number on WR. Fae had also received anonymous threats of real-world harassment. Fae states that in response he sought professional advice from law enforcement and experts on personal security, and that he was advised not to "respond in any way to certain related users to never respond in forums off-wiki". The RFC/U was initiated by one of those users, Delicious carbuncle, who started a simultaneous discussion of it on WR. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no suggestion in my FoF that "all the people who had good faith concerns" were harassers. It's a simple statement of fact, that Fae received advice to not engage with those who were harassers. This FoF makes no attempt to identify who the harassers were. Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae had grounds to believe that participating in the RFC/U would be personally harmful

15) Fae had been the target of personal attacks on- and off-wiki, harassment, real-world threats, a serious privacy violation by Delicious carbuncle and ongoing hostile attention from Misplaced Pages Review, where editors banned for harassment and outing were contributing to Delicious carbuncle's threads. He therefore had reasonable grounds to believe that the situation would be further inflamed to his personal detriment if he participated in the RFC/U and sought to avoid this by not participating or commenting on it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

First part yes, second part, no. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I agree with the first clause, but disagree with the second. He could have also stopped editing altogether if he believed that compliance with Misplaced Pages policy would be to his personal detriment. MBisanz 10:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Also of crucial importance. Fae has stated in evidence that "any reply I made likely to only inflame the discussion, be used as evidence of self-outing or evidence that I was failing to follow the common principle of WP:DENY." Given DC's prior conduct, the involvement of banned users in his threads, the posting of homophobic abuse on his user talk page a few days after the RFC/U and concurrent WR thread were initiated by DC and the close attention on WR - 14 pages of comments on the RFC/U alone - I believe this was a reasonable belief to hold. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither you nor Fae seem to have read WP:DENY. Unless someone can substantiate that DC's contributions wrt Fae consisted of vandalism, I fail to see the relevance of that essay, which is neither a policy nor a guideline.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's non-involvement in the RFC/U was consistent with advice from security professionals

16) Fae's non-involvement in the RFC/U was consistent with the advice that he received from security professionals to not respond in any way to his harassers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Agreed with MBisanz SirFozzie (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this as a finding. I agree Arbcom should not attempt to override professionals acting in their own spheres of expertise. However, when an editor is confronted with a conflict between policy and real-life authority that results in a violation of policy by abiding the real-life authority, the right answer is to withdraw from the project, not gain special status on the project. It's the same logic underlying this phrase from WP:NLT: If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Misplaced Pages until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. We won't interfere with people exercising their legal rights in conflict with project policy, but they cannot edit while doing so. MBisanz 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Stated as a reasonable conclusion from the fact, disclosed by Fae, that he was advised not to engage with his harassers. I very strongly recommend that the Arbcom should not seek to retrospectively override the advice of security professionals. With all due respect to our arbitrators, they are neither qualified nor empowered to pass judgement on matters of personal safety. It would be extremely dangerous to individuals, and it may have personal legal implications for arbitrators (duty of care etc) if they should seek to supplant professional judgements with their own. (Newyorkbrad could probably advise on this point.) I have no idea if Fae disclosed the advice to the Arbcom - I don't think I've seen him disclose it publicly before - and if he didn't, he probably should have. But that doesn't change the fact that if Fae was advised not to participate in the RFC/U, he should not be penalised for following professional advice. Prioryman (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm only very peripherally aware of the whole thing, but this line of reasoning seems odd. Imagine that, for instance, someone's legal counsel told him to post a legal threat on Misplaced Pages. Could he get exempted from the policy of "no legal threats" on this basis?

I think it's unlikely that security professionals or police would understand Misplaced Pages well enough to give informed professional opinions on whether a user should post. Yes, they may say to "never" engage harassers, but that kind of statement always has an implicit qualifier of "unless not doing so has really bad consequences"; for instance, no security professional would tell someone to stay away from court if sued by a harasser. Misplaced Pages isn't as severe as a real life court case, but it's a similar concept: the harasser is enlisting third parties with authority over him. Also, a security professional who is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages might not be able to judge whether posting in a Misplaced Pages RFC really is engaging with the harasser, as opposed to engaging with the parties whom the harasser has drawn in. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I would assume that if a person was told to stay away from "harassers" on Misplaced Pages, this would require the person to stay away from Misplaced Pages altogether. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ken, your example of someone posting a legal threat wouldn't be comparable, because that would be an example of engaging with Misplaced Pages to achieve a particular aim. What we are talking about here is a case of someone disengaging from Misplaced Pages, or at least from the part of Misplaced Pages where his harasser was active. One is an active, assertive deed; the other is essentially conflict avoidance. A court case is also not comparable; that's a situation where an individual has an absolute obligation to attend, backed up by the full force of the law. By contrast, an RFC/U is a non-binding process in which volunteer editors get to grill other volunteer editors. As far as I know there's no obligation for anyone to participate and certainly no binding outcomes or enforcement mechanisms. Prioryman (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

An RFC/U is in the grey area between a binding and a non-binding process. It's officially nonbinding, but often on Misplaced Pages something's official nature is different from its true nature. Claiming that it's not binding is privileging form over substance; "The RFC/U is voluntary and cannot impose sanctions, but if you fail the RFC/U, it will probably be used against you in a proceeding that isn't voluntary and can impose sanctions" is in practice the same as "not voluntary", regardless of any technicalities about how the RFC itself has no power. Ken Arromdee (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point. It strikes me that it has some similarities to the warning statement that UK police forces read out to someone who's been arrested: "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court." Again, no formal compulsion, but possible negative consequences for non-participation. Prioryman (talk) 07:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz misses the point. This was not about Fae exercising legal rights - he did not sue or threaten to sue anyone. The problem with the suggestion that MBisanz is advancing is that if you say, in effect, that the proper way to deal with harassment is with withdraw from the project, then you're giving harassers carte blache to drive people off the project. I don't see how this can possibly be compatible with the WMF terms of use, which say clearly that editors may not engage in "harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism". That puts the onus on the harassers, stalkers and those indulging in threats, to stop their behaviour, rather than expecting everyone who complains of harassment to be banned, blocked, or withdraw for their own safety. Prioryman (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two parts to this, and there is, as far as I know, no evidence for either part. Are we taking on faith that such harassment occurred and that Fae received the legal advice as reported? Please do let me know if someone at WMF or on ArbCom has received reasonable evidence. It is a little difficult to comment on a finding for which there is no evidence. (That doesn't mean the claims are not true, but simply that they cannot be confirmed.) Perhaps the finding needs to say: Fae's non-involvement in the RFC/U was consistent with the advice that he tells us he received from security professionals to not respond in any way to his harassers. The second part has to do with identifying the "harassers". As the finding stands, everyone on WP has been indirectly deemed a "harasser". Even being involved in commenting on an editor's behaviour at an RFC/U cannot, just by definition, be termed "harassment". Could no one have been found to have received this information in private? I am sure someone will let me know where the evidence for this fact has been confirmed. Bielle (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My point above is that

• It's unlikely that a security professional is familiar enough with Misplaced Pages to give an informed opinion specifically about avoiding a RFC/U. (And even if he did, his opinion would depend on his non-professional judgment about Misplaced Pages as well as his professional judgment about security, so obeying him would not simply be "following professional advice".)
• It's not obvious that advice to avoid one's harasser applies here, even if it's stated in absolute terms such as "never engage in any way". A RFC/U is de facto an obligation, and is mainly about justifying one's actions to third parties, even the harasser starts it. If you don't like the courts analogy, imagine that a harasser reports you to your employer for some transgression. Presenting your side to your employer doesn't violate the advice about avoiding the harasser. Except here the harasser complained to the Misplaced Pages community instead of the employer. (And it's unlikely that a security professional would consider or understand such arguments, even just to rebut them).

