Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 7 June 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

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. Behaviour 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)

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. Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

What do you think "attacks others" without providing a diff in context? -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if attacking is happening, can you please specify instances so the clerks can remove it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 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. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This thread can go until the comment has diffs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 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. Wnt (talk) 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. SirFozzie (talk) 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). alanyst 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 WP:Linking to external harassment 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. Wnt (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Risker, Wnt isn't talking about the link that you've removed; he or she is talking about this diff, which was suppressed by Fred Bauder. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

@Wnt: The suppressed comment (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. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Question regarding accounts

I noticed that Lord Roem removed a comment made on behalf of a banned user that linked a User:Fæ 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. MBisanz 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. -- Lord Roem (talk) 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. MBisanz 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. Lord Roem (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator Questions to Parties

The section Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Evidence#Arbitrator Questions to Parties 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? Wnt (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

People involved in this case can answer this, SirFozzie (talk) 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 --Fæ (talk) 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. Prioryman (talk) 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? Seddon 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. --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence limits have been dropped for the questions section (the bot dos not track it) SirFozzie (talk) 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, Lord Roem (talk) 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. --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: my draft replies are written, I would like to step back and give a day or two to rewrite and have a chance to look at past RFAr cases as I am unfamiliar with common practice. I have had difficulty in judging the intended focus in responding to these open questions, my presumption is that the questions do not intend to invite opinion, but that the answers should relate to MBisanz' request, part of my rewrite is to ensure that is clear. As I will be fully committed to events from (at least) Friday to Sunday, it would probably be wise for me to defer posting until next week, to ensure that I will be available to respond if there are any corrections needed. As far as I can judge, it is neither possible or sensible to attempt to respond to all the varied claims and diffs being raised in discussion elsewhere. --Fæ (talk) 06:36, 6 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. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't all ad hominem attacks violate policy? Nobody Ent 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.Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the plain letter of WP:OUTING should suffice here: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages." Note the caveat here. If the information is voluntarily disclosed, it may be OK to use it (depending on context, obviously, as Alan rightly says). If not, then it's not OK under any circumstances. In this particular case, linking Fae's current and previous accounts is not outing as it isn't "personal information" in the sense envisaged by WP:OUTING. Fae has voluntarily disclosed his real name in conjunction with his Wikimedia UK activities, so that's not outing either. However, Fae has also been subjected to having his home address and phone number posted on Misplaced Pages Review - information that he said at the time had never been publicly disclosed in conjunction with Misplaced Pages. That is outing, quite clearly. The distinction is between (1) information that is not "personal", (2) personal information voluntarily disclosed on Misplaced Pages and (3) personal information not voluntarily disclosed on Misplaced Pages. Posting the latter is outing. Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Linking to ED

Prioryman's evidence section

Prioryman's evidence section appears to basically be an editorial. It summarizes the RfC, then gives a statement of opinion about it and several other issues without providing any diffs to any evidence that has yet to be presented in this case. In fact, the section on Michaeldsuarez doesn't appear to say anything that Michaeldsuarez hasn't already said himself. Aren't statements of opinion supposed to go on the Workshop page or one of the case talk pages? Cla68 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of my evidence about the RFC and RFA - in which I was uninvolved - is to provide some relevant numerical evidence, which other editors haven't covered, about the role that the issue of the previous account played in the RfC and the earlier RfA. As for MDS, I believe it's worth stating the facts for the record, as it ties in with other evidence that is under development. Note that none of what I've posted are "statements of opinion" - they are simple statements of fact. Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever watched Rashomon? Everyone thinks their version of events is the true one, and that includes me also, of course. Cla68 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly have - it's one of my favourite films - but you seem to have missed the central theme of it, that it shows the unreliability of memory. (I've heard of police departments screening it for their trainees to make this point.) The nice thing about the evidence I presented, however, is that it's all based on written source materials, i.e. the RfA and RfC. If you think I've got the numbers wrong then please feel free to point out my errors, and I'll correct them. Prioryman (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman's evidence section was looked over and reviewed in conjunction with MS' evidence section, by myself and at least a few others. I'm fine with leaving it as is; if anyone else has an issue with it; I'm sure they'll bring it up. NW (Talk) 22:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not compliant with directions at top of the page: "Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. ...Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute. ... Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, " (emphasis mine). As analysis, the contribution belongs on the workshop page, not the evidence section. Nobody Ent 23:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Evidence: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Prioryman (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's evidence section (Arbitrator input required)

As a non-party editor, Cla68 is supposed to be limited to 50 diffs. He's currently on 105. I suggest this needs to be trimmed drastically. Prioryman (talk) 07:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Or I can request more space. Where do I do that? Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Here. I'll change the header to see if I can flag the attention of an Arbitrator. If you don't get a response in a day or two, email the mailing list. NW (Talk) 10:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

That is very helpful, thank you. Cla68 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

How do you get 105? His diffs currently run from number 46 to number 105. By my arithmetic this gives a total of 60 (stiill greater than the nominal limit of 50, though)

David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cla: Before I decide if to grant a waiver to the diff limit, I'd like to know if you're pretty much done with diffs, or if you were planning to add more. SirFozzie (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've got to admit, I misread the total - I hadn't noticed that his diffs started at 46. Apologies. Prioryman (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out on Wikipediocracy (thank you Mr/Ms dotdash), I also blundered by not including the unnumbered links in my putative total. I count 20 of those, making 80 in all.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Just so everyone knows, Hersfold will take a look at the clerking bot tonight as it appears to have forgotten its duties. Lord Roem (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I leave it up to you guys. Basically what I was doing is going through Fae's contribution history from 1 January 2012 and listing every diff that could be interpreted as Fae alleging homophobia, personally attacking someone, disparaging a living person, or smearing participants of off-wiki forums. I'm currently up to 8 April. Do you want more diffs to look at, or is what I have provided so far sufficient for you to make an informed decision? Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this sort of thing referred to as a "diff bomb". You might consider setting the threshold a bit higher, especially as some of the diffs seem like fair comment; for example, you call out this edit as an example of Fae "alleging homophobia", when he was responding to an anonymous homophobic statement posted on his talk page. I mean, how can you interpret "You're gonna burn in this world and the next! Best admin evar ! Ash=Fae=F4g" as anything other than homophobic? Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there are definitely some mitigating factors, at least for some of Fae's comments. I have tried to include those also in the evidence, such as a reference to the trolling comment on his userpage, and YouReallyCan's comment to Russavia. And, as I said on the Workshop page, Fae appears to be doing a good job with his page and vandal patrolling. Anyway, my question for SirFozzie still stands. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to grant a slight waiver, to 75.. but try to keep your diffs to the ones you think are truly unfounded attacks. When I was reviewing some of them, he was responding to an attack that quite simply WAS homophobic in nature, plain and simple (not saying the others weren't, I'm reviewing all the diffs provided) But in those cases, the diff isn't useful to me, and uses up time and effort better spent elsewhere. SirFozzie (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here...there's a balance to be struck between focusing one's evidence on the most useful diffs, and distorting one's evidence by omitting exculpatory material. The latter may be an unintended side effect of SirFozzie's request for Cla68 to do the former. So may I suggest: list the most compelling diffs, but summarize the rest to preserve the big picture. For example: "Diffs that clearly show behavior M: . Additionally, there were X edits that showed this behavior but had mitigating factors, and Y edits in similar circumstances where the editor did not engage in the behavior." alanyst 03:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will give that a try. I was giving the diffs the firehose treatement because of a remark that Cool Hand Luke made once to someone when he was an arbitrator. I don't have time to find the diff, but to paraphrase what I remember it was something like, "Just give me the diffs and I don't need you to interpret them for me." Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns regarding Fæ's answers to questions

In Fæ's reponses to the "Arbitrator questions to parties", he has quoted editors without providing diffs to the original statements. This clearly removes the ability for readers to determine the context or verify that the statements are quoted accurately. To use a single example, I offer the following:

On ANI, Delicious carbuncle stated “I'm sure you meant your question rhetorically, but there is a case to be made that Van Haeften's sex life may actually have some bearing on his role as a Wikimedia UK trustee. If someone engages in risky sexual practices, it may imply that they are willing to accept more risk in other areas as well. By "risky" I mean an increased risk not only to health and to safety, but also legal risk.” when no evidence has been produced to substantiate a case that I engage in sexual practices that may result in health, safety or legal risks.

I did not make that statement on ANI. I quoted that statement on ANI, but it was made on Misplaced Pages Review. My reason for quoting it was to dispel an incorrect and rather fanciful interpretation of those remarks. The context of both the original statement and the ANI discussion have been stripped away, leaving it seeming like I made the statement on Misplaced Pages and that Fæ is asking for me to provide evidence that he engages in "sexual practices that may result in health, safety or legal risks". That does not seem like a well thought out request.

Fæ has referred to me several times in his evidence with phrases such as "the RFC/U that Delicious carbuncle created". This appears to be personalizing a dispute resolution process that I initiated but was necessarily certified and endorsed by multiple editors. Since there were two parts to the RFC/U, it is difficult to know when Fæ is referencing the RFC/U begun in 2010 or the continuation of that RFC/U in 2012. In one case, a long quote is entirely unattributed and no diff is provided.

I am more troubled by a statement in which a diff is provided, but it does not relate to the claim that is made:

Delicious carbuncle (DC) has confirmed that the evidence they used for outing me on Misplaced Pages Review was not self-disclosure, but a pseudonymous personal email from me which asked them for their help

The diff provided is this one in which I confirm that someone else's statement is accurate. That statement makes no mention of personal email and Fæ's contention is quite simply wrong on all counts. Fæ revealed their own identity on both Misplaced Pages and Commons. I will not rebut the other points since the entire section appears to be something other than answer to the question posed.

Fæ's entire response be removed and he should be warned about adhering to the rules of this proceeding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Requesting correction in Fae's answers

I'm posting here, since Fæ has told me not to use his talk page. If one looks at the history of the ED article, one can see that I didn't add the page to the "Faggotry" / "Homosexual deviants" series. An user named "Petin" did that. I didn't even add the page to the Misplaced Pages series; "Lorentz" did that. I didn't add that page to any series. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6/Evidence&diff=496425553&oldid=496424447 – Resolved. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you do anything to change or dispute that addition? Did you express any disagreements with it? Prioryman (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses people! Let's stay away from hypotheticals... which only serve the purpose of argument. - Lord Roem (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've taken out the hypothetical, but I would appreciate a reply from Michael on what action, if any, he took over that categorisation - which I think any right-minded person would find deeply offensive. Prioryman (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we're still skirting on the edge here, but the question is now much better. Simply, did he do anything about the page's categorization? MS, if you choose to reply, please keep things civil and dispassionate. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't own the articles that I create. Once I publish an article, it becomes shared with the community. It isn't my place to revert revisions that I don't agree with. Please keep in mind that ED isn't written from a neutral, politically correct POV. It isn't my job to keep ED clean and child-friendly. Removing offensive content would be the antithesis of what being an ED contributor and sysop is all about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Do you, personally, find that categorisation offensive? How do you reconcile the page being categorised under "Faggotry" / "Homosexual deviants" with your contention that it's not an attack page? Prioryman (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Due to ED's adherence to the "wiki" way, any article can transform into an attack article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Understood, but that's not responsive to the two questions that I asked. Could you please address them? Prioryman (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Update on Clerking Bot

The changes to the ArbComOpenTasks template are screwing around with Hersfold's bot. It's being worked on now, but until it's back up, clerks will have to manually check compliance with evidence guidelines. So, just a heads up! Lord Roem (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

How many messages can one leave?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Nineteen notices to nineteen different users. Here's where eighteen of them were mentioned in Fæ's answers:

Supporters include well established and trusted users such as Jayen466, Johnbod, Blue Rasberry, Bidgee, Bearian, Modernist, Secret, Victuallers, WereSpielChequers, OlEnglish, Peridon, Marek69, Causa sui, AniMate, Orderinchaos, Tryptofish, Lankiveil and Nick-D.

Is making a long list of supporters and using that list to notify those supporters about the ArbCom case appropriate? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I presume you've picked up on the latest anti-Fae agitation on Wikipediocracy, where you're active. It's an established protocol to send courtesy notifications to editors if you mention them in the course of an arbitration or AN/I discussion. Wnt rightly did the same here after he posted his evidence, and nobody objected then. Why the double standard? Prioryman (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)