Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

The banning of Ashley van Haeften (User:Fae) has now broke through into the mainstream media, delivering another black eye to WP. "Chairman of Wikipedia charity banned after pornography row."

Why has Fae not done the right thing and resigned his position as head of Wikimedia UK following the decision of ArbCom in his case? Does he not understand politics? Is he in denial???

Fae — for god's sake, do the right thing for the good of The Project. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ow noes - major national press reports - infamy - increased profile of the arbitration result reflect negatively in real life on the user and in turn on the Wikipedia project, especially the Wikimedia UK in relation to the subjects extremely high status and profile in that org . National high profile press articles linking Wikipedia UK's charity status to pornography issues for which its chair has been banned from editing the central Wikipedia project are a sure net loss to charitable contributions and ongoing status. - Youreallycan 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sweated. The title couldn't be more misleading. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - "Fundraising materials boast that Wikipedia “is a safe and trustworthy website for children to do their research”, yet Wikimedia Commons makes massive volumes of pornography freely available to any Wikipedia visitor. " - and Mr van Haeften was not banned for posting explicit material, but for where he posted it, his reaction to criticism for doing so and violations of editing rules. (content copy pasted from the linked telegraph external article, only for discussion and not for republishing) - Youreallycan 06:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's be blunt, this is the result of an ongoing campaign against sex-related content by the likes of Peter Cohen, JN466, Peter Damian (who's not only banned here but is physically banned from attending WMUK events) and various cranks and nutters on Wikipediocracy/Wikipedia Review who fantasise about getting Wikipedia shut down. Having failed to persuade the community here, they're trying to bully and pressure Wikipedia through external means such as political lobbying - even making anti-Fae submissions to the UK parliament - and now evidently someone has been shopping stories to the right-wing press. No doubt the people behind this story are trying to tout it around other outlets as well. It's deplorable and an utter betrayal of the spirit of friendly cooperation that Wikipedians are supposed to operate in. Put simply, disputes about Wikipedia's content should be resolved on-wiki, not escalated into off-wiki smear campaigns against specific individuals. Prioryman (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is fairly blunt, Prioryman, especially since you aren't backing up your allegations with any evidence. I think you may be committing a fairly egregious personal attack. JN466 and Peter Cohen, in particular, are editors in good standing. Cla68 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• as we are being blunt Prioryman... Fae is banned here, so has no direct avenue for response. So I will keep this short. It's deplorable and an utter betrayal of the spirit of friendly cooperation that Wikipedians are supposed to operate in.; Ashley violated this spirit first - in nasty and vindictive ways, for which there is amply evidence. Which is why ultimately, the Arbcom was raised. Although there has been off-wiki harrassment, there has also been reasonable criticism and efforts to bring him to account - made difficult to the squirming, circling of wagons and general evasivness of Fae and his supporters. This recent coverage really stems from the fact that Ashley and the WMUK board are staunchly trying to weather the storm - in the face of serious concern amongst WMUK members. If you are looking for a bully, you need only look at one person. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least two, actually.VolunteerMarek 08:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the recent discussions, at EN and at the "WP criticism" pages (actually they contain more personal attacks then criticism), it indicates to me that Prioryman is writing the right thing. But since Jimbos talk page got one point of interest for those "critics", as we can see them pop up right after every such rightful comment, it doesn't make sense to me to elaborate the details. It would be like reciting Faust while having annoyed cobras around yourself. In my eyes it is shameful. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• News headline has positive spin "banned after pornography": That Telegraph article is extremely positive, in terms of "family values", to help Wikipedia's reputation as fighting against attitudes which conflict with society's norms. Considering how liberal many societies already have become, any such press is a positive spin to show the leadership of WP actively restraining, or banning, excessive promotion or links to pornography. I regret that any person has to be tied to a strong demonstration that WP actively fights improper activities, but the headline will do wonders to reassure wary people who have "heard rumors" that Wikipedia management actively promotes porn, instead: "Chairman of Wikipedia charity banned after pornography row". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the article, then you can see little Larry Sangers constructing and organizing the letters and words. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 09:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The failed encyclopedist Sanger features prominently in the recently published Fox article too, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's involved in pushing the hostile briefing against Fae. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will you quit it with the personal attacks AND the BLP violations? Last I checked Sanger was still a living person and BLP applies this page as it does to any other. And btw, you're not exactly helping yourself here.VolunteerMarek 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And one of the harassers subsequently went and wrote an attack article (now deleted) on Fae. Can't say i'm really surprised. Silverseren^C 09:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the question of whether Mr. van Haeften satisfies the general notability guide would be a rather interesting one to put to the test. Why don't you give us your Article Rescue Squadron-oriented opinion on this, Seren. You and the ARS crew has argued fervently to retain articles on women with large breasts fired from their job, flight attendants who yell at the passengers, a woman who fell into mail fountains, a girl who hiccups too much, the husband of a Republican presidential candidate, a dead cat with helicopter blades attached to its paws, and so on. Now we have an individual who is the chair of a registered charity, Wikimedia UK, who now appears in multiple reliable sources because of this incident. Surely that merits some consideration for article inclusion? Tarc (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E as you well know. You would be yelling that from the rooftops if it was about anyone other than Fae. Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps. But the boilerplate ARS defense to BLP1E is to declare the event to be notable. So, perhaps someone wil ltake a stab at 2012 WMUK Chairman Firing Controversy, or some such. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed that would make sense, if this encyclopedia were still living up to its principles. Wnt (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's impossible to write up such an article without violating Wikipedia review's copyright. Count Iblis (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - A good faith position to take here is to accept that there are many supporters of the family of Wikipedia projects that are concerned about the unfiltered access to porn that the project is currently offering - I predict here and now, as I did in Fae's case - this issue will end in a train crash for Wikipedia if the good faith concerns are not addressed. - Youreallycan 12:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long people spread bad faith messages like this, it will surely divide the community. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the bad faith? - My comment is simply my personal prediction on what will happen if this problem is not addressed - Clearly the community is divided on this - as it is on all difficult issues but that is no excuse not to do the hard work to address users good faith concerns, - Youreallycan 12:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But image filter arguments are a tad off topic here for this thread. The Telegraph may have tried to link this story to our porn debate, but the two are quite distinct. Remember Ash's response to criticism of his editing of Gay pornstars was to withdraw from that topic. If this was really about porn that withdrawl would have ended the matter. My view as someone who has argued for an image filter and even designed one option, is that we can get consensus for an image filter providing we keep that debate focussed on creating a system whereby those who want to opt out of seeing certain things here can do so without censoring what others see. ϢereSpielChequers 12:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Personally imo to protect the projects broader mission , if there is no support for a content filter I would split the pornographic content away from the charitable status part of the project completely - creating a totally independent Pornographic/Adult content Wiki. Youreallycan 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the sharper the divide between what you want to define as porn and what you don't the harder it is to get consensus. Luckily in my experience there aren't that many who object in principle to a genuinely optional filter, providing that you can tune it to your personal boundaries as to what you do or don't want to see. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it can be bypassed by page/image then the filter can be coarse and block a wide range of images. For example I may have nudity and greater selected, and browse to a page on Rubens the images may initially be blanked out (if the filter is extemely coarse), but so long as I have a simple method to reveal then everything is fine. If I find that I'm always having to 'reveal' then I may change the fileter setting. John lilburne (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that even a filter won't put an end to the porn debates. After all (gasp) think of the children.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sad but true, see my paragraph below. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright to rubbish the "think of the children" argument if you make it clear in fundraisers and publicity materials that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for adults. But Wikipedia wants to have it both ways, presenting itself as childsafe and free of risky content in fundraisers, and a boon to the little girl in Africa or Brazil and kids doing homework everywhere. Wikimedia wants the money of people who think of the children, it just doesn't want to do anything for children itself. It's hypocritical, isn't it? --JN466 14:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John Lilburne. One divide amongst those who want a filter would appear to be between those who don't see the need for the complexity of a filter setting and those who see that as essential. Me I'm not bothered whether someone would want to set the filter at swimsuit or what in the UK we'd call topshelf. As long as the setting of the filter is personal to the individual and I can set the filter where it suits me I'm OK, the problem is that some people want a nice simple filter that has one single definition of porn. I suspect they assume that the definition that we'd end up with would be the one that works best for them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Youreallycan: I did not refer to your comment as a bad faith assumption. I meant the article, it's dubious headline and it's superficial content.