Whether the harassment is actually harassment at all is a separate argument.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The posting of Fae's WHOIS data would not have been permitted on Misplaced Pages

17) A WHOIS record relating to Fae, including his name, home address and phone number, was posted on Misplaced Pages Review by Delicious carbuncle. The posting of this information would not have been permitted on Misplaced Pages and would have resulted in substantial penalties for the person who posted it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This needs refinement. Misplaced Pages:WHOIS#Tracing_IP_addresses explicitly endorses using WHOIS contact information in the context of anti-vandalism activities and there is even a template to assist in IP user talk tagging with ownership information at {{Whois}}. Moreso, linking to WHOIS records is apparently a fairly common practice in the context of articles. See , . It is even used in the sourcing of information in BLPs. See , . Something that notes an existing conflict between DC and Fae as the wrongful basis for DC's posting the WHOIS information would be a better fit. MBisanz 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let's get this out in the open. Some editors have argued on this page that Fae's WHOIS data was "fair game" on the grounds that it was in a publicly accessible database. If so, there would have been nothing wrong with posting it on Misplaced Pages. However, it was posted on Misplaced Pages Review instead. I contend that the posting was done there to evade Misplaced Pages's ban on posting personal information not disclosed by the subject on Misplaced Pages (per Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting of personal information). I believe that this was an instance of an editor using an off-wiki site to further an on-wiki dispute by engaging in conduct that would not have been permitted on Misplaced Pages. Prioryman (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And what has wikipedia got to do with it. All of that was happening around Commons, which is its own fiefdom, does not abide with any enwp norms, does not have any truck with ArbCom, and even declares that the WMF are of no import there too. All of which was adequately demonstrated with the Beta M affair. Where again concerns were brought forward concerning an editor and a catch22 situation invoked where anyone expressing concerns was required to provide proof and if said proof was presented on Commons the supplier of proof blocked. It took the WMF to resolve the issue after 10 days of drama across multiple venues. None of these projects has any adequate process for dealing with issues regarding a users identity. If any one has any such concerns who's attention do they bring it too? Some admin who is most likely to be a teen or not much older? As shown here there are 1001 different policies, and none of you, after years of participation, can agree which is which. You need a one bright button which initiates a high priority communication with staff. Not something which invokes a process replete with drama creators, and a random selection of the immature, any of which are able to increase the heat with application of the block button. John lilburne (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, I'm not trying to advance a general principle here. I'm addressing the specific issue of the posting Fae's WHOIS data. Would it have been permitted on Misplaced Pages? Would DC have been blocked if he had posted it here? Prioryman (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle didn't post it on Misplaced Pages, and fortunately, freedom of speech exists outside of Misplaced Pages. Why do you insist on discussing something that didn't happen? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In some cases (as clearly explained by the evidence of Mbisanz above), it is not true that posting WHOIS data on Misplaced Pages would necessarily lead to editor sanctions. Prioryman's belief ". . .that the posting was done there to evade Misplaced Pages's ban on posting personal information not disclosed by the subject on Misplaced Pages (per Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting of personal information)" needs some evidence to have any weight in this arbitration.. "I believe that this was an instance of an editor using an off-wiki site to further an on-wiki dispute by engaging in conduct that would not have been permitted on Misplaced Pages." is not acceptable evidence of anything except except Prioryman's personal point of view. It is speculation. Bielle (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the context at the time was Commons, not Misplaced Pages. Secondly, WHOIS data including an editor's address and telephone number were openly linked to by another party to this case on Commons, as diffed in the WHOIS data evidence section, just a few weeks ago, and in quite similar circumstances – and nothing happened to the editor who did. It is demonstrably untrue that publicising WHOIS information on the wiki concerned leads to any penalties, let alone "substantial penalties". JN466 04:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Cla68

Proposed principles

Uploader beware

1) Misplaced Pages participants are advised to give it careful and sober consideration before uploading public domain photographs of themselves onto Commons, especially if the photographs depict them in a sexually suggestive or partially disrobed state.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While activity at Commons is not within our remit, I would say that before self-disclosure (be it information or photos), realize A) that per Misplaced Pages's terms and conditions, it is VERY hard to take back and B) you are putting it out there in the public. Some people will use it for knowledge, others.. not so much SirFozzie (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I know it shouldn't be necessary to have to say this to anyone, but people always surprise you. Cla68 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You're asking ArbCom itself to violate WP:OUTING by dredging up Ash edits which did not violate any policy. The PG-rated pictures you're describing are relevant only to show that inappropriate speculation about Fae's private life and his suitability to serve in Misplaced Pages was not in any way supported by them. We should not specially warn people against uploading classes of content, as a general principle, because they might be improperly characterized in personal attacks. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Caveat mittentis. It is the editors' responsibility to understand that "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL" line below. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Caveat mittens, you mean. Certainly this is true, but the edit/upload notice is sufficient to communicate that, without an ArbCom principle. What I don't think Ash should reasonably have had to prepare for was for these contributions to be used in invalid arguments against his administrative and volunteer roles at Misplaced Pages. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, but do note that potentially embarrassing pictures don't become the subject of negative attention by magic - someone has to give them that attention in the first place. In Fae's case quite probably nobody would have given a toss about the pictures if it wasn't for people seeking to find a stick to beat him with over other unrelated issues. Prioryman (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of homophobia, racism, or bigotry

2) Alleging that other Misplaced Pages participants, whether in general or specifically, are motivated by homophobia, racism, or bigotry must be supported by clear evidence. Otherwise, such allegations are severe violations of WP:NPA and may result in a temporary or indefinite suspension of the offender's editing privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

You don't make accusations without backing them up. SirFozzie (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The policy prohibits "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." It may not be possible to objectively assess the severity of allegations, but if Misplaced Pages intends to do so it must strive to be fair and reasonable. In the wider world, saying that someone is anti-gay is fairly routine - indeed, there are certain popular political parties where quite a few members wear the mantle proudly - but wrongly accusing someone of risky sexual activities in a public place or making improper use of images of sexualized naked children would raise quite a few eyebrows. Wnt (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of harassment

3) Alleging that other Misplaced Pages participants, whether in general or specifically, are engaged in harassment must be supported by clear evidence. Otherwise, such allegations are severe vioations of WP:NPA and may result in a temporary or indefinite suspension of the offender's editing privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Were there people harassing Fae? Yes. Were there people with good faith concerns who were dismissed as harassers by Fae's supporters? Also yes. SirFozzie (talk) 22:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's corrective mechanism

