| Revision as of 18:58, 5 June 2012 view sourceHobit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,329 edits →Thoughts of Hobit: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:35, 9 August 2012 view source Courcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits {{pp-protected|small=yes}} |
| (271 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} |
|
{{pp-protected|small=yes}} |
|
{{Casenav}} |
|
{{NOINDEX}} |
|
|
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|The ]'s decision is still in effect, and can be viewed at ]. The contents of the page can be viewed in the .|}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Notice}} |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
==What a shame== |
|
|
To see that so many apparently desire nothing more than to attack others. I encourage all contributors to re-evaluate their text and try to make them as positive as possible, placing them in context where appropriate. ''] ]'', <small>23:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC).</small><br /> |
|
|
:What do you think "attacks others" without providing a diff in context? -- ] (]) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, if attacking is happening, can you please specify instances so the clerks can remove it? --] (]) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Per "Uncivil comments or accusations that are not backed up with explicit diffs will be removed on sight" in that fat orange box above, Farmbrough's comment should be reverted by a Clerk. ] (]) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agree. This thread can go until the comment has diffs. --] (]) 04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scope of proceeding == |
|
|
|
|
|
The scope of this proceeding is unclear. Is ArbCom evaluating whether to sanction anyone other than Fae or MBisanz? For example, the evidence I would be most interested in would concern the actions of those not parties to the case. It is difficult for me to submit evidence defending Fae ''per se'', because I don't perceive him to have been accused of any significant wrongdoing. ] (]) 13:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:IF you have evidence on other users not parties, submit that evidence (per the rules of this case, strictly with diff-backup) and then request to a clerk or to me here to add a party to the case. ] (]) 14:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Statements without evidence == |
|
|
|
|
|
I observe that two contributors to the evidence page actually did not provide any evidence, but rather made general arguments that might be more suitable as workshop proposals. For the sake of the signal-to-noise ratio of this proceeding, I suggest the clerks ought to relocate that material to an appropriate place (the workshop or the users' talk pages). ] 15:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ground rules on linking to external harassment == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think I briefly viewed Michaeldsuarez's comment that he mentions in the evidence () (and was unconvinced) before it was revdeled, but I don't remember much about it now. For further evidence many of us on either site might be tempted to link specifically to Misplaced Pages Review threads and the like. My interpretation of ] was that this is generally not accepted, and I think that the revdeling was done on that basis as far as I remember. Nonetheless, other violations of that policy (including, alas, my own) were ''not'' revdeled even when I pointed this out. I suppose e-mail is another option, but frankly, in part based on the outing of Fae, I generally don't send Misplaced Pages e-mails. My impression is that when these links are mentioned for a legitimate purpose - i.e. an active ArbCom proceeding - they would be acceptable, and therefore it is acceptable to undelete Michaeldsuarez's edits at this time. In any case we should clarify what the ground rule is here one way or the other to avoid misunderstandings. ] (]) 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just for the record, I removed the link from Michaeldsuarez's statement, but did not delete it or revision delete it. There is some discussion about it on my talk page. I will allow the drafting arbitrator (or other arbitrators) respond to the more general point. ] (]) 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Risker, Wnt isn't talking about ; he or she is talking about , which was suppressed by Fred Bauder. --] (]) 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:@Wnt: (I've kept a copy) didn't contain any hyperlinks to external websites. That comment didn't include any links to the Misplaced Pages Review. --] (]) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Question regarding accounts == |
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that ] removed a comment made on behalf of a banned user that linked a ] to three other accounts. Given the number of accounts Fæ has had and the opaque manners in which they have been connected on and off wiki by himself and others, could a clerk or arbitrator please inform me which account names I am permitted to reference in my evidence? That I have to ask this question is itself indicative of part of his problematic conduct, but before I go and gather inadmissible evidence on that, I figured I should ask. Thanks. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Primary reason for that removal (if you're referring to the one I'm thinking of) was due to that editor's proxy editing on behalf of a banned user. So, different situation. -- ] (]) 02:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yeah, I got that part of it. I just realized there were a lot of account names floating around, some I hadn't heard of, and didn't want to get in trouble by mentioning something impermissible. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::As long as you base your evidence on specific examples (diffs) and don't float too much into speculation, you're fine. {{smiley}} ] (]) 03:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Arbitrator Questions to Parties == |
