| Revision as of 19:03, 5 June 2012 view sourceLord Roem (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators10,811 edits talk pages are not exempt from rules of evidence; unsubstantiated claims against other editors are disallowed on all case pages← 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}} |
| (266 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) |
|
|
::::Don't post evidence linking to a blacklisted website. A diff with the URLs has been sent to the Committee. Any future evidence linking to that website should be sent by email as well. If you are unsure about posting, ask ''beforehand''. ] (]) 18:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC) |
|