4) Misplaced Pages's current model generally functions by encouraging participants to provide corrective feedback on each other's behavior through constructive criticism and use of the dispute resolution process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Acceptance of constructive criticism

5) Misplaced Pages participants are expected to acknowledge constructive and appropriately given criticism and feedback and amend their behavior accordingly.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Refusal to participate

6) Refusals to participate in the dispute resolution process are disruptive and counter to Misplaced Pages's processes for correcting editor and/or administrator behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Administrators are expected to address good faith concerns about their status and editing. That did not happen here, instead it was basically wikilawyered around and tried to be dismissed. As I said, to try to lump everyone who had concerns in with the small minority of people actively hostile to Fae is not going to work. SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to say "The RfC/U was not legitimate, didn't have consensus to its legitimacy" is not going to fly. The RESULT may have not had a firm consensus, but that's a long way from the process not having consensus. SirFozzie (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:RfC/U page doesn't tell editors that they must respond. The latest edit to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2 (October 25, 2011) added, "You are not officially required to participate in an RfC/U; however, failing to participate constructively comes at a steep cost, because it is typical for this failure to be held against you in all future dispute resolution forums." However, this is not a "typical" RfC/U; it is one whose legitimacy was vigorously disputed by many participants. Additionally, those making the complaints were not asking for a behavioral change (they were content with Fae's admin actions) but were demanding a status change, to non-admin. In the context of the Examiner article and other such inflammatory content, many did not view non-response as inappropriate, as has been stated elsewhere in this proceeding. Wnt (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Wnt hits the nail on the head here. The RfC/U was not principally about behaviour. First and foremost, it was about relitigating Fae's RFA; the initiator of the RfC/U tacked on a couple of claims about Fae's editing, but these were almost completely ignored in the subsequent discussion and they have not reappeared in this case. It seems quite apparent that the editing claims were a pretext for the main focus of the RfC/U, namely the circumstances of Fae's RFA, and if you look at the concurrent discussion on Misplaced Pages Review (involving the initiator) it's very apparent that this was the central issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

So does an admin have no obligation to discuss a legitimate concern about the circumstances of his RfA? Fæ wouldn't do it in the RFC/U, and he wouldn't do it on his talk page either. What's the justification for that behavior? ReverendWayne (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Legitimacy was vigorously disputed by many participants" is a largely irrelevant point to make; yes there were some that disputed it, but their concerns were found to be without merit. The RfC ran its normal month-long course. There is no question as to its legitimacy, otherwise it would have been deleted, which I believe is the normal course of action for an improper rfC. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, it's highly relevant, and it's false to say that "their concerns were found to be without merit". From my reading of the RFC/U, it seems that no consensus was found on its legitimacy - those who considered it illegitimate certainly hadn't changed their views by the time it was closed - and that absent a consensus of illegitimacy, it was allowed to run its course. However, as I intend to show in evidence (Arbcom willing) there were good reasons to believe that the RfC/U was not started in good faith or with clean hands. Prioryman (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Legitimacy" is black or white; it either is, or it is not. I do realize that there were complaints lodged and an attempt by Farmbrough to delist, but as neither of those were successful, the consensus seems to be that it passed the legitimacy threshold. Obviously you disagree, but in the end that was a minority point-of-view. You didn't "win" this argument then and you certainly aren't going to win it 4 months after the fact. The RfC was legit, period. Tarc (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is this "you", kemosabe? I didn't participate in the RfC/U - I've approached it as an outsider trying to work out what went on and what happened in the run-up to it. The question of whether the RfC/U was "illegitimate" is in any case a moot point, as it was allowed to run its full course. The more interesting question, I think, is why such a large number of editors - including uninvolved people and experienced admins - thought it was somehow flawed, whether illegitimate, started in bad faith or with unclean hands or whatever. There's an important backstory to this which hasn't yet come out in evidence, though I'm working to remedy that. Prioryman (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks

7) Abusive Ad hominem attacks against other editors attempting to utilize the dispute resolution process are violations of WP:NPA.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, sure, except that one person's ad hominem is another person's "corrective feedback on behavior". I don't see how you can participate in dispute resolution over a user-conduct issue without opening yourself up to the broad charge of "ad hominem attacks". Also per this discussion. MastCell  16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

When someone attacks the motivation of somebody else by insulting or belittling their character, such by alleging homophobia or harassment, then I think that is clearly abusive ad hominem. That type of ad hominem did occur during the events detailed in this case. I will add the word "abusive" to the statement. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, as I said in that discussion you linked to, even if you legitimately identify another person as having a COI, such as if they receive funding from tobacco companies and publish a report on the effects of second-hand smoke, it's still ad-hominem because you haven't (yet) addressed the substance of their conclusions. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings

Fae's RfC

1) The Fae RfC was a legitimate RfC. Although there was not a clear consensus, the majority of participating editors expressed some concern with several issues regarding Fae's editing history, including the circumstances surrounding Fae's clean start, his RfA, his BLP editing, and other concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the form of the RfC was legitimate but - as I will describe in findings of fact - there were significant and justified concerns about its motives. It's worth noting here that the vast majority of the comment on the RfC concerned the RfA/cleanstart issue. The only recent BLP issue it raised concerned, as HJ Mitchell put it, "a single (disputed) diff accompanied by a vague assertion of misconduct". That, I submit, is not enough to justify an RfC. Prioryman (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's response to the RfC

2) Fae did not participate in the RfC, and has not constructively acknowledged or responded to the concerns raised in the RfC.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggest rephrasing to "Fæ did not participate in the RfC, or acknowledge or respond to the concerns raised therein." The original proposed wording implies it was a bad idea for Fæ not to respond, which distracts readers from the finding of fact. Deryck C. 00:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae's real name

3) Fae has disclosed his real name and other personal information and publicly linked them to at least one of his Wikimedia accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, based on the evidence presented. If I have misunderstood the circumstances, please say so and I will amend this proposal accordingly. Cla68 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you have it right about the real name - Fae stood under his own name in the Wikimedia UK elections and publicly linked that to his Misplaced Pages/Commons accounts. However, Fae has stated that he has never publicly disclosed two other key pieces of personal information - his home address and phone number - in conjunction with Misplaced Pages. Those data were obtained from a record which was completely unrelated to Misplaced Pages and were disclosed off-wiki without his consent in some very troubling circumstances. I'll say more soon on that issue in my own findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Were his home address and phone number publicly available under his real name? Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On off-wiki records unconnected with Misplaced Pages, just as (I presume) your own home address and phone number are available in the phone directory. WP:OUTING is very clear about what constitutes a violation of privacy: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages" (bolding added for emphasis). Two criteria are given here: consent and place. First, the personal information must be given voluntarily by the person. Second, it must be disclosed on Misplaced Pages. Both criteria must be met for the disclosure of that information by a third party to be non-harassing. If the information is posted without consent in any circumstances, harassment has occurred. If it's available off-wiki but is not public knowledge on Misplaced Pages, posting it is also harassment. Posting Fae's real name is not harassment as he's volunteered that information on Misplaced Pages; the requirements of consent and place are met. Posting Fae's phone number and address is harassment, as he's not volunteered that information on Misplaced Pages; the requirements of consent and place are not met.

