Revision as of 18:57, 31 May 2012

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

→ 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 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)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

ArbCom to discuss WP:NOTCENSORED

Arbitrators will review whether it might be advantageous to depreciate 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)

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:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

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:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Since the clean start has failed and users Ash, ashleyvh, Teahot and Fae are known to be the same person, can't we just acknowledge this to prevent the silly dissembling on that point? All of Ashley van Haeften's combined contributions are relevant to the original complaint brought by MBizanz. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)