Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:12, 4 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

→ 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)

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Please keep your evidence concise, and within the default limits. If you wish to exceed the default lengths, you must request the agreement of the arbitrators to do so on the /Evidence talk page before posting. Unapproved overlength evidence, or inappropriate material and/or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed entirely.

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. Create your own section and do not edit another editor's section. By default, the evidence submission length is limited to about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for named parties; and about 500 words and about 50 diffs for non-party editors. While in general it is is more effective to make succinct yet detailed submissions, users who wish to submit over-length evidence may do so by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. Unapproved overlong evidence may be trimmed to size or removed by the Clerk without warning.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. 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. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent; see simple diff and link guide.

Focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and on diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute.

General discussion of the case will not be accepted on this page, and belongs on the talk page. The Arbitration Committee expects that all rebuttals of other evidence submissions will be included in your own section and will explain how the evidence is incorrect. Please do not refactor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, only an Arbitrator or Clerk may move it.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Arbitrator Questions to Parties

This is generally aimed at people involved in this dispute. Please create your own sub-section underneath this section, with your answers to my questions. I do request that you only reply to me, not to other people's comments. The evidence page is not as easily set up for the back and forth that replying to others views (like a RfC) would require. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A) A common phrase we apply to accusations are that. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Claims such as accusing other users of being homophobic, or that another user is promoting a video showing activity judged as illegal in just about all jurisidctions as obscene fall under this clause, as they tend to lead to heated debate, battleground behavior and detract from a collegial atmosphere.

Question A) Have such extraordinary claims been made and if so.. have they been substantiated to the point that Misplaced Pages requires?

B) One of Misplaced Pages's policies forbids outing or harassment. One of the defenses against charges of outing or harassment is using a person's self disclosure. For example, if User X: posts "I am Joe Shlobotnick", saying "User X has previously identified himself as Joe Shlobotnick" with a link is neither outing, nor harassment.

Question B)What level of the criticism aimed at the parties in this case has been due to self-disclosure that would therefore have a higher burden of proof of being outing or harassment?"

C) One of the reasons the previous case was declined was that preliminary dispute resolution hadn't been done in the dispute. Since then, we have a Wikiquette Alert and (prior to the previous case request and this one) a Request For Comment on the direct parties. Misplaced Pages policies expect users to participate in dispute resolution, to answer concerns other users may have on their behavior.

Question C) Users are expected to behave in a way compatible with Misplaced Pages's norms and policies. One of these is to participate in Misplaced Pages dispute resolution when requested. Have the involved parties complied with this policy?

D) One of the problems we face in this case is that some of the users making these alleged attacks do not fall under the Arbitration Committee's jurisdiction, as they do not participate on Misplaced Pages, either by choice or by having been formally restricted from editing Misplaced Pages. However, just because a user is feeling attacked by people they can not seek redress from, does not mean every person who questions their behavior should be considered as illegitimate, no matter how difficult that may seem in practice. How much extra care must be given to separate those with legitimate concerns from those that are just personal attacks? Do we grant extra leeway to users who are under such attack, and if so, how much?

Question D)How much leeway do we give users who are being significantly harassed by offsite users.. who do not participate on Misplaced Pages, either by choice or by having been banned from participation on Misplaced Pages (specifically where they are frustrated and fail to differentiate between those who are personally attacking them, and those with legitimate concerns)?

E) One of the issues raised in this case is differing views on the culpability of people who participate in an off-wiki criticism site, but do not necessarily directly participate in activity that may be considered in violation of this policy. Please note, there is no policy forbidding such participation in criticism sites, even if such sites DO have members (who do not participate on Misplaced Pages for whatever reason) whose actions would violate Misplaced Pages's policies IF they were on Misplaced Pages (see the failed policy Misplaced Pages:Attack sites)

Question E) Does mere participation in a site where violations of Misplaced Pages policy count as contributing to outing or harassment? Does participating in a forum thread where outing or harassment happen count as contributing?