The bottom line is that a lot of information is available off-wiki on individual editors, ranging from domain name registrations to court judgements to birth and marriage certificates. But individuals who contribute to Misplaced Pages have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is the point of the WP:OUTING policy. The availability of information off-wiki is not and never has been accepted as a justification for obtaining off-wiki records about editors and posting them without their consent. If it was, we wouldn't have an outing policy in the first place and editors would be free to post any personal information they liked, as long as it was in a publicly accessible record somewhere. That would destroy any concept of personal privacy on-wiki. Prioryman (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Were the phone number and the address ever posted on Misplaced Pages, or directly linked to from Misplaced Pages as a workaround? If so, by who?

FWIW, the staff at WR redacted that part soon after it was brought to our attention as a problem, though at the time it was public data available on a simple WHOIS request. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 00:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess Fae would be best placed to answer that, but as far as I know the phone number and address were never posted on Misplaced Pages or directly linked to from Misplaced Pages by Fae or anyone else. I've never seen any indication on- or off-wiki that the information was publicly known on Misplaced Pages. I note that when the information was posted on WR, it were explicitly stated to be from a source completely unrelated to Misplaced Pages. The information was presented as something that was previously unknown, which would obviously not have been the case if it had been disclosed on Misplaced Pages at some previous point. Also, the fact that it was "public data available on a simple WHOIS request" is irrelevant - WP:OUTING addresses whether the data is personal, not whether it is public. Phone numbers and addresses are commonly available in public telephone directories, for instance, while job titles and work organisations may be listed on corporate web pages. But unless such information has been disclosed voluntarily on Misplaced Pages by the person concerned, for a third party to disclose it without consent is an act of harassment. Prioryman (talk) 01:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

One other question, is Fae considered to be a public person under UK law because of his position with WM UK? Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The US definition of a "public figure" is very loose indeed - essentially anyone in the public eye is fair game under US law. In UK and European law there is no distinction between public figures and private citizens, and they enjoy the same expectations of privacy. The definition of a public figure is limited to the most high-profile members of society: sporting figures, celebrities, politicians, heads of major companies etc. The director of a small and, admittedly, fairly low-profile charity would come nowhere near the threshold. It's doubtful if even the director of a major charity would pass the threshold, unless they had a high public profile (for instance, Shami Chakrabarti might qualify). Prioryman (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Under the WP official user terms - is the applicable law US law or is it UK law? Collect (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The pertinent language seems to be "under the laws of the United States of America and other applicable laws (which may include the laws where you live or where you view or edit content)." This implies to me that US law is primary, although editors outside the US may be subject to the local laws as well. As I recall, the interpretation in the past has been that the WMF and the English Misplaced Pages are governed by US law, not by extraterritorial application of non-US law. If a US editor were, for example, to post comments critical of the monarch of a foreign nation, forbidden by laws of that nation, no Misplaced Pages policy would be violated (unless a BLP violation occurred, but that's not a legal issue). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae subjected to trolling comments

4) At least two rude, trolling comments, possibly homophobic in nature, have been left on Fae's talk page by anonymous accounts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This should be acknowledged. I know of at least one comment. Were there more? If not, then I need to change the wording of "comments" to the singular. Cla68 (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but I would categorise it as abuse rather than trolling, which is far too kind a description of it. See my evidence at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Fae has been the target of homophobic abuse and threats. Prioryman (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So, was there one comment, or two? If only one, I need to change the wording of the is proposal. Cla68 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiple comments, so the current wording is fine. Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it by "multiple" you mean "two" which is as much as I can see referenced in your evidence section. So, I've changed the wording to reflect that number. If there have been more than two comments, please show me the diffs or where they have been oversighted. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "possibly homophobic" is far too weasel-worded. He was repeatedly called a "fag" and "fagget ". That's like saying that a post calling someone a "nigger" was "possibly racist". Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Was it more than two comments? Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

At least two that I know of; there may be more, since multiple revisions are covered by some revdels, and as far as I know oversights aren't visible in the logs. I also have no knowledge of anything that might have been sent to Fae's email. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I added "At least" to the beginning of the statement. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still think your "possibly homophobic" is absurdly weaselly. Could you clarify what other possible interpretation you see? Prioryman (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman vs Delicious Carbuncle

5) Prioryman has attempted to use the issues surrounding Fae's editing to pursue sanctions against Delicious Carbuncle (DC). On 30 January 2012, Prioryman implied a threat to get DC banned, and has attempted to pursue sanctions against DC in a variety of threads on ANI and in other forums , including this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I really tried to frame the case narrowly to avoid this sort of thing. I apparently failed. MBisanz 03:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prioryman has been relentless in his pursuit of Delicious Carbuncle while at the same time asking for Misplaced Pages's administration to enforce an interaction ban between them. From what I understand, the dispute may stem from Delicious Carbuncle's objections to the circumstances surrounding Prioryman's clean start. I invite both to comment on whether they think that was a factor in the animosity which appears to exist here. A list of many related diffs is here Cla68 (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My first interaction with Delicious carbuncle was in the context of the Cirt-Jayen case in mid-2011. I believed that DC was mounting a campaign of harassment against Cirt on Misplaced Pages Review, and I detailed this in evidence here. After someone stole the arbcom-l mailing list and posted it on WR, I publicly acknowledged my clean start. I had no previous involvement with DC, and his focus on me only began after I submitted evidence against him. I was unaware of his pursuit of Fae until I learned that DC had carried out a campaign against him that was very similar in kind to that mounted against Cirt, which the extra factor of the outing of Fae's home address and phone number. I felt that it was an appalling thing to do and raised the matter on AN/I. My intervention in this case is intended to bring out in arbitration format the issues that I raised on AN/I. The evidence that I've presented here addresses DC's conduct, but as I've stated already, my purpose is to demonstrate that there is an exonerating context to some of Fae's actions. I have not and am not going to post any proposed remedies concerning DC. As also stated, the Arbcom has given specific permission for me to post this evidence and findings of fact. Prioryman (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

(after e/c): There certainly seems to be some bad blood between Prioryman and a few people I know, but (no offense) I'm not sure how this fits into the case. I need the "blink: smiley. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The conflict between Prioryman and DC appears to predate the Fae issue. The conflict between the two I would say is one of the major sub-plots of this episode, as it has taken up a lot space in ANI threads, on the talk page of the RfC, and in several other forums. As Prioryman states above, he apparently didn't appreciate DC's involvement in the criticism of Cirt, and DC hasn't appreciated certain actions of Prioryman. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