|
|
|
|
|
The section ] says it "is generally aimed at people involved in this dispute." To be clear, are these questions being asked only to the two listed Parties, or to the much larger group of people who have expressed strong opinions about the situation? ] (]) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:People involved in this case can answer this, ] (]) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm struggling to interpret the word limit for the questions to parties on this page. I have a draft response, but my attempt to properly answer the questions with reasonable context and evidence has taken me over 1,000 words. Would it be possible for a clerk or arbitrator to look at my draft and see if it is okay or if I have approached this poorly? Thanks --] (]) 09:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hopefully one of the arbitrators will correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence limit only seems to apply to the "regular" evidence being posted after the arbitrator questions - no word counts or diffs are being displayed on the arbitrator questions section. ] (]) 12:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I will flag this up with the arbs and hopefully get back to you with a answer. In the mean time, have you written +1000 words for one question? or does this +1000 apply to your whole response? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The whole reply. I'm working on trimming it down but reducing to less than 1,000 would be a lot more work and probably end up a bit cryptic or shifting explanation arbitrarily out to diffs. I don't think I've gone nuts on length, it's just hard to give proper context to answer these open questions without being glib. --] (]) 12:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Evidence limits have been dropped for the questions section (the bot dos not track it) ] (]) 13:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::So yes Fæ, feel free to post your answers (even if they're long). It won't impact the word or diff count for your regular evidence. Best, ] (]) 15:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Thank you, that's a weight off my mind and will make writing them up a lot easier for me. --] (]) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Outing and Harassment == |
|
|
|
|
|
One question by Sir Fozzie suggests that disclosing information that is disclosed by a user is not outing nor harassment. That cannot be right. While it's not "outing." It certainly could be harassment depending on what is said, and how the information is used. If it is included in an ''ad hominem'' attack, it violates wikipedia NPA policy, and the collegiality pillar. 'Focus on the comment not the contributer' applies equally to known or anonymous users. ] (]) 00:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:Don't ''all'' ad hominem attacks violate policy? <small>]</small> 02:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes. It's just more likely that it is about the personality of the user, where someone is discussing personal information about the user.] (]) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Linking to ED == |
|
|
|
|
|
Since Prioryman mentioned the ED article, I couldn't really defend himself without providing links to ED. I'm made a response with links to ED. I hope that this is okay in this particular case. --] (]) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:"If you're not sure whether a statement will fall afoul of these policies, ask a clerk before hand." -per top o' page. <small>]</small> 16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
::I never said that I was unsure. I know that I have a right to defend myself against Prioryman's accusations; I know that defending myself would requiring linking to ED; and I know that not defending myself will only hurt me and perpetuate Prioryman's accusations. I did as I must. My message above is simply there in order to avoid any misunderstandings about my intentions. --] (]) 18:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not sure why you're referring to it as an "accusation" - it's a statement of fact, isn't it? Which you've already admitted? ] (]) 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thoughts of Hobit == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm going to throw my 2 cents in, with no real new evidence (thus on the talk page where I believe this kind of thing is allowed). |
|
|
|
|
|
Yes Fae is too defensive and, IMO, feels attacked in times where he isn't actually being attacked. But wow, there are certainly some actual attacks there (the ED page being a fine example). I do feel there is a fairly obvious degree of hounding of Fae going on here. If no one had bothered to link Fae to Ash we wouldn't be here. It wasn't the cleanest of clean starts, but it held nicely to the spirit of the thing. But we are here because people can't leave well enough alone. Is Fae being picked on because he's gay? Because he's posted some "alternative" pictures of himself (under a different account recall)? Don't know, but I think that's part of it. I think there are legitimate issues with Fae (claiming homophobia when evidence is scant for example), but I don't see _anything_ that's actionable by more than a warning at this time. Let me walk the evidence one user at a time. |
|
|
* ''Anthonyhcole's'' comment is I suppose accurate, but really a minor nit. I felt (per my comments at the RfC/U) that Fae was extremely straightforward at his RfA. A more detailed answer would, at least, have made the old account easy to figure out. True but fairly irrelevant point (I'll note again that I opposed Fae's RfA due to the old account). |
|
|
* ''ErrantX's'' comments I find generally accurate if stated a bit more strongly than I would. I _do_ see a fair bit of anti-gay behavior driving some (but by no means all) of the anti-Fae camp. So given that, I'm more accepting of Fae's accusations. That he flinches at shadows shouldn't be shocking when sometimes those shadows are real. |
|
|
* I find some of ''Collect's'' comments to be a bit more spin than I'm comfortable with. |
|
|
**Collect quotes me in saying that "Fae/Ash was a "problem user."". The quote is "We knew that an RfC/U existed on the user. We knew this was a problem user. " at the time we didn't know about the Ash account. My point was that knowing that, people still voted for him at his RfA. |
|
|
** "Some information was not given to the editors at the RfA.". Again the quote is "They clearly told us what they weren't telling us. In no way was anyone misled. I don't see the basis for any complaint about the RfA." |
|
|
:In both cases Collect is taking statements defending the RfA process (that folks !voted for Fae knowing there was a troubled past and that we all knew what didn't know) and making them sound as if they are intended to attack the RfA. |
|
|
*That people would have opposed at the RfA had they known of Ash is good and wonderful, but it did pass ''with people being well aware there was a history here''. I opposed and likely would have supported had I know the previous account (I was worried this was another of a handful of troubled users I'd interacted with over the years). But I don't see the basis for being miffed about the process when the process was transparent as all heck. We knew what we didn't know. |
|
|
*''Michaeldsuarez''. "http://encyclo---_Haeften isn't an attack article;". Enough said. It would certainly be deleted here as an attack page in seconds. While he may have "only" intended it for ridicule (), it would not be unreasonable for the subject of the article to consider it harassment. That some of those who argue so strongly against BLP violations here aren't offended by this bothers me at a deep level. To say it is off Misplaced Pages and so doesn't matter reminds me of this song <small>No, I'm not calling him a racist. I'm saying that associating with someone whose actions you'd generally consider abhorrent is itself problematic. That's the point of the song. I don't see how someone who claims to care about Misplaced Pages doing harm to "real people" can associate with someone who does something like this). </small>. |
|
|
* ''Cla68'''s comments about Fae's "direct general or specific allegations of homophobia, harassment, or other pejorative motivations at other editors" is mostly valid. Again, I do think homophobia (or just plain bullying) is a part of the issue (did I mention the ED page above?). But Fae does jump at shadows. As I said above, the fact that sometimes those shadows are real (IMO) makes it hard to _not_ jump at said shadows. But Fae _must_ learn to reign this in. The PaoloNapolitano issue was problematic. Not de-admin problematic, but something that if it continued could result in such an action. So basically valid comments. Not enough for anything other than a warning IMO, but valid points non-the-less. |
|
|
*''Nobody Ent'''s comments about the clean start not being so clean because Fae didn't disclose the overlap in editing. From the RfA: |
|
|
**"There was an overlap; I continued to work on a few articles with my old account in order to finish adding information without outing my new account or to close down discussions. There were a total of 23 edits outside of my userspace or not made to fix broken transclusions made by other people as a result of deleting pages in my userspace. There was no double voting and it was made clear that I was closing the account." |
|
|
:It did take some work to pull that out of Fae, but (AGF) I assume that was to keep details about the old account down. In any case, it was there for the RfA voters. |
|
|
===TL;DR=== |
|
|
# The RfA was (as I said in the RfC/U) quite valid. We all knew what the score was and we knew which details we were missing. There is nothing to "redo" there and Arbcomm should reject any attempt to undo it. |
|
|
# Fae has been subject to harassment and the community has let those who have done so remain a part of this community. I find that troubling. |
|
|
# Fae has been too wild in accusations against others. Fae _must_ fix this and the committee should make it really clear that it must be fixed. That said, the fact that some of the harassment is real provides, not an excuse, but an explanation for that behavior. That said, it needs to stop. He just needs to suck it up. |
|
|
#* It's unfair that he's going to have to "suck it up" and ignore borderline comments and even (the ED page again) outright ridicule. His RL identify and old accounts have been matched to Fae and people seem to be having a field day with that. It's unfortunate that he's going to either have to stop being an admin or going to have to live with this. He's chosen to live with it, which makes him a better man than I. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|