F) In a recent finding, the Committee determined that a user was to be sanctioned because he had , 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?"). An example of this is "People A and B are members of the same group. Person A has committed personal attacks on me. Person B is a member of the same group, so obviously they feel the same". (Or in other words, they comment on the editor, not the edits)

Question F)Have the involved parties in this case attempted to use affiliations of other users as a platform to dismiss or discredit their views?

Reply to questions by User:MBisanz

A: I believe such extraordinary claims have been made by Fæ on several occasions. Cla68's evidence demonstrates what appears to be an appropriate sampling. I do not believe they have all been substantiated to the point that Misplaced Pages requires. I believe that some persons have commented in a negative light on Fæ's sexual orientation. I am not certain if they have done so on Misplaced Pages or in other forums as I see that other editors have researched that aspect of Fæ's conduct in greater detail. I believe that Fæ has used those specific attacks by specific individuals as grounds to broadly respond to those who generally question his on-wiki conduct in a manner designed to avoid responsibility for that conduct.

B: This question is unclear to me because it seems to have a slightly odd sentence structure. Responding more broadly, Fæ has used multiple accounts in his editing career and, as Fæ, has plainly disclosed his real-life identity on Wikimedia Foundation websites. I believe that Fæ does not understand that the intent of the outing policy is to prevent someone from introducing a person's real life identity into the publicly-available Wikimedia universe, when it is otherwise not known in that universe. Once a person self-discloses their identity under one account name, the intent of the policy no longer applies. Also, when a person has multiple accounts and discloses information under one account, it is permissible to link that information to the other accounts, as again, the intent of the outing policy is not implicated. The outing policy is not designed to permit individuals to retain personas or other artificial divisions in their existence. It is designed to prevent the involuntary introduction of personal information to the Wikimedia universe. Once a person self-discloses, the cat is out of the bag forever. I do not believe I have claimed outing or harassment in connection with my self-disclosure.

C: I believe I have substantially complied with this policy. I have responded in all dispute resolution forums and expressed a willingness to participate in a variety of locations. I do not believe Fæ has complied with the policy. When I edited his RFC, he covertly contacted me in a manner designed to discourage my participation in that dispute resolution forum. He never commented at the RFC or participated publicly with others in that process. At the earlier RFAR I initiated and at WQA, he refused to continue engagement, citing the non-existent involvement of WMUK. When I brought up the signature issue at his userpage, he refused to address it and instructed me to not contact him again. When another user brought an AFD to his userpage regarding an article he wrote, he told that user to not inform him as it was harassment. When I registered an account on an external forum to discuss my cable bill, he made a post impugning my character and then blanked it, preventing me from responding. He has shown a complete unwillingness to engage with those who question his conduct.

D: I believe that we give them the leeway of assisting in preventing the introduction of that harassment through the blocking of sockpuppets, rev-del of comments, and understanding that their comments regarding those offsite users might be colored by the harassment. I believe that leeway ends when they fail to differentiate between those actually attack them off-site and those who raise valid concerns. If a person is so stricken because of off-site attacks that they can no longer properly respond to on-site comments, they need to re-evaluate their participation, as the community cannot accommodate them, given its structure.

E: No, mere participation in a site is not a violation as that is guilt by association. Wikipedians are real life persons who engage in any number of groups and activities. Attributing all aspects of those groups to the individual leads to a bizarre and untenable result. Participating in a thread is a slightly different context. I do not believe that mere participation in a thread is a violation. I believe that it becomes a violation when that participation is designed to achieve results that would be a violation on-wiki. For example, stating to a non-editor in a thread "I hope you keep calling her employer until you get her fired" would be a violation, even if the person making it is not calling the employer. However, saying "yes, she did submit a copyright violation" in the context of a thread on a user would not be condoning or encouraging the non-editor to commit a violation.

F: As stated above, on his userpage and in response to this RFAR, Fæ has invoked my participation in another platform related to my personal travel plans and cable tv bill to dismiss my comments. I do not believe this was atypical behavior on his part. I believe I have invoked his comments on another platform as an aggravating factor of his poor behavior, but have not insinuated his affiliation with that platform is per se a negative action.