DC pointed out in July 2011 that Prioryman seemed to be a returning vanished user. I believe he was the first to become aware of this, outside those on arbcom who were "in the know". The first public reference I am aware of was here ("I alerted a checkuser that it might be worth looking into the possibility that Prioryman was connected to a certain vanished user who was under editing restrictions relating to Scientology (among others), they replied to my email with "Please send chriso issues to funcen/arbcom. I am not privy to any deals or agreements that may exist. Sorry". I followed their advice, but I have yet to hear back from ArbCom even to acknowledge my email, let alone take any action. I guess we can assume from that that there is no connection between ChrisO and Prioryman." Sat 16th July 2011, 7:16pm). It was later confirmed on-wiki that Prioryman was ChrisO returned; Roger Davies had unblocked Prioryman in December 2010 after he was blocked as a sockpuppet by Avraham . JN466 03:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Discretionary sanctions

1) User:Fae, or any editor commenting on any issue related to Fae, who alleges homophobia, harassment, or any other ad hominem pejorative motivation about any other editor, either in general or specifically, without providing clear evidence to support the accusation, are subject to discretionary sanctions. The discretionary sanctions may be requested at the ArbCom Enforcement board. The sanctions may include escalating suspensions of the offenders' editing privileges.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The use of ad hominem tactics by certain editors in relation to this dispute has been completely ridiculous. I hope ArbCom can put a stop to it. I understand that the Enforcement board's efforts to enforce ArbCom decisions has been inconsistent, in spite of genuinely well-intentioned efforts by several participating admins. Hopefully, however, this will help reduce the amount of this kind of nonsense from happening in the future. Speaking just for myself, if I provide corrective feedback to an editor in Misplaced Pages by commenting in an RfC, I shouldn't have to worry about other editors trying to discredit my opinion with insinuations that it is motivated by homophobia, off-wiki harassment, or some other kind of base motivation. If other editors do make the mistake of making such unethical accusations, they need to be held accountable for it. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree in principle, though I have doubts about its enforcement. Are discretionary sanctions the best way of going about it? And isn't the scope a bit fuzzy? Deryck C. 00:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This certainly would help improve the atmosphere greatly if broadly applied, but actually enforcing it would require a major paradigm shift, and possibly considerable reshuffling of the regulars at AE. IOW, it's a good solution, but not necessarily a practicable one. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 00:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Does this include people who say that Fae "really has a gay agenda", or complains that editors disagree with the BLP policy, or supported a user on Commons that the speaker believes to be a pedophile? If yes, then this essentially is a severe ArbCom rewrite of WP:CIVILITY to increase penalties and impose a new mechanism of enforcement. If not, then would seem to create penalties fairly narrowly targeted at gay editors. In truth, I think that "WP:CIVILITY" has become Misplaced Pages's War on Drugs, a policy which only sets up carrots and sticks to goad editors to snipe at one another without end. If ArbCom wants to rewrite the policy, it would be better for them to announce it to be unenforceable and formally abandoned. Wnt (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, was this supposed to be a response to my comment in particular? I think you're saying that "WP:CIVIL" doesn't work particularly well (which I agree with, if that's what you meant), but honestly the rest seems to be at best a nonsequitur. Perhaps your reply belongs elsewhere? --SB_Johnny | ✌ 00:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it was a general response to Cla68 and those agreeing with him. Sorry for any confusion. Wnt (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Applying discretionary sanctions to all editors who "allege ad hominem pejorative motivation about any other editor, either in general or specifically, without providing clear evidence to support the accusation". That seems overinclusive. Why do you feel such a broad enforcement remedy is needed? -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In my six years of participating with Misplaced Pages, I don't recall any instance in which there were as many ad hominem tactics used as with this Fae issue over the last six months. It's not all one-sided, of course. The editors making the ad hominem accusations in attempts to undermine other editors they disagree with appear to have no fear of being held accountable for using lazy, negative debate tactics. Sometimes the only way to get editors to stop behaving badly is to employ heavy, negative reinforcement. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you've heard the saying, "lie down with dogs, get up with fleas". This seems tantamount to saying that you can't point out a flea infestation. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I am sure you read at the top of the page here:

No using the tactic "Well, person A said this somewhere else, and person B is also participates there, so they obviously agree with it."

You just did. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I admit my attempt at flippancy probably didn't work there. I'll make a serious case then: 1) it's far too vague and broad, to the point of being unworkable; 2) it would invite endless wrangling over whether a particular comment crossed the line, assuming anyone could agree where the line should drawn; and 3) if you collaborate off-wiki with banned users to attack another editor, it's not unreasonable for others to point out that you are keeping in bad company. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You appear to still be doing it <g>. BTW, do "banned users" have a scarlet letter on their clothes so that others may clearly identify them and stay 20 yards away from their ringing bell? (deliberately mixed metaphors). Collect (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan Tobias referred to it once, I believe, as "BADPEOPLE on BADSITES". Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:Proxy editing. (There are some potentially relevant loopholes, though) Wnt (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by Michaeldsuarez

Proposed principles

Arbitration is a last resort

Misplaced Pages:Resolving_disputes#Last_resort:_Arbitration:

If taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, request arbitration. prepared to show that tried to resolve the dispute by other means. Arbitration differs from mediation in that the Arbitration Committee will consider the case and issue a decision, instead of merely assisting the parties in reaching an agreement. If the issue is decided by arbitration, will be expected to abide by the result. If the case involves serious user misconduct, arbitration may result in a number of serious consequences up to totally banning someone from editing, as laid out in the arbitration policy. Note that arbitration is normally for disputes about user conduct, while mediation is normally for disputes about article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Noting the relevance of several important exceptions to Arbitration as the last resort. Lord Roem (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Using Special:EmailUser will disclose one's Email address in the "From" field of the Email header

Misplaced Pages:Emailing_users#Privacy:

Sending an email via the Special:EmailUser system will disclose your email address for the purposes of a reply, but no other information will be provided by the system to the recipient. (Note that emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

The dispute regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Fæ hasn't been discussed outside of Arbitration

Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Fæ and its creation is a new dispute that has not yet been discussed outside the request for Arbitration. Avenues for dispute resolution outside of Arbitration have not been exhausted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's linked to this situation, and thus when we look at the behavior of all parties, it's part of what I'm reviewing. SirFozzie (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I see what you're saying, but I feel that this is form over substance. If an issue, like the harassment of Fae, is inextricably intertwined with the subject of the case, Fae's conduct, then both should be resolved together, if efficiently possible. MBisanz 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disputes regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica's content have typically been discussed outside of Arbitration prior to Arbitration

Disputes regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica's content have typically been discussed outside of Arbitration on talk pages and noticeboards prior to a request for Arbitration. In some cases, disputes over Encyclopedia Dramatica's content have been resolved outside of Arbitration such as on noticeboards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Examples:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Improper_off-wiki_conduct_by_User:Alison_on_Encyclopedia_Dramatica
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive704#Making_ED.ch_pages_on_user_after_article_dispute

--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking over these two examples, I notice that in the first case, where the user was blocked, it could be perceived that what she did wrong was not the simple fact of her posting to Encyclopedia Dramatica, but rather, that her postings were evidence that confidential information was being leaked. In other words, looking at that discussion, it appears that even if the E.D. account were completely anonymous, the mere observation that checkuser data was turning up, anywhere and anyhow, after she'd accessed it, would be sufficient reason for administrative action. Whereas in the second case, action was not taken.