I would not like the idea to create an adult Wiki. There are many topics that fall under both categories and it strongly depends in which context the articles are seen or used. Violence or even sexual depiction might not be a problem if pupils (children or children close to be adults) use them for educational reasons, with the necessary guidance. In such a case you would barely see any complaints and people are happy to use our resources. But of course you will find the opposite opinions as well. A good example is the solution represented by the San Francisco Public Library. They increased the privacy of the user, but did not start filtering, because they follow the Library Bill Of Rights. I wish that Wikipedias community and the WMF could be as wise as well and use them as a reference. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that guidance supposed to come from? If you look up caning, you get a BDSM navigation template with links to illustrated articles on tit torture and cock and ball torture (sexual practice). If you look up gel bracelet, or fuck, you get similar navigation templates leading to articles on the most bizarre, rare or even entirely made-up kinds of kink. How do children tell what is a normal, common sexual practice and what isn't? Wikipedia sure doesn't tell them the prevalence, and the articles are written by practitioners. And if you look up koto, a musical instrument to most people, the first link on the disambig page is to a pornstar bio. --JN466 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong. But i wonder how you navigate through a library or the Internet. Do you always start with a BDSM term if you want too look for a book about cocking? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 14:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) PS: Do you expect to look at a flower if you click on the link "Hikaru Koto, former porn star" inside koto?[reply]

I'm always amused by these arguments. In eight years as a Wikipedian, I can't recall ever accidentally finding porn. A lot of the complaints read to me as "I went looking for porn, I found it, and now I'm offended!" It is kind of like searching for a book on the occult then claiming the local library encourages witchcraft. Resolute 14:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't ever recall accidentally finding porn on WP. But, then again, I'm never not looking for it. Formerip (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kids look for it. It's absolutely natural. And what they find should have some educational value and present things in context, rather than being merely the how-to guide and fap stash of the local tit torture or zoophilia fan. --JN466 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they look for it, and let me tell you, there are many places to find much better porn than Wikipedia. We're the Sears Catalogue of it, not the Hustler. Your argument there seems to be that the articles need improvement more than anything. Give it a crack, eh? ;) Resolute 14:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for making clear that you had no idea what you were talking about in your preceding post. I'd like to see a cooperation between sex education experts and Wikipedia, to get Wikipedia's sexology articles to a level where they might begin to make some educational sense. I'd consider that more important than GLAM outreach. That's what I'd like to see a Wikimedia UK chairman do, rather than uploading bondage pictures of himself in an exercise of narcissism. --JN466 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an multi-wikiproject effort to get Birth control up to Good Article status so we can start translating improvements to some of the wikipedias with relatively large numbers of readers per editors. Please join in and help. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how silly you sound? I had to look at the caning article 3 times looking for that template before noticing it hiding out requiring me to find it and click on it to open those options up. "If you look up gel bracelet, or fuck, you get similar navigation templates leading to articles on the most bizarre, rare or even entirely made-up kinds of kink." Or even entirely made-up kink? That's the point of the box and you're making it part of the argument. I'd never heard of the gel bracelet 'controversy' myself, but if it's considered notable enough to be included, I guess the box fits. Please be specific about what Fuck links to that you don't think someone searching for FUCK doesn't want to see or find. Seriously. --Onorem♠Dil 15:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking first and foremost about everything in the Sexual slang template. Topics like Pearl_necklace_(sexuality), felching, rusty trombone, saddlebacking, glory hole, etc. Many of these articles are poorly sourced, and poorly written, focusing on mentions in pop culture rather than their relationship to and meaning within human sexuality. Psychological insight is usually completely absent. Some of them, like the pearl necklace article, could be converted into redirects (in this case, to mammary intercourse) without loss of encyclopedic value. As encyclopedia articles, they are little better than Urban Dictionary. The whole approach smacks of a curiosity cabinet designed to appeal to Beavis and Butt-head. These articles are well visited, with tens or hundreds of thousands of views each month. Most of them are missed opportunities falling far short of what an encyclopedia should aspire to. Hence the idea to get in some academic help. We've done it for things like public policy and Monmouthpedia; here is a set of high-traffic articles that could desperately do with some improvement and TLC. --JN466 18:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has WMUK taken legal advice as to whether Mr. van Haeften remains a fit and proper person to run a UK charity?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This text is going to be a bit messy but here is the advice we work to from the Charity Commission with a short summary above:

Charity Commission guidelines are very clear. Financial impropriety and conflicts of interest, bankruptcy or convictions are the main obstacles.

Official guidance:

E1 Can anyone be appointed as a trustee?

Symbol showing legal requirementThe short answer:

No. There are legal restrictions on who may be a charity trustee. Additional restrictions may be contained in the charity's governing document. Before appointing a new trustee, the trustee board must make sure that the appointment meets the requirements of the charity's governing document and the law.

In more detail:

When preparing to appoint a new trustee, the trustee board must ensure that the person is qualified to act as a trustee. No-one under the age of 18 can be a trustee of a charitable trust or unincorporated association. However 16 is the minimum age for the appointment of a director, and so, a trustee of a charitable company. Further information on young people as trustees can be found on the Publications and Guidance page on our website.

Some people are disqualified by law from acting as trustees, including anyone described in sections 178 - 180 of the Charities Act 2011. This includes:

anyone who has an unspent conviction for an offence involving deception or dishonesty;

anyone who is an undischarged bankrupt;

anyone who has been removed from trusteeship of a charity by the Court or the Commissioners for misconduct or mismanagement; and

anyone under a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

It is normally an offence to act as a trustee while disqualified unless we have given a waiver under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011, (there are some special provisions applying to the administration of charitable companies). Further information about disqualifications and waivers of disqualification can be found in our staff guidance OG41 and OG42 which can be accessed via the Publications and Guidance page on our website.

In addition to the disqualifications detailed in the Charities Act, which apply to all types of charities, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 disqualifies certain individuals from holding a range of positions in children's charities, which includes charity trusteeship. We do not have the authority to give a waiver for this type of disqualification.

The appointment of a trustee must be in accordance with the charity's governing document, which will set out procedures for appointing new trustees, including any restrictions, such as a maximum number of trustees or an age limit. It is important that trustees follow these procedures. If they don't, this could result in the appointment being invalid. If the governing document contains provisions which prevent certain people from acting as charity trustees, we cannot grant a waiver under section 181 of the Charities Act 2011 as we cannot override the provisions within a governing document.

E2 How should charities check on prospective trustees?

The short answer:

Before appointing a trustee, the trustee board should obtain a declaration from the prospective trustee that they are not disqualified. It should also consult official registers of disqualified persons. We strongly recommend that charities working with vulnerable people, with positions which are eligible to obtain Disclosures from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), should do so. In more detail:

As a minimum, the trustee board should ask new trustees to sign a declaration to confirm that they are not disqualified from acting as a charity trustee.

Trustees can also make use of official registers which record the names of people who are disqualified from acting as charity trustees. These include:

(1) The Individual Insolvency Register maintained by the Insolvency Service, which contains details of:

bankruptcies that are either current or have ended in the last three months; current individual voluntary arrangements and fast track voluntary arrangements; and current bankruptcy restriction orders and undertakings.

Searches of the Register can be made on the Insolvency Service website http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/, by visiting your local Official Receiver's office, or by post or fax. You can find contact details for the Insolvency Service in section H.

(2) The register of disqualified directors maintained by Companies House. Searches of the register can be made on the Companies House website, http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/.

(3) The register which we maintain of all persons who have been removed as a charity trustee either by us or by an Order of the High Court since 1 January 1993. A copy of the register is kept in each of the Commission's offices.

Trustees of charities working with children or vulnerable adults should also make additional, more detailed checks, by obtaining a Disclosure from the CRB. We strongly recommend that trustees of charities that can obtain CRB checks take advantage of this option, to ensure both that the person they wish to appoint as a trustee is eligible and to ensure the safety of the charity's beneficiaries. There are some charities that must carry out these checks. You can find more information in section F6.

Further information:

A model declaration form for prospective trustees is available on our website on the About Charities page. Sample declaration of eligibility forms for trustees are also produced by a number of other organisations, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) http://www.askncvo.org.uk/. You can find more information about the CRB and CRB Disclosures in section F.

Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The story appeared on Fox News (Fifty Shades of Wikipedia) an hour ago. From the article: Wikimedia UK chief executive Davies defended the foundation on July 31, writing that meeting to ban Van Haeften was far from secret, as the Telegraph described it, and labelling the ban a sanction at one point. I had read on Wikipedia Talk pages about 'Fae', but I had NO IDEA he was on the Wikimedia UK Board until now. Of course that's an entirely different situation! Just what does Davies consider to be 'transparent'?! 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was at the last two Wikimedia UK AGMs. Both were in Public and Fae was elected both times. His candidacy was not in anyway a secret from the UK chapter or those who follow it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i checked the dates. I assume no one had a TARDIS. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Conference 12 May 2012

Case Opened on 01:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If the Telegraph and Fox News are making noise about this, then that proves that it is good to have Fae stay in his current position. Perhaps ArbCom should think of resigning. The WMF can desysop Admins here, so they could close down ArbCom and reinstate Fae as an editor here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's some twisted logic right there. High-profile, mainstream news media outlets have now taken notice of a WMUK chair being banned from the Wikipedia, the organization that his organization was created to assist. Somehow that proves that Fae was right, Arbcom was wrong, and the bans/resigns should be swapped? Tarc (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I trust he was being sarcastic. Or was stoned. However, the media attention was only a matter of time, especially given the salacious angle. That's why I'm hoping damage control has been contemplated.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, Wikipedia is just a website, and neither The Telegraph nor Fox News know anything about how ArbCom really works. If they knew they would perhaps write something about the amateurish way we do Arbitration here, or they would simply ignore any issues related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia that are not related to problematic content. Count Iblis (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we've lost FoxNews, we've lost Middle America. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can tell. Jon Davies's replies to me suggested that they are following a line that it is impertinent to question poor little Fae just because he was being censured by Arbcom. (I started the correspondence before the ban motion.) If the professional charity runner isn't properly warning volunteer trustees of the trouble they are creating for the charity, then it is hardly surprising that they are taking such bum decisions. Now, is someone there going to have the sense to close the van Haeften chapter before the fundraiser starts and the press can talk about where the money raised goes? The British press won't be dedicating half their space to the Olympics come the Autumn.

As for your original question, they may have taken advice on whether they can be forced to get rid of their Chair, a very different question form whether it is wise to get rid of their Chair. Some people on the Wikimedia UK mailing are talking about getting the signatures together for an EGM about Fae. I suspect that the officials will do their best to obstruct anyone anti-Fae from being able to mail the whole membership and will even then rely on the in-crowd being able to send enough members to an EGM to keep him despite critical votes. Think of all those banks etc that have voted through substantial bonuses for their board despite shareholder and public complaints.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately an EGM is not an option as you need a board member to call one; and that's a non-starter apparently. A number of other options are being actively explored. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, you've done enough damage already with your campaign. Isn't it time to stop? Prioryman (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damage I've done? Six months ago I wrote this:

Again, I have mentioned both on the WMUK mailing list and to Jon Davies face to face that there is a real threat to the charity's reputation if someone were to write to Private Eye about some of the earlier accounts' contributions and, indeed, some of Fae's contributions on Commons while he has been a trustee of WMUK. Greg Kohs online articles aren't taken seriously by anyone. Coverage in PE would be hugely more damaging. That potential danger is removed the moment that Fae stops holding a position with them.

I have also mentioned on this page how Dan Murphy has said repeatedly that he would write an article about van Haeften. Okay, it was the Telegraph and not the Eye and it was Christopher Williams and not Murphy, but van Haeften, Davies and any Wikimedia UK trustees who watched the mailing list or the RFC or this page had all be warned by me that Fae was a PR disaster in the making. Instead of listening to me, they promoted Fae and they did not force him out when Arbcom found against him.

If people are repeatedly warned about the tree that is going to fall down in the next big storm, then it those people's fault when the tree hits their house. Not the builders' or that of the people who planted the tree or the people who gave the warning. Even now van Haeften has not resigned as a WMUK trustee and is still Chair of the WCA. Despite his and his supporters' complaints, he isn't doing anything to stop further press reports about him. He's leaving himself open to any of the numerous people he has abused going to the press with more revelations. And WMUK are leaving themselves open to further stories come the fundraiser. And if WMUK's fundraising is hit by further press stories, it will be their own fault for still not dealing with the van Haeften problem properly.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They won't stop. They've barely begun. As I have said before, the failure to do the right thing in the Fae case represented the point where Wikipedia stops leaking and starts sinking. Right now, at wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=262 , "banned" Greg Kohs is gloating about his unblockability, right here, right now, on this talk page, after apparently putting User:Scottywong in his place as accompanied by a few A Few Good Men style requests for non-harassment. The mainstream news is printing Peter Cohen's talking points. Now Fae, who did so much good work for WMF, is the one on the outside. The question now is not how to save Wikipedia, but how to react to what will presumably be a fairly gradual demise in the most useful way. People still want the things that they'll be censoring, such as the truth, and this creates opportunity. But I fear that Wikipedia will follow the same trajectory as Encyclopedia Dramatica; that what survives after a betrayal from within will be only a battle-hardened fragment. Wnt (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediocracy is quite teh funny thing though, don't you think? Right now their front page has an article with the byline "E. A. Barbour", yattering on about "a white or Asian male... with a failing marriage (if he’s not gay, which many of them are)". Maybe this kind of thing goes down well with Fox or the Telegraph or ED readers, but there is probably a civilised part of the world that isn't much impressed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fox news article posted link to ED article. Should you consider banning Fox News reporter for creating an attack page on an external web site? Wait a minute, he has no account on Wikipedia. Let's ban Larry Sanger instead. D: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.167.137 (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the Telegraph and Fox articles have resulted in a few more journalists and interested observers putting Jimbo's talk page on their watchlists. So, I hope you all continue with the tone of this conversation. It's great stuff for the credibility of Wikipedia and its associated projects. Cla68 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're fairly safe in terms of the probability that the journalist in question is engaged in any actual research. Formerip (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Silverseren^C 00:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 The whole text reads like copy and paste. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of Fae's activities with regards to the porn issue, which I personally don't really care about, wasn't he actually banned for trying to sidestep ArbCom for trying to close the Pandora's box of his linked accounts? WRT the AC case, to be honest, I'm much more concerned about the fact that AC can pass a finding of fact that someone has made a serious violation of the harassment policy, yet not ban them, especially when one arbitrator notes that said user has done the same thing before. We've gone a long way since you could be indeffed for editing the same pages as another user. I don't know which situation I like more. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom used unreliable third hand hearsay evidence to reach the conclusion that Fae was not honest with them. Also, no editor here is without flaws, what really matters is if after some problem has arisen, you can find a way to move forward. Fae had made clear that he would take on board the criticisms that had arisen during the case and would make good on that. But still, ArbCom decided that he needs to be kicked out of Wikipedia basically because he was in contempt of ArbCom. So, ArbCom made itself part of the problem here. So, instead of persuing Fae at WMF, what should be discussed is how to reform ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae had made clear that he would take on board the criticisms that had arisen during the case and would make good on that. - no he did not. If he had "taken on board the criticisms" he would've resigned long time ago and we wouldn't be here, would we (hell, if he had "taken on board the criticisms", there wouldn't even have been an ArbCom case, never-mind newspaper attention)? Instead, what he did is try to weasel his way out of it by offering a non-apology-apology, while at the same time apparently trying to hold on to his position no matter what - in particular, no matter what the damage to the underlying organizations he's suppose to represent. At this point I actually really feel bad for Fae, but that just repeatedly gets trumped by both his self serving refusal to resign his positions of power, as well as this insanely misguided, wrong headed, circling of wagons, "See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil" attitude (if not outright trolling for the lulz) by his supporters (which, ok, maybe isn't exactly his fault, but the fact that he condones it and (probably) encourages it, speaks to intent). Sometimes I can actually imagine a crazy alternative universe where Fae sincerely imagines that someone like Wnt is doing him favors by speaking up. More often I can imagine a slightly less crazy alternative universe where Fae incorrectly believes that having folks like Wnt, and some other of youse, keep up this nonsense, however ridiculous it is, is somehow beneficial to him, strategically. Neither alternative universe is actually real.VolunteerMarek 03:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can dismiss what I say as "nonsense", "insane", and so forth. You've made it so that I honestly don't care what you think, and it is indeed rare in any case for you to open your mouth without uttering an insult. But I resent the implication that I've said anything in all of this for any reason but that it is my honest opinion about the relevant issues. Wnt (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the case discussion I reacted to ArbCom's position by saying "I think that all users need to be formally warned not to post any information to Wikipedia that they do not wish to be permanently and publicly associated with their real name, and to understand that any use of alternate accounts, IPs, etc. to present photos on delicate matters, such as sexually charged topics, will not be respected." And JClemens responded that "That part is basic and common knowledge, and has been for years".^[1] What Fae allegedly wanted Philippe to do was to prevent ArbCom from ordering accounts he set up for privacy on Commons, after harassment so severe that even ArbCom recognized it in sanctions against a few people involved who were within their reach. And they banned him for daring to ask that WMF respect privacy on any project, anywhere, for any reason.

I never got any answer as to whether there is any limit on the time they keep information for doing "checkusers", which includes not just IP addresses but browser information. And they can use all this, divulge all this, merely because of an allegation of impropriety, which is not sustained! Remember EFF's "Panopticlick", warning about unethical Big Brother sites following people around the Web? Well Wikipedia is the kind of site they were warning people about. And no doubt a shining example for others who are less open about how they use such things to attack people. Wnt (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a RFC about ArbCom over this issue to force a community discussion (or perhaps put ArbCom on MFD to basically make it compulsory for the people supporting the present ArbCom system to participate). Count Iblis (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some real prospect that there might be a consensus to delete ArbCom, it sounds like you're suggesting we disrupt wikipedia to make a point. 1.125.255.240 (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt an RFC is going to fix this at this point; it's too hard to get any new people up to speed on all the issues. What I wish is that some members of ArbCom would see that their last resolution has most spectacularly failed to end the underlying conflict, but rather, emboldened the worst of Wikipedia. I wish Jimbo would see that these "allies" he accepted by criticizing Fae here are now gleefully tearing down his work. Maybe that would help. Wnt (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wikiporn is not exactly Jimbo's work. The community did that all by itself, often against Jimbo's express advice, and attacking him when he tried to moderate it. The community made itself this bed to lie in, not Jimbo. JN466 10:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW You just called one-man-deletions a try to moderate, boiled it in "wikiporn" and deemed the whole community as guilty, doing it's job. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 11:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and? Those are the facts. A special share of the responsibility should probably go to the Commons community, which has proven itself wilfully unable to tell the difference between (NSFW) this or (NSFW) this or (NSFW) this, and sex-ed material. JN466 11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disgrace is certainly not that Wikipedia is open to all kinds of content, but that it is open to political purges of highly respected contributors, and I think the article reflected that. Wnt (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of Jimbo's haphazard and ill-conceived deletion spree is that it resulted in numerous resignations of Commons admins. And