Reply to questions by User:Wnt

A) (Previously discussed here and here) Broadly defined, anti-gay bias and/or homophobia are not at all rare, and therefore not unlikely for editors to display, as the ongoing debate on gay marriage and gays in the military makes clear. Allegations about it lead to heated debate and battleground behavior, but the same is true of allegations of BLP violations.

Now Fae has had the opportunity to observe that allegations that an editor has a pro-gay bias are treated very mildly indeed, in formal AN/I proceedings in which he participated. When User:Youreallycan said to User:Russavia, "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?", Youreallycan's block was reversed within hours by User:Salvio giuliano, who made a comment that "I hope this one doesn't come back to bite me in the bum", which Fae apparently perceived as dismissive of homosexual editors. Meanwhile, User:Tarc took the opportunity in that discussion to point out that Fae "actually pursues such an agenda". Though unsubstantiated, these things were permitted to pass without penalty, and proposals to topic-ban or otherwise limit Youreallycan's editing were rejected; Youreallycan's two subsequent blocks for other matters remained quite short. Nonetheless, Salvio giuliano warned Fae on the homophobia issue and blocked User:Niabot for one week for joking "too old - do not want" in a debate about censorship in which he was involved on the opposing side. And Russavia has now been blocked for one full year for posting a comic about a volleyball on her user page.

As for "promoting a bestiality video", I'll repeat my original response that I wouldn't have watched the video if JN466 hadn't called my attention to it, so I see that sentence as factually accurate, at least for me. Incidentally, I highly doubt the video is "obscene" in the U.S., as the authorities have gone more than a century without prosecuting it, and the Miller Test would appear to protect it. By comparison, consider that Fae endured a statement from User:John lilburne at the RfC/U, echoing a number of posts on Misplaced Pages Review: "It is quite inconceivable that an educational charity, other than WMFUK it seems, would have as a director someone that a few months prior was displaying a naked sexualized photo of youth, for whatever reason, on their business card (or userpage in WP speak)." Problem is, as I pointed out, the photograph was changed from a completely PG version on March 28, 2010, days after Ash left. As you read that section, you'll see that far from seeing the profuse apologies to Fae I'd expected, or signs of administrative action, there is a vehement defense that continues to fault Fae for making any reference to Wilhelm von Gloeden, a highly notable pioneering gay artist of the Victorian era.

I should note that this also sounds very close to the sort of public allegation prohibited by WP:Child protection. Having opposed this part of that policy, I recall that User:Elen of the Roads said that "I don't think it warrants an instablock, I think the normal WP:NPA, WP:OUTING, WP:DISRUPT etc are quite adequate to handle instances where the accusations are not good faith, or are persistent to the point of disruption, or include information that needs oversighting." This sounds like a more reasonable standard, and we might then ask whether those involved in the Ash RfC/U should have been considered whether Ash's user page really had a picture of a naked child on it throughout that process without it being mentioned there before making this allegation, but if CHILDPROTECT applies then this is not a factor.

My conclusion is that for some reason, Misplaced Pages's administration is producing highly disproportionate outcomes, and editors should not be faulted if they cast about for an explanation. If Fae made some comments generally indicating that he has suffered some anti-gay discrimination here, it is at least a parsimonious explanation for the disparate reactions to these "extraordinary claims".

B) I've discussed this at and . My interpretation is that when the name is disclosed, editors can say the editor's name, but it still violates WP:OUTING to use that name to drag in otherwise irrelevant information. A clean start should not carry the obligation to conceal one's identity perfectly, or else be at risk of administrative penalties that would not otherwise have applied.

C) Arbitration always requires attempts at previous dispute resolution, and never occurs unless they fail. As I've written at , I would expect by WP:ADMIN that Fae must respond to the RfC/U, if his administrative actions had been questioned. However, the RfC/U focused on the notion that Fae's RfA was illegitimate because an ArbCom member wrote that he ended his old account "after" rather than "during" an RfC/U. The only way offered for Fae to respond would be giving up adminship, which was not an option. I don't see what he could have done to help resolve the dispute, and I don't see his participation as mandatory.