It does seem wrong that you apparently feel compelled to defend yourself in this situation, when so far, there has been no indication that you were ever on trial. It would seem fair to me that if your actions regarding Fae were to be discussed, that first you should be brought in as a party, and the consideration of whether other steps should be taken prior to bringing you in as a party would apply at that point. There are several other users mentioned in the Evidence section who would seem more deserving of being brought in to the case as parties, because their interactions occurred more on-wiki. That said, when you combine interactions with Fae in on-wiki processes and off-wiki on ED, that starts to approach the standard I suggested above for when such off-wiki processes become relevant evidence. Wnt (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I don't know what you are reading in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive173#Improper_off-wiki_conduct_by_User:Alison_on_Encyclopedia_Dramatica but perhaps you might try again. The complainant in this case was African Violin. African Violin was "outed" as a sock of Grawp and there was no evidence at all that Alison had misused either oversight or checkuser information anywhere on or off WP. In her own words: "Still, if there has been any publication of privacy or checkuser-related information over there, someone will surely provide diffs .... right? - Alison ❤ 18:08, 19 October 2008". There were no diffs provided. It was African Violin who was blocked ("Not only that, but it's African Violin's last contribution. Blocked as trolling-only account. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:43, 19 October 2008") and not Alison. The whole episode was extreme trolling. As nothing you have reported about the "facts" of the matter are upheld by the link, your conclusions are, well, suspect, to say the least. I can't even see why Michaeldsuarez would use it as an example, being instigated by a known troll for his own purposes, having little discussion about "off-wiki" behaviour, and none to Alison's discredit. Bielle (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, you're right I misinterpreted this link while being overly hasty to look for a way to make a policy distinction. (Which remains a distinction I would make, in a theoretical case) Wnt (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=dramatica+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard – I only used it as an example since it appeared in the first few pages of the search results. I wasn't glorifying the trolling attempt. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: I no longer believe that this finding has enough evidence to back it. I don't have confidence in it any longer. I'm ceasing my support of it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Using Special:EmailUser disclosed Ash's Email address to Delicious carbuncle

Ash disclosed his Email address to Delicious carbuncle when he used Special:EmailUser.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The information disclosed in the "From" field was what lead Delicious carbuncle to the WHOIS information

The information disclosed in the "From" field (Ash <ash@****.org>) is what led Delicious carbuncle to the WHOIS information for ****.org.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The information outside of the "From" field was irrelevant to Delicious carbuncle's argument

As the information in the "From" field of the Email was all Delicious carbuncle needed to prove his or her point, the rest of the Email (the Email's contents and the rest of the Email header fields) was irrelevant to the point that he or she was trying to advance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

What was my point? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the proper reply would be "Why don't you tell me?" but I'll explain anyway. Let me break it down:

1. Misplaced Pages's Ash = ash@****.org
2. ****.org = domain registered by Ashley Van Haeften
3. Therefore, ash@****.org = Ashley Van Haeften
4. Thus, Misplaced Pages's Ash = Ashley Van Haeften.

Is that inaccurate? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's own words: "or anyone who still doubted the connection between Van Haeften and Ash, this should put any doubts you have to rest." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, that argument—as currently stated—is certainly fallacious, since 3 doesn't at all follow from 1 and 2 alone, not even as a remotely probable convincing inductive inference—as Delicious carbuncle himself has already pointed out. While I think your statement might still be true, I believe it would be preferable to revise it slightly so it doesn't rely on making any assumptions about what Delicious carbuncle's point might have been. It does seem to me that whatever evidentiary value the email had for establishing that Ash and Fæ are accounts belonging to the same person, it was completely contained in the email's "From" header and the WHOIS records for the domain name. The strength of the evidence, however, relies crucially on two other facts which are missing from your four steps above—namely, that:

1. besides having the name Ashley Van Haeften, the admin and registrant of the domain had an email address teahot@.....
2. before Ash's account name was changed, he had been editing under the account named "Teahot".

David Wilson (talk · cont) 02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, "not even remotely probable" is probably an exaggeration. There are some suggestive coincidences between items 1 and 2 and other established facts, but as far as I can see "suggestive" is about all they amount to.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle breached the confidence that Ash placed in him or her

By publishing the Email, Delicious carbuncle breached the confidence that Ash placed in him or her.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's a violation of Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information to post Fae's email address on-wiki, but I don't think it rises to the level of breach of confidence. That would imply a unique duty that Ash could create in Delicious, without Delicious' consent. Merely stating that Delicious violated a policy would seem more straightforward. That would, of course, require proof that Delicious posted it on-wiki. Posting it off-wiki would not violate a policy, but could be taken into account as an aggravating factor in reviewing Delicious' behavior and, in the extreme, be part of the foundation of a site ban. MBisanz 03:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

What "confidence" was that? Why would Fæ expect that I would keep our correspondence private without any prior agreement to do so? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Emailpagetext – "Unless the matter is confidential, it is usually better to leave a message on the user's talk page." Corollary: "If the matter is confidential, it is usually better to use Email than the talk page." The Special:EmailUser interface message implied that it would've been confidential. MediaWiki:Emailpagetext should be modified to include a warning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Although advising someone not to leave confidential information on a user's page where it may be read by anyone may be helpful, it does not mean that anything sent using the email is therefore confidential. This is nothing more or less than an interface that allows users to email one another without having to explicitly know the user's email address. The dangers and caveats of general email use still apply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I guess Ash's faith in you was misplaced. Perhaps he should've known better than to send Emails to a Misplaced Pages Review user. This now appears to be an unfortunate case of naivety. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright then: #Delicious_carbuncle_was_not_obligated_to_keep_Emails_sent_to_him_confidential. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

28bytes already admonished Delicious carbuncle for leaking the Email

28bytes already admonished Delicious carbuncle for publishing the "Speculation" Email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Delicious carbuncle was already admonished, and as far as I'm aware, Delicious carbuncle hasn't published any more Emails. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

28bytes's closure of the AN/I discussion was contested

Delicious carbuncle, Scott MacDonald, and Begoon contested 28bytes's closure of the AN/I discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since the incident concerning the publication of the "Speculation" Email continues to be brought up, it needs a final resolution; thus, the remedies proposed below. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle acknowledged that publishing the telephone number and address as being a mistake

Delicious carbuncle acknowledged that publishing Fæ's telegraph number and address as displayed in a cached version of a WHOIS record was a mistake ("I should not have done that.").

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The publication of the address and telephone information in the WHOIS record was an oversight on my part. Although it was publicly available information at that time, it was not necessary to include it in my posting. I would have redacted that information had I thought of it, but I did not. It was removed very soon after my a mod on WR, with my complete agreement. The thread was later moved to a private area of WR at my request, not because of the WHOIS information, but to reduce the potential that speculation in that thread might lead to other embarrassing online accounts controlled by Fæ. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle was not obligated to keep Emails sent to him confidential

Delicious carbuncle was not obligated to never publicly disclose Emails outside of Wikimedia websites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Private_correspondence doesn't mention anything about posting messages on websites outside of Wikimedia's control. meta:Privacy_policy and meta:Terms_of_use don't forbid disclosing Emails outside of Wikimedia. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have always been told that there is no expectation of privacy when it comes to emails. Emails that an individual composes may be copyrighted, but they are not otherwise protected information. Misplaced Pages has a rule against publishing email contents on-wiki, but not off-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would be willing to "cross the aisle" here to support this principle, provided the right decisions are made on related topics. As I've explained in my own section, WP:OUTING places its defensive wall at "opposition research", rather than demanding total secrecy - so it should be possible to allow editors to divulge confidences of unsolicited Misplaced Pages e-mails on other sites without allowing private eye tactics to dominate how we evaluate our editors and admins. Even though it absolutely worries me to have editors' privacy be invaded anywhere, my tentative belief is that if we can properly "WP:DENY" the relevance of such activities here, their extent will be curtailed more than if we attempted to use policy to punish any editor involved we could identify. (Though neither is very effective) But in order for WP:OUTING to mean anything, there must be a wall somewhere, here or there. I also feel that just as Fae cannot impose a duty on Delicious carbuncle to keep a confidence, so Delicious carbuncle cannot impose a duty on Fae to discuss matters heFae finds personal or unpleasant, provided those matters do not concern hisFae's administrative actions toward other users (who are indeed entitled to explanation). Wnt (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  " so Delicious carbuncle cannot impose a duty on Fae to discuss matters he finds personal or unpleasant." – Can you please elaborate on what you mean here? What does Delicious carbuncle find "personal or unpleasant"? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarified. Wnt (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wnt, what does this, taken from your preceding comment dated 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC), mean:

I would be willing to "cross the aisle" here to support this principle, provided the right decisions are made on related topics?

With whom are you bargaining and what are "the right decisions"? Bielle (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to distract from the principle here - I think we all see that there's some considerable polarization of attitudes surrounding Fae, and I think this principle could be a spot of common ground. I'd hoped my text above had explained the right decisions... To put what I said another way, I think that editors should have the right to be evaluated based on their "performance at work", i.e. on their current Misplaced Pages account, rather than on a broad net seeking to judge all their past and outside activities, and to choose when and how to contribute and not to contribute. Wnt (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Accounts don't make bad edits; people using accounts make bad edits. A person does not get to escape culpability for actions done under other usernames by rebranding himself. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So there's no "clean start", it's just a delusion? Admittedly those changes made recently to WP:CLEANSTART, whose validity I oppose, would vitiate much of the policy. Misplaced Pages is not improved by a model where it pays to track down editors and riddle out their identities in order to lay the way for sanctions against them, where people who have done good work for us before, but ever got into a dispute with anybody, are worse off than brand new kids logging in for the first time. You are laying out a blueprint for a Misplaced Pages where good faith contributors have to remain absolutely anonymous as a matter of personal protection; but that is a Misplaced Pages far more vulnerable to vandalism, "sock puppetry", or any other disruption, because good editors need to take the same precautions as bad ones. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Admonish Delicious carbuncle for publishing the entire "Speculation" Email

Publishing the entire "Speculation" Email was not essential to the argument that Delicious carbuncle was trying to advance, and it breached the confidence that Ash placed in Delicious carbuncle. Delicious carbuncle is to be admonished for his or her transgression.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There's no set policy as to the status of publishing emails sent to one's email. It can be argued that one retains copyright to their work, so to speak, and thus, such emails should not be published without the emailers acquiescence. However, fairuse allows one to say "This is a summary of what I received from User:X" SirFozzie (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I should disclose here that when I learned of the outing incident I started a thread on AN/I (archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Delicious Carbuncle harassment and outing: block or ban proposal) in which I proposed a community ban or block. In asking for this penalty I took into account three exacerbating factors: the wilful nature of the violation (the information was obtained by breaching the confidence of Fae's private email); the wilful timing of it (it was carried out on the same day as Fae received a real-world threat, which DC knew about) and the recklessness involved (DC stated on WR: "I reject any suggestion that simply being gay in 2012 England puts or his husband at risk", which is - sadly - false and was not his place to judge anyway). All of those circumstances together made me consider it to be the most serious and potentially dangerous violation of a Wikipedian's privacy that I've ever seen. My judgement of the situation hasn't changed since the AN/I thread. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

My transgression of what? The unwise assumption that emails sent to someone will remain private? I did not publish the contents of the email on Misplaced Pages, nor would I have, since it is a violation of the rules here. The contents of the email are rather unremarkable - they can be summarized as Ash asking me not to ask further about the "threats" he referred to at that time on-wiki and a statement that he did not believe that I was involved with those threats (whatever they may have been). Michaeldsuarez is speculating about the reasons for my action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=497146408&oldid=497145916 – I'm not speculating. All you had to say was: "In 2010, Ash contacted me from ash@****.org. Here's what I learned about ****.org." You didn't need to publish the entire Email. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:SB_Johnny

Proposed principles

1) Comments by Arbitrators in appointment discussions (such as RfAs) can often be (mis-)taken as representing the committee as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Generally, if we're speaking FOR THE COMMITTEE, we'll put those words in. If you don't, and unless you see other evidence to the contrary, we are speaking as individuals. SirFozzie (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think John Vandenberg made it clear he was *not* speaking for the Committee at Fae's RFA. Many arbitrators, past and present, have been active participants at RFA, without anyone suggesting that their opinions are those of the Committee; I don't think they are "often (mis-)taken" at all. Risker (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In a general sense I suspect this is quite possible - if a judge says something while on the golf course clad in plus fours and Fred Perry shirt, one would generally guess that he is not speaking in his formal role as part of the justice system. Given that on Misplaced Pages there is only typed script, one is dependent on readers realising that if it doesn't say "for the committee", it probably isn't on behalf of the committee, and there is more scope for misinterpretation, particularly where the committee has been involved at some point. While some folks may attempt to extract leverage on this, the possibility for genuine misunderstanding on the part of others cannot be excluded. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This appears to be a recurring problem. I agree such a finding would be a positive step. MBisanz 00:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@SiFozzie and Risker: I think the line of reasoning some people follow is: Person told an Arb something; Arbs all talk to each other about everything; the Arb told the other Arbs about Person; no Arbs screamed "bloody murder" in public; it can't be too bad if none of them screamed about it. MBisanz 03:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This has come up more than once. In the case of Fae's RFA, John V. should have made it clear that his opinion was informed by private discussion with Fae, rather than a result of a discussion among the members of the committee. (I have great respect for John, but I think he handled this badly.) --SB_Johnny | ✌ 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You might have a point, but please cite the diff(s). Wnt (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a note, that may be helpful for this conversation, earlier last month the Committee confirmed this principle (described by SirFozzie above) in its decision in the R&I review. Lord Roem (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that makes things a bit harder to follow (presumably not everyone participating in an RFA will have read every AC decision). --SB_Johnny | ✌ 08:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie and Risker: Although I don't feel strongly one way or the other as to whether something like this needs to be in the decision, I'd encourage you, and the rest of the Committee, to ponder carefully what MBisanz said above. I'd word it a bit differently than he did, though. What I, and I think many other participants in the RfA, thought was that, first, John V confirmed that the entire Committee had received the message from Fae prior to the RfA, and, second, neither John V as an individual nor anyone else on the Committee saw reason to state at the RfA that the previous account might be a reason for the community to have concerns. That was the atmosphere in which the RfA took place. I'm not saying that those Arbitrators who said nothing at the RfA should somehow be held at fault for not coming forward; that's not reasonable. But I am saying that the one Arbitrator who did, had some responsibility, even speaking as an individual who had access to information not available to the rest of the editing community, to take into account what the community as a whole would expect of his statement that there were no concerns. And, in this context, it will be rather difficult for the Committee to argue now that Fae is at fault in this particular instance, when Fae apparently gave the Committee a fair opportunity to weigh in at the time. In other words, I don't think that any Arbitrators who did nothing at the time of the RfA were wrong to have been silent, but those who were silent then will look like hypocrites now if you blame Fae for not disclosing Ash specifically at the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@Sir Fozzie and Risker: just to echo MBisanz's statement above: when an AC member comments on something based upon information supplied to the committee as a matter of policy, the assumption is far more likely to be made (particularly by those less aware of how the committee works). This seems to me to be a rather narrow focus, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to point it out explicitly when making statements on an RFA regarding cleanstarts. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 08:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

2) Arbitrators and others with access to "official" information regarding a cleanstart should be open and forthcoming about the existence of any issues that call its validity into doubt.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I tend to agree here, it wasn't a formal restriction, but if it was important enough that he would have made such statements to John V, he should have disclosed it in the RfAdmin etcetera. SirFozzie (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is a reasonable view. MBisanz 03:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

John V. should have disclosed Fae's agreement (informal as it was) "not to engage in the behavior that had previously come under scrutiny in an RFC/U directed at his previous account". He didn't necessarily need to go into detail, but he should have disclosed his reasoning in this case because of the "iffyness" involved in the way the old RfC was closed and its bearing on the cleanstart. (Again, I have great respect for John, but I think he handled this badly.) --SB_Johnny | ✌ 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

3) WP:BADSITES failed to become a policy. When attempts are made to revive this policy, this will naturally draw the attention of people involved in the site(s) in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This should be fairly obvious, but worth noting nevertheless. Fae and at least one of the people arguing on his behalf have offered WP:DENY as a rationale for his not responding to the recent RFC/U, while on the other he has relentlessly pursued sanctions, censure, and censoring of the same people, as well as people in any way affiliated with them. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 12:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES sort of resembles WP:Linking to external harassment, minus the mumble. Could you point us to where discussion of WP:BADSITES drew editors into the Fae discussion, rather than the other way round? Wnt (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

{In progress, incomplete)

Proposed principles

Self-disclosure

1) When editors have freely disclosed their identities and other self-descriptive information on-wiki and allowed that information to stand openly for extended periods of time, they may not subsequently declare or treat those disclosures as inoperative, and they have no legitimate objection to references to those disclosures, when relevant, in discussions on- or off-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hasn't this come up before in a previous case? Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Identity

1) Ashley van Haeften (AvH), currently the chair and a trustee of Wikimedia UK, has acknowledged editing Misplaced Pages under multiple accounts, including those of Ashleyvh, Teahot, Ash and Fæ. AvH also self-disclosed his identity as a gay male, a fact repeatedly mentioned in on- and off-wiki discussions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I believe the evidence supports this. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to comment on someone's sex life or sexual orientation? Has the arbcomm ever commented on someone's sex life in an FOF? Guettarda (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Among the prominent issues in the case are the claims of disclosure of personal information and of bias. The claims might well be analyzed and viewed differently if the information about his sexuality has been disclosed offsite by third parties rather than onsite by the person himself. Note that the statement is carefully phrased to pivot on what he has disclosed, not the personal information itself. His sexual orientation is not an issue, but what has been said about it is an issue. "AvH also self-disclosed his sexual orientation, and that orientation has been repeatedly mentioned in on- and off-wiki discussions" is certainly an acceptable formulation, but I do not think it addresses the relevant issues quite so clearly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see the relevance of mentioning the actual factual details either. Deryck C. 08:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Peter cohen

{In progress, incomplete)

Proposed principles

Contexts beyond Misplaced Pages

1) Policies and Guidelines as drafted often fail to take into account specifically the fact that users may sometimes comment on or interact each other in capacities other than that of editing Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'd say rather that Misplaced Pages largely tries to take a "don't bring it into the office" approach. Where off-site relationships or activities become an issue, it does have policies - on partners proxying for each other, on legal threats, on offsite harrassment etc. And of course if they spill over onto the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedians can be each others' partners, ex-partners, friends, neighbours, enemies, bosses, employees, colleagues etc. Also a number of Wikipedians are in the public eye and either notable in themselves or feature in events of public concern.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Often fail to" - are they even meant to "succeed"? Deryck C. 08:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Custom and practice with regard to non-Misplaced Pages contexts

2) If someone is being commented on with respect to features that go beyond their being Misplaced Pages editors, then it is custom and practice not to take action against users for those non-Misplaced Pages contexts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Again, I'd say that the normal approach is "don't bring it to work", and only if that is not possible - as for example where editors are being stalked in real life, or one editor is suing another - is action taken. Or, obviously, where it spills onto the project. Which from experience, it usually does. People generally can't compartmentalise themselves that way. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Famous Wikipedians include the likes of Peter Hitchens and Richard Dawkins both of whom are known to be quite outspoken at times. If a Wikipedian used a blog to attack either of those for what they published outside Misplaced Pages, then it would be ludicrous to take the Wikipedian to AN/I or Arbcom for what they wrote. Similarly, if someone used a blog to attack their ex-partner, or if a manager started disciplinary action against an employee, then the fact that both parties happen to be Wikipedians does not mean that we should consider whether WP:NPA might have been violated. Similarly if two editors squabble on Commons or another language Misplaced Pages, then they are not taken to this Misplaced Pages's AN/I or Arbcom.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Fae's references to WP:DENY in his evidence show an ignorance of the referenced essay.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fae links WP:DENY to explain his refusal to participate in the RFC/U and answer questions in the manner expected of admins. WP:DENY concerns itself with vandals. Unless Fae produces evidence that Delicious Carbuncle or others were vandalising Misplaced Pages, then his linking the essay shows an ignorance of its contents and of Misplaced Pages policy and process unfitting of an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this even relevant? WP:DENY is just an essay, not a site policy. In addition, the principle of "deny recognition" goes beyond the scope of vandalism, and it is possible that Fæ used the principle by extension. Deryck C. 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DENY specifically excludes harassment from being a reason to deny recognition. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: