Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 30 June 2012 (→NewtonGeek's response to NYB's proposals). 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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

→ 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)

MBisanz and WP:NotCensored

Just expanding on the thinking behind the two remedy proposals I made. I understand the restrictions on this case, but they seem to be depriving Fæ of a level playing field in a number of ways. Its especially regretable that MBisanz once again chose to open proceedings with a diff bomb. An accusation can be made using a single diff and one or two words - but it is generally impossible to adequately refute one without using at least twenty times as many words. This is especially so when the accusation has extra weight by being made by a crat. So Fæ is effectively prevented from adequately defending himself. Im not arguing that MBisanz's participation in this witch hunt requires a desysop, he does heaps of useful work so that would be a shame. Yet a stern warning does seem called for. As Varnent argued, its desirable that Arbs display more severity towards the witch hunters and their supporter rather than towards their victim. By comming down relatively hard on MB, the arbs would create some space to possibly gently advise Fæ to consider taking a step back from involvement in wiki politics for a while. That might be in his best interests especially if no way can be found to address the off wiki harassment. If it becomes necessary to gently advise Fæ, I hope Arbs can at least formally recognise that its understandable that not all his recent posting have been perfectly collegial. Even the strongest characters would be distressed at the blind eye many seem to be turning to the sustained campaign of harassment.

Tension over WP:NotCensored is perhaps a reason why some good faith editors are concerned about some of Fæ's editing. The actual wording at WP:NOTCENSORED does seem to allow certain forms of limited censoring, but while we have the WP:Notsored policy shortcut, editors can claim "WP is not censored" to support them including shocking material. Limited censorship is a good thing, obviously its best not to have extreme porn that glorifies rape, and theres all kinds of other sorts of highly offensive material we might be better off without. Theres is little point in a regular editor proposing this sort of change on WP:Not - but if Arbs wanted to take this up they could maybe get support from the Foundation for a policy changing proposal that could only be denied by consensus, instead of requiring consensus to make? As a moderate social conservative, I feel such a measure would be a way to get a good result from this case. But most might see the measure as a victory by the WR accounts. So again it would be useful if MBisanz is warned or admonished so as to avoid any appearance that Arbs help witch hunters profit from their actions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

With regard to your WP:NONCENSORED proposal, please refer to my comment on the Workshop page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Question, somewhat procedural

I notice that in the discussion that follows under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Workshop#Fae's real name, a user posts what might be personally identifying information. Should this information be removed? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything (or at least anything that needs removing). Do you want to email me or the clerks, rather than draw attention to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm doing this the wrong way, but it's a person's real life last name, apparently already posted but being repeated a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It has already been disclosed by Fae in relation to Wikimedia UK, but as a courtesy to Fae - who doesn't seem to use it on Misplaced Pages - I think it should be removed. Bali ultimate seems to be trying to make a point by using it so conspicuously when nobody else is doing so. Prioryman (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that its use does seem somewhat pointed, since Fae is known by it in his WMUK position, removing it at this point would seem fairly pointless. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess that answers my question. Because it seemed to be known information, I didn't perceive it as an e-mail issue, but because it also seems to be rather mean-spirited, I felt it needed eyes on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have hatted the portion that does not pertain directly to the FoF - which is about what Fae posted, not about what anyone else posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs) 22:43, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Good solution, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's workshop involvement

Dear arbitrators,

Is this the Fæ–MBisanz case, or the Prioryman–Delicious carbuncle case? I am absolutely astonished to see reams and reams of material about DC from Prioryman here on the workshop page, given that the two are (recently!) interaction-banned. Now, Prioryman did say on the evidence talk page that you gave him permission to post these, but Prioryman asserts over there that "This evidence and findings of fact are not intended to indict Delicious carbuncle and Bali ultimate, the other editor whose conduct I have cited, but to provide background and context to the RFC/U against Fae. I believe that this evidence, and the findings of fact that it supports, makes a case for exonerating circumstances in relation to certain aspects of Fae's conduct. In order to respect the interaction ban and to avoid personalising the issues any further, I will not be following up comments posted by Delicious carbuncle and I will not be proposing remedies concerning him." However, when I read what Prioryman actually wrote, things like "Delicious carbuncle had unclean hands", or "Delicious carbuncle has previously used the tactic of posting intensively about other editors off-wiki as a prelude to an RFC/U," these look very much like indictments of DC to me, rather than description of circumstances likely to exonerate Fæ. Is this the sort of stuff you had expected Prioryman to post? Because it seems to me this case is degenerating into a mudfest between two interaction-banned editors, neither of whom are parties here, and that you have privileged one of these two editors. Do we really think no one else could have presented mitigating circumstances related to Fæ's conduct? JN466 00:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Both editors have an extensive history, including some extremely hostile exchanges in several ANI threads. Prioryman requested, and obtained, an interaction ban on Delicious Carbuncle (DC), which DC has largely honored, including in this case. Prioryman, however, appears to be trying to use the case to further his own admitted attempts at getting DC banned. Like I said, I believe the conflict started before the Fae issue arose, when DC questioned the circumstances surrounding Prioryman's clean start. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I understand that DC has been given the same permission as me - there is no "privilege". I posted these FoFs to make the point that Fae and others had reason to believe that DC was not acting in good faith ("unclean hands") and that DC had a track record of similar conduct (the Cirt-Jayen case and other incidents on WR). The FoFs and evidence aim to support the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the RFC/U was not initiated in good faith or with clean hands, and that Fae's response to it was based on that belief. I have not made and will not make any proposals for remedies involving DC, so it's false to claim that I am attempting to "get him banned". My aim here is to exonerate aspects of Fae's conduct by providing evidence of the wider context. Prioryman (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You have a lot of history with DC. I am prepared to believe a lot, but not that you don't carry a grudge against DC after all that's happened. --JN466 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, both editors may post evidence pertaining to the other (within the prevailing evidence constraints), and make workshop proposals based on that evidence. They may not directly engage with each other in threaded dialogue, or post about each other on case talkpages. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. What is the scope of this case now? Is it about Fæ and MBisanz, or are you looking to examine and potentially sanction other editors' conduct?
  2. If this case is not just about Fæ and MBisanz, but is about other editors' conduct as well, I would propose that you allow members of the community to submit evidence regarding Prioryman and DC. The history of enmity between Prioryman and DC and its underlying reasons should be examined here if you are giving Prioryman such a platform. It may also be advisable for one or two members of arbcom to recuse, in that case.
  3. Will you please extend the evidence submission period by a week, given that all of this was posted just as the evidence submission period was due to close?

  It strikes me that Prioryman's case and Fæ's case have a lot in common. Both had accounts that claimed to stop editing Misplaced Pages while they were the subject of dispute resolution. Both immediately came back with one or several new accounts, without declaring the connection to the prior account. Both entered controversy with the new account. Both were recognised by DC. --JN466 11:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this case seems to be about me and not Fæ?

I was planning on staying away from this entirely, but the attacks and untruths in Fæ's answers to the questions posed by the Arbs caused me to post requests for corrections on the talk page (which were, for the most part, entirely ignored). I decided to contribute evidence largely to set the record straight about allegations made in Fæ's statement and on the workshop page. I am puzzled why so much of the workshop material relates to me and not to Fæ. My understanding was that this case was about Fæ's actions as an admin and his failure to engage in dispute resolution processes. I have asked Fæ for literally years now (if you include requests I made to Ash) to engage in some form of dispute resolution instead of making unsubstantiated allegations, but he has consistently avoided doing so - is this that case? If so, I should have been a party and I think it would have been nice if someone told me that I needed to mount a defence. If not, can someone please set this case back on track? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. If this case is about Delicious carbuncle, s/he should have been told when the case started. If it isn't, then the committee needs to make clear now that it isn't. JN466 02:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Workshop&diff=497338631&oldid=497338514 – I guess that what SirFozzie said to me also applies to Delicious carbuncle. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you have either misunderstood SirFozzie, or this is an administrative cock-up. SirFozzie refers to "parties" there. It has been customary in the past to add an editor as a party on the main case page if they were considered a party. The main case page in this case still lists just two parties: Fæ and MBisanz. An editor whose conduct comes under scrutiny during the course of a case is entitled to formal notification of that fact from the committee or its clerks. JN466 04:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

DC has not been made a party. If he would like to be considered one, or wishes to make the case that he is one, that needs to be directed to SirFozzie. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As a clerk, can you help facilitate this kind of communication with the Committee, that is if you have any channels of communication with them that we don't have access to? Cla68 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If DC would like to be considered a party, I would be more than glad to send a note to the Committee.

Answering your second question, clerks have write-access to the AC lists, which allows our messages to avoid moderation. Additionally, arbitrators are subscribed to the clerks list, so we can send them messages relatively quickly. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful information. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I proposed my DC-related findings of fact and remedy in order to settle the Email incident issue once and for all (the incident featured prominently in Fæ's answers and Prioryman's arguments, and 28bytes's closure of the AN/I discussion was contested by at least three users), and I was concerned about the privacy of others and the possibility that more Emails might be published in the future. I've also alerted Delicious carbuncle so that he or she could defend himself or herself. It was pretty obvious to me right from the start that this case was eventually going to transform into yet another discussion about what one may or may not do outside of Wikimedia, which is why I decided to participate in the first place. The biggest clue of that inevitable transformation was Fæ's accusation about MBisanz meeting privately with Eric Barbour. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not get ahead of the committee here, or make self-fulfilling prophecies. The clerk has confirmed that DC is not a party. So s/he isn't. --JN466 05:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

For my part, as Fae has contended that he has been the target of harassment, it's necessary to establish whether his claim has any foundation in fact. We therefore need to examine whether editors have engaged in conduct that could be construed as harassment or could have given rise to the impression that he was being harassed. This dispute seems to have been driven as much by conduct off-wiki as on-wiki, so it's also necessary to examine what has been going on off-wiki, particularly as Fae and others have highlighted it as an area of concern. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Even if true, coming home and threatening to take the cat down to the vet 'cos he's been spotted kipping in the neighbour-from-hell's backyard, isn't really on. John lilburne (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That Fæ has been the target of harassment on-wiki is evident to anyone who saw the comments posted by IP and throw-away accounts here and on Commons. I did not make those comments. I do not know who made those comments. I do not condone the actions of those who made those comments. I have no ownership or position of authority on Misplaced Pages Review or Wikipediocracy and never have. I am not any kind of Machiavellian figure or ringleader, as should be evident from the discussions on WR. If the community wishes to sanction me for my actions on- or off-wiki, that is one thing, but I do not wish to be a scapegoat for the actions of others. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've alerted an Arbitrator to this discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle and Michaeldsuarez have now been added as parties to the case. --JN466 17:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's in the spirit of all Misplaced Pages dispute resolution processes that the behaviour of all parties may be examined. Given Delicious carbuncle's heavy involvement in many of the relevant conflicts, I'm not surprised that a significant proportion of the investigation now concerns Delicious carbuncle. It was at most a procedural oversight on the clerks' part not to have added and notified Delicious carbuncle as a party to this case sooner. Deryck C. 23:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no oversight on the part of the clerks. They notified us when the were told to add us my Sir Fozzie. This would have been after the close of evidence. I am somewhat busy at the moment, so rather than waste my time, I am awaiting clarification of the focus and scope of the case so that I may prepare evidence. Given the circumstances, I fully expect that an extension will be granted to permit this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's what should happen, but do not count on it happening. I have asked for clarification on the scope of cases before and received nothing. I strongly suggest you review what's been presented in the case so far, and use that as the basis to prepare your evidence. Whether you prepare evidence or not, the case will almost certainly proceed. ArbCom does not have a procedure in place for handling extensions when parties are added to cases. It should be automatic; anyone who is added to a case should automatically get an extension. But, that's not how it works, and without procedure in place there's no way to hold ArbCom accountable for the lack of extension. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there would be very little disagreement that this is what should happen. It would reflect very poorly on ArbCom (and Misplaced Pages governance in general) if this does not happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Committee always states that we will look at all issues brought to our attention as part of a case. Right now, evidence has been posted that made me decide to add Michaeldsuarez and DC as parties to this case: DC, if you have evidence to post/rebut other people's evidence, please do so over this weekend. SirFozzie (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• So everyone else gets two weeks to submit evidence, and DC gets two days? What if he's busy or out of town this weekend? DC, how much time did you ask for? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• If he needs to submit statements after evidence closes, he can ask a clerk to submit it for him (as the evidence page will be closed on Monday). SirFozzie (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Which effectively means he gets two days while everyone else gets two weeks. If he takes two weeks, the workshop page will already have closed. Extension, please. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• No. Again, we're not going to let this case drag on indefinitely. They have a method available to them if they wish... SirFozzie (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Why is closing the case rapidly more important than giving DC an appropriately fair chance? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I will try to get my evidence posted over the weekend. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, there is a procedure for handling extensions; it is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Expectation_of_participation_in_proceedings and says, Editors named as parties to an arbitration case, and duly notified of it, are expected to participate in the proceeding. Any editor named as a party to a case, or whose conduct otherwise comes under scrutiny during the course of a case, will be notified of this by the Committee or its clerks, and, except in exceptional circumstances, will be given a minimum of seven days to respond, calculated from the date the case opened or the date on which they are notified, whichever is later. JN466 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Jayen; thank you for pointing that out. I sincerely appreciate it. DC, you have 6 days remaining. Sir Fozzie, two days is too little, and not supported by procedure. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Sections of Prioryman's workshop entries need to be stricken

I find it rather deplorable that accusations lobbed against banned or blocked users have been allowed to be entered into the Workshop discussions. As much as certain Misplaced Pages may wish to view the likes of Vigilant, Peter Damian, and Eric Barbour as wiki-villains, they are still living people who are not fair game for attacks when they are not allowed to be here to offer explanations or defense.

The following sections

• Banned users were heavily involved in off-wiki threads initiated by Delicious carbuncle
• Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention

Need clerk/arb review. Tarc (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've not made any "attacks". Under "Banned users were heavily involved in off-wiki threads initiated by Delicious carbuncle", I've simply stated what the block logs say about why Vigilant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and EricBarbour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were blocked or banned. That is a matter of factual record. If they wish to "defend" themselves, they are of course free to post unblock requests or email the Arbcom to ask for their blocks or bans to be lifted (though I suspect the response to that is likely to be "over our dead bodies"). Under "Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention", I've simply stated the indisputable fact that threads were started by DC and Vigilant, who is indefinitely blocked. It's not an "attack" to note that someone was indefinitely blocked for harassment when, in fact, they were indefinitely blocked for harassment. Prioryman (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, just so I'm clear, is your concern that allegations are being made against users who aren't here to respond or about the tone of the statements? Lord Roem (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A little of both. Others have noted that Prioryman is casting a rather wide net of aspersions in his defense of Fae, so much so that some questioned why Delicious Carbuncle was getting so much flak in a case began as "MBisanz-Fae", a net now spreading to others off-wiki. It is coming across as a bit of a character assassination, like a lawyer trying to discredit witnesses to make his client look better. Something has seemed remarkably off about this entire case so far, and what it is is that Prioryman-Fae relationship is quite similar to a lawyer-client one. I've participated in a few Arbcoms, read many, and I do not recall this sort of proxy defense ever being done before. Additionally, yes, these 3 are banned users who are unable to participate here. IMO it is a basic gesture of courtesy that one does not attack people who are unable to offer a defense. Further, none of these 3 were banned for anything to do with Fae, so the "facts", as they are, about their bans is not really relevant to this case. Unless Prioryman would like to show what connection, say, Damian's purported WMUK ban has to do with this Arbcom (e.g. did Fae have a hand in discussing or voting upon it as part of his WMUK affiliation?) then it really has no place here. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tell you what - I'll compromise on this. I note DC's comments in the section above about his lack of responsibility for what goes on at WR/Wikipediocracy, and after all what can we do against already-banned users? - ban them again? (shades of posthumous execution). So although I refute any suggestion that noting that a banned user is in fact banned constitutes an "attack", I'll remove the section on banned users as it's at a bit of tangent to the main thrust of the FoFs. I will not, however, remove the section "Fae has been subjected to sustained hostile off-wiki attention" as that is just a short statement of very basic verifiable facts which in any sane environment would be entirely controversial. Prioryman (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

How is "predominately hostile" a finding of fact, though? Perhaps if those involved had an opportunity to respond, they may characterize those discussions as "frank" and "candid". IMO alot of this stuff is simply going off the reservation and into speculative territory, that's the problem here. Tarc (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we all should just take a short break here from debating those workshop proposals? Let's sleep on it, come back in the morning, and see whether we want to keep discussing that tangent. I think that's reasonable. Lord Roem (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, but you also removed my and several other editors' comments when you removed that section. Could I ask you to restore the section, or have a clerk restore it, and then simply redact those parts of your own posts that you wish to remove? Other editors can then proceed similarly, striking those parts of their statements which they feel no longer apply. Thanks. --JN466 21:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Presented here without comment: this from Prioryman. I have replied on Tryptofish's talk page. JN466 02:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  And I'll add this reply: . Arbs are welcome to stop by and take a look (unabashed hint!). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  The link was http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=483 and should have led you to page 483 of a pdf document on the UK parliament website. I am sorry it didn't work for you; probably something to do with your computer's pdf handling. JN466 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Link is working for me - not seen that before - very interesting work - thank you J. - Youreallycan 04:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't work for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It works now; please see: . --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Claims of stalking and a "campaign"

commons:File_talk:Carn_Brea.svg – Am I not allowed to point out a flaw in an image? I'm not stalking, and I'm not running a campaign. When I decided to ignore one of Fæ's claims in order to avoid an argument, Fæ took it as a sign that I was acknowledging his claims. Hearing about an accuracy in an image from a forum isn't stalking. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No legal threat made on Wikimedia Commons and I have not mentioned anything on Misplaced Pages. I said on Wikimedia Commons "Michaeldsuarez, considering your campaign against me on EncyclopediaDramatica, don't you think it might be seen as a bit creepy to be seen openly imagestalking me on WikimediaCommons?" and after a reply, "I note you do not deny this is a campaign. Should you persist, I feel it will become perfectly reasonable to refer to your actions as abusive stalking and to complain about them as such." I then clarified "Nope, no legal threat above, that's in your head. I have made a statement of fact that I will start referring to your behaviour as abusive stalking and complain about it on the most appropriate noticeboard." It seems odd that someone following my contributions in immense detail, creating a page about me on EncyclopediaDramatica, persistently writing about me in negative detail for many months on Misplaced Pages Review and more recently on Wikipediocracy should be worried about it being called "creepy" or that I might feel imagestalking me looks like "abusive stalking", especially in the light that Michaeldsuarez has decided to bring a false claim of a legal threat here rather than on Commons, which itself looks quite a lot like deliberately stalking across Wikimedia projects, especially as claims of legal threats are known to be treated quite differently on Misplaced Pages versus Commons. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "following contributions in immense detail". I've viewed your contributions and log entries in the past, but I'm not following them. I'm not not keeping myself updated. I'm not constantly watching you. I'm not stalking. In addition, I wouldn't call my posting about you "persistent". I don't comment on you as much as the other users on the WR and Wikipediocracy do. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Fae, considering that evidence has been brought up that strongly suggests that you apparently engaged in some flickrwashing in the past, it's no surprise that people are looking through your upload logs. OTOH, I suspect that anyone who has been around for a while knows that "wikistalking" (or "stalking" in general in wikispeak) doesn't actually imply what normal people think of as "stalking" (which is, indeed a crime). --SB_Johnny | ✌ 13:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

We have no remit over Commons. Does this have any relevance to the case before the Committee (specifically, en-WP?) SirFozzie (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, it probably doesn't under the rules you have set out, but those rules seem to be a bit narrow to me. The English Misplaced Pages isn't a world unto itself. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 20:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Same sentiment, more temperate language . Just to clarify things, My first two removals happened whilst the image on Commons was incorrect. The third looked the same to me because IE/Wikipedia (whichever is responsible for what I saw on my screen) loaded the article page without having accessed the refreshed image from Commons. It therefore looked to me as if the image was still incorrect and I made a good faith mistake in reversing Fae's reinsertion. It is unfortunate that Fae denied the mistake in the map when error when PK first pointed it out on Commons and it was only when PK pointed the error out on Wikipediocracy and people reacted to that that Fae fixed it and that he chose to interpret the fact that I removed an erroneous picture as some sort of following him around.--Peter cohen (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, are you claiming that your apparently single minded contributions since the 28th of November 2011 to Wikimedia Commons inter-spaced with dropping into every discussion about me over the last 8 months on Misplaced Pages is a coincidence? If we add in your letter writing about me, meetings about me and many, many posts relating to my professional and personal life on Misplaced Pages Review and Wikipediocracy in the same period, most people would say that, yes, you were making a sustained and determined effort to follow me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those diffs mainly point here, to the RFC, and ANI threads, hardly presents a case of a "determination to follow me across Wikimedia". Also presenting evidence to a parliamentary committee that they may have been mislead on page 729 by "In particular with biographies, they fairly represent the enforcement of polices to ensure facts are presented with appropriate weight and are verifiable." Especially when the statement maker may himself have been 'under a cloud' on BLP issues; where policies are more often breached than adhered to; and where the few isolated editor that attempt to uphold such policies, often end up sanctioned by the WELIKEIT brigade. John lilburne (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No, 8 out of 18 diffs are not RFAr, RFC, ANI or AN, you seem to be exaggerating by using the word "mainly". It should be noted that these diff are only a representative sampling, not a complete analysis and are limited to Misplaced Pages, rather than other projects. As for the letter you quote, this was redacted by Peter Cohen before publication so you may only have a partial view of his original statement. The observation that Peter Cohen has been determined to follow me across Wikimedia in consideration of his well documented efforts on and off wiki over the last 8 months to make and promote claims (in the sense of making similar claims in multiple forums on and off-wiki to draw attention to them) about my private and professional life seems entirely accurate and mild. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is another example of Fae's WP:BATTLEGROUND selectivity. As people will recall, the previous proposed Arbcom case involving Fae arose out of his complaining about references to the comments of his emails. Here he is referring to the content of an email which I sent to him among others and on the workshop page he quotes from an email from an Arb. For Mr van Haeften, the policy concerning referencing emails only applies when it is convenient and most certainly does not when it is inconvenient. The application of boundaries around what is said on and off Misplaced Pages again is only relevant when it is convenient. I myself have at least posted on SirFozzie's talk page to try to clarify what is and is not admissable and he replied to my message yesterday. Fae continues to makes several references here to things on Commons in the very same thread that SirFozzie has just made clear that they are not relevant to this case. I am not going to reply to the content of the allegations about what I have done off-Misplaced Pages as this clearly does not fall within the boundaries set by Sir Fozzie. My evidence to the Select Committee, for example, relates to my views of evidence Fae gave in his capacity as a Trustee of Wikimedia UK and only indirectly concerns his actions on Misplaced Pages except as they illustrate my concerns with his evidence. It therefore is irrelevant to this case. My meeting with Jon Davies was in response to his contacting me by email and then by phone. It was he, and not I, who proposed a meeting about my email to the select committee, i.e. about evidence submitted on behalf of WMUK and van Haeften's conduct as a trustee, not about his conduct as a Wikipedian. Again it is irrelevant to this case. SirFozzie has made it quite clear that any comments I, or others, continue to make off-Misplaced Pages about Ash in his capacity as Chair of WMUK are not admissable here. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter, you seem to miss out that I did not introduce off-wiki evidence here, I am only putting the claims of others in context. Check the history of this thread. As for your email, check the diffs provided, you made this public, not me. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

While I haven't been involved in the other pages in this case, I would like to point out that people should probably be focusing on the last sentence of the off-Wiki section, "An example is a user whose off-wiki activities directly threaten to damage another user's employment." As Fae is the Chair of Wikimedia UK, one form of employment, and it is quite clear that actions taken by multiple users involved in this case have been to try and harm this position, they are then violating the off-Wiki rules. This seems rather obvious. Silverseren 07:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

And that's a response from 1,2,3 Wikipediocracy members. Are you guys just trying to drown out anyone who points out that what you're all doing is wrong? Silverseren 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)