We should also consider that Fae's participation would have exposed him to additional embarrassment and publication of private information. Consider, for example, in the AN discussion where that naked child was mentioned, where Prioryman was accused of making false and misleading comments. After I spoke in his defense, Delicious carbuncle told me, "You are making a number of allegations in your statements above. In order to show the inaccuracies in your statements and defend myself against your charges, I will need to discuss the "public sex" comments as well that images. I suspect these are subjects that Fæ‎ would rather not have discussed here. You have opened up a can of worms (again). I am giving you a chance to close that can. The choice is yours." Now, not being Fae, I did not strike my opposing comment, and so his name and details were posted there by DC, but I can see how he might have made a different choice, indeed in advance, by not participating in the process.

D) Based on some of his comments to User talk:Jimbo Wales cited in the evidence sections, I think that Fae has been somewhat rattled by persistent henpecking. His "fae gots" and "Greg Kohs" comments were obscure and confusing, reducing his effectiveness and creating an opportunity for the argument in (F). Given his position in WMUK, I think it's important for him to not let himself be trolled, and make sure his comments remain clear and persuasive. These things do not rise to the level of culpable errors for which he should need to be excused; nonetheless, if they did, then he would deserve considerable extra consideration. It is fair to look at the history of a dispute, as I tried to do in small part in (A), and compare the treatment of one side against the other, to consider whether systematic inequities are occurring; when they have, excessive leniency toward one side might be atoned with some generosity toward the other.

E) Mere participation in third party sites should not be culpable. However, as described in WP:Linking to external harassment, it can be an aggravating factor in on-wiki interactions.

F) The Will Beback decision was one I disagreed with, but the principle voted there still differs from this situation. Consider at one extreme, a conflict of interest based purely on philosophical affiliation, e.g. accusing a group of Catholic editors of voting against an article about a blasphemous sculpture due to religious zeal - there, you know the Pope is not ordering them to do so, and it would be very hard to picture tangible evidence of a meaningful COI. The next step, Will Beback's, would be accusing members of a small "new religious movement" of working together improperly to skew an article. In a small religion with more dedicated supporters, members are more likely to know each other and work together, but proof is still lacking. But the next step is a large one - to consider members of an offline site about Misplaced Pages who you know to be discussing you, as a person and as a Misplaced Pages editor. At that point, considering the editors' affiliations is no longer using "affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", but can be a reasonable response to the perception of off-site harassment. But there is still one more degree of separation to consider: when these sites are known to be actively coordinating actions on Misplaced Pages in violation of WP:CANVASS. AFAIR I first expressed my concern about this here, when I noticed a thread that started by linking to a Commons deletion request. One participant there asks "So, what are the odds on some inclusionist nutter pointing out that there are WR readers following John around and supporting his deletion proposals? There must be some potential for amusement to come out of that." and two others (including SB Johnny) say it is a certainty. Now of course, I don't know how many of the people voting against that request, including some names we recognize, were actually drawn in by Misplaced Pages Review. Many people, including myself, respond to canvassing at User talk:Jimbo Wales which seems to lie in a grey area or loophole ("Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He does not consider alerting him to any topic to be canvassing."); this works in much the same way and involves many of the same people as the external sites. But to say that no canvassing occurs at the external sites, by anyone, seems most implausible. Once a site or group begins to have a concerted, deliberate effect on Misplaced Pages, it should be unequivocally permissible for Wikipedians to discuss the affiliations of editors with that group. I believe ArbCom's decision in respect to Scientology reflects such thinking, even though editors of one religion would not normally be treated in this manner, due to evidence of their impact on the overall editing environment.

Reply to questions by [[User:x}}

(Insert your response to my questions)

Reply to questions by [[User:x}}

(Insert your response to my questions)

Evidence presented by Rich Farmbrough

Current word length: 110; diff count: 1.

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.

RFC failed to meet RFC/U requirements

The RFC failed to show an ongoing dispute with attempts to resolve certified by two users.

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.

Evidence presented by Anthonyhcole

Current word length: 86; diff count: 3.

Fæ misled the community at his RfA

Fæ took a clean start in the middle of an RfC/U that was seeking sanctions due to his use of sources. The RfC/U was closed with "User has stopped editing Misplaced Pages. Delisted due to inactivity." In his subsequent RfA as User:Fæ he said he'd taken a clean start after an RfC/U rather than "during" and that he'd never been blocked or banned under the earlier name. This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that a completed RfC/U had found nothing worthy of a topic ban.

Evidence presented by ErrantX

Current word length: 463; diff count: 7.

I want to preface this evidence with the note that I have only been involved in this “dispute” recently - I have no specific knowledge of historical events, events involving Misplaced Pages Review, etc. However I do intend to present evidence that a) Fae monitors external sites, and has brought that dispute (back?) on-wiki (compounding the issue) and b) Fae has trouble collaborating in the LGBT topic area, is very quick to construe homophobia, and attacks/bullies participants as a form of chilling effect.

Fae has been maligned off-wiki on Wikipediocracy, but he appears to consistently monitors this site. On 17 May, at 13:35, I posted a comment about a situation where Fae attacked me . At 13:50 I received an email from Fae about the post (n.b. I am sure Fae will be happy to confirm this email was sent). In his statement at the request for Arbitration he mentioned using Wikipediocracy search function - a feature only available to logged in members.

Fae has brought these off-wiki disputes on-wiki, feeding ammunition to his opposers. For example this AN attempt, aimed at users of Wikipediocracy and Misplaced Pages Review, to force disclosure of off-site participation (as noted; Fae is a passive participant of one of these forums).

My negative interaction with Fae stemmed from this discussion in Jimbo's talk page. He construed my view of portions of LGBT activism, that I find problematic, as being a general attack on LBGT people (“I read this as a direct statement that the LGBT are annoying and objectionable.”, essentially accusing me of homophobia). He posted an aggressive response. Salvio warned him about that comment anmd his general behaviour of accusing people of homophobia, Fae construed that post as being directed to raise the matter at AN where he posted much the same comment, implying homophobia. Fae commented "I have stated it is Salvio that is forcing my hand here by threatening Arcom cases."; arguing that Salvio had threatened such a case if he didn't raise the issue higher, it appears he misconstrued Salvio's point.See later discussion. The interaction left me feeling bullied and harassed.

There was some exchange on Fae's talk page following this incident, involving Elen and Salvio, where they tried to explain some of the issues and recommended Fae tone down his accusations. &

Over the intervening weeks I have noted a similar pattern of mistaking, misconstruing or misrepresenting situations. For example he made a vague comment about Jayen466, who was not involved in that discussion, that only through good faith cannot be considered disparaging. In submitting his statements at RFAR he made two mistakes; first, apparently through hurried research, saying MBisanz had met Eric Barbour (which, as noted, he then corrected) and later making a broad accusation against Delicious Carbuncle which the clerks later removed.

Evidence presented by Collect

Current word length: 398; diff count: 4.

The RFC/U had a consensus that the user was a "problem user"

shows that 45 editors felt Ash left "under a cloud", and that a full disclosure would likely have affected the RfA. A larger number agreed that the user was a "problem user." Clearly ArbCom is able to count those holding opinions on the RFC/U, but I suggest the summary was founded in facts concerning the numbers holding such opinions, and is sufficient to state "consensus" thereon.

The RFC/U had a consensus that some information was not provided to the community concerning the user's prior account during the RfA

Same diff - basically ended up being almost a "given." The problem was the timeline - a new account was started while (not after) an RFC/U was occurring on the prior account. No one actually claims at this point that the two accounts are unrelated.

About 57% of those holding one of the two primary "opposing views" at the RFC/U were of the opinion that the RfA would likely not have passed had full disclosure been made

Same diff - further discussed and accepted by others as being mathematically accurate as to numbers. ArbCom is able to assert that such did represent, or did not represent, a sign of consensus thereon. I would ask, however, that ArbCom note that since RfAs require strong sonsensus, that 57% finding that the RfA might not have succeeded is a significant majority.

No sign of editors appearing as a result of off-wiki CANVASSing was given

I found no sign of editors appearing who were not regulars on such pages appearing, thus no reason to assert that any appeared due to CANVASS violations. ArbCom, of course, is free to examine evidence that SPA accounts appeared, that single edit accounts appeared or the like, but almost everyone is a well-known editor on Misplaced Pages, making the CANVASS (WP:False consensus) possibility exceedingly remote.

No sign of homophobic editors attacking the user on the RFC/U

Again - as such did not occur, I suggest this is a default conclusion barring clear and compelling evidence that Fae was attacked at the RFC/U by any homophobic editors.

is presented as evidence that such claims were inserted by Fae, and not by "homophobic editors."

shows one of Fae's supporters making a short-lived but quite telling claim " I am persuaded that anti-gay attitudes were involved, no matter how carefully certain people might claim that they steered just shy of the mark. More to the point, harassment and smearing Ash/Fae with outrageously false allegations were definitely part of this process." The claims about homophobia were not based ion any editor posting improper claims at the RFC/U in any way whatsoever, thus ArbCom should so note that this is, at best, a "straw issue."

Fae directed me to . I commend ArbCom to read it.

Some editors acted in a grossly uncivil manner on the RFC/U, making name-calling attacks

I ask the Committee to review the RFC/U, paying attention to such edits as etc.

Collect (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Michaeldsuarez

Current word length: 191; diff count: 11.

Censoring rebuttals and the perpetuation of Wnt's faulty accusations

I didn't indent to present evidence so early, but Collect's statement above provides a link to this diff by Wnt, so I feel that the whole stories needs to be given. Wnt misunderstood Delicious carbuncle's WR post completely, and I attempted to state what Delicious carbuncle really meant: . Unfortunately, Fred Bauder suppressed that diff, but I hope that ArbCom can view that diff and see what DC really meant.

The suppression had the effect of perpetuating Wnt's faulty accusations, since no one can view the rebuttal. Fæ also played a part in allowing the inaccuracies to live on. Fæ repeated Wnt's accusations (, ) and recommended the diff containing Wnt's allegations to Collect: . Fæ also recently censored my defense of DC (, , ), so we once again find ourselves in a situation where users can't view the rebuttal.

Fæ recently requested () the suppression of an ANI discussion where DC refutes (, ) Wnt's accusation, so now we're at risk of having yet another rebuttal censored. How long is Wnt's misinformation about DC going to live on? Due to the constant censorship of rebuttals and spread of the misinformation by Fæ, Wnt's accusations will probably live on forever.

Evidence presented by ReverendWayne

Current word length: 102; diff count: 0.

Fæ failed to respond to a proper query about his conduct

When it had become clear that Fæ's participation in the RFC/U was unlikely, I posted to his talk page to ask about his statement at RfA. He did not respond, nor did he offer any reason for not responding. I have no history with Fæ and have not participated in any off-wiki discussions concerning him. My question did not require him to identify any old account(s). In my query I referred to Misplaced Pages's policy on administrator accountability, so I must conclude that he was not ignorant of that policy, but rather did not consider himself bound to follow it. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 199; diff count: 19.

Fae

• The following diffs list the instances in which Fae has directed general or specific allegations of homophobia, harassment, or other pejorative motivations at other editors. Some of the diffs refer to WR/WPC participants, many of whom are editors and/or admins in good standing here, as a "traveling circus":

(partially retracted) sweeping accusation (although it may have some substance because of a comment YouReallyCan made for which he later apologized) , (interesting aside ) (more to come)

• The following diffs show Fae refusing to engage in dispute resolution or respond to questions:
• Possibly questionable admin action: PaoloNapolitano block reduction , possible WR connection, to which Fae has expressed strong feelings (see diffs above about "traveling circus")

(more to come)

Other editors

During the Fae RfC, a number of editors engaged in egregious ad hominem personal attacks, accusing other editors who were critical of Fae, either specifically or in general, of being motivated by homophobia or other negative motivations. I listed the editors by name, with specific diffs, in this section, then asked each one of them not to repeat the behavior. As far as I know, most of those listed followed my advice. There were, however, a few that did not. A few others not listed also later engaged in the same type of egregious attacks. I will list their account names with supporting, specific diffs below:

• Nobody Ent- "homophobes"- appears to have been intended as sarcasm
• Armbrust- links to "homophobes" comment
• Prioryman- edit wars to relink to "homophobes" comment
• Russavia- (may be a response to a rude, trolling comment )

(more names and diffs to follow)

Evidence presented by Nobody Ent

The Committee is just going to have figure it out themselves

I've read the Sir Fozzie instructions five times. I've read the case statement three times. I've watched the Cla68 / Lord Roem edit war over Cla68's evidence. I have no idea where to start. The nature of the issues are such that trying to break the contribution history down into bitesize chunks without running afoul of all the rules just isn't going to be feasible.

Meaning depends on context; if ArbCom wants to decide if the allegations against Fae are true they're just going to have to wade through the contributions. Please see Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Unacceptable_homophobic_attacks_by_Youreallycan.2FOff2riorob and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#AndyTheGrump.

Not a cleanstart

The cleanstart policy as of 28 March 2010 -- date of creation of Fae account stated If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. The editor continued making edits as Ash through 12 April 2010. When accepting his Rfa announcement he incorrectly stated he cleanstarted after his RFC/U; however the RFC/U did not terminate until 10 May 2010Nobody Ent 21:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U was legit

Community consensus was the RFC/U was legit -- it was listed 29 Jan and remained list until 28 Feb

Evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate

No evidence of outing concerning this case

With this case, the account editors are attempting to link to Fæ contained no identifying information that Fæ has not already offered up voluntarily. As far back as December 2010 Fæ provided a direct link to the Wikimedia UK page on his user page and freely identified himself as a member of the foundation. Back in April of 2011 the page on Wikimedia UK's board of trustees plainly identified Fæ as Ashley Van Haeften. It is not credible to claim outing now when the only personal information that would be brought to light can be easily found by clicking through Fæ's user page this very moment. All information linking the two accounts and all personal information obtained about Fæ, as far as I can tell, has been made available by Fæ and so no violation of WP:OUTING has occurred.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by FeydHuxtable

User MBisanz

Myself and others have talked about this at length, indicating he ought to improve his dispute resolution skills to a level commensurate with his authority here as a crat. For example, see these diffs from almost three years ago, along with many other statements on both the talk and main page of the RFC the link to.

Nothing remotely near consensus that Fæ is a "problem" user

Per Collect's claim above, 46 accounts did indeed endorse the ThemFromSpace view at the recent RFC - but this didnt make any claim about Fæ being generally problematic - it claimed he left under a cloud but otherwise was about his RfA. And 34 editors endorsed a largely opposing view, which said that at Fæ's RFA "In no way was anyone misled" (bolding in the original. ) At a stretch one might claim there was consensus that if the old RFC had been linked to at Fæ's RFA, then it would not have passed. But that is a totally different matter than from claiming Fæ is a "problem" user. Not all statements from the WR accounts and their supporters are as transparently false, so I echo Nobody Ent's request that even more than in a usual case, Arbs investigate for themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Prioryman

Fae's previous account was not a major issue in his RFA

The existence of Fae's previous account was raised at the outset in his RFA nomination. During the RFA, 128 editors voted for him, 23 against and 6 neutral – 81.5% in favour, 18.5% opposed or neutral. 6 supporters mentioned the issue of the previous account but said they were OK with it. 8 opposers and 5 neutrals cited it as a reason not to support the nomination. In total, only 19 out of 157 participants (12.1%) even mentioned the issue. A majority (16 of 29 editors, or 56%) of those neutral or opposed did not cite it in their rationales. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that disclosure has significantly changed minds among supporters

179 editors participated in Fae's RFA, the RfC/U against User:Ash and a July 2011 discussion on AN/I. All were notified of Fae's RfC/U via a bot posting and had the opportunity to indicate if disclosure of the previous account in the new RfC/U had changed their minds about supporting Fae. During the Fae RfC/U, some editors claimed that the RFA would not have passed if there had been full disclosure of the previous account. However, there is no evidence that the vast majority of editors who voted for Fae's adminship have changed their minds. 128 editors voted for Fae in the RFA but only 8 (comprising 6% of his supporters) said in the Fae RfC/U that they had changed their minds about supporting him. 17 editors who participated in the RFA, including both supporters and opponents, agreed with the proposition in the Fae RfC/U that "in no way was anyone misled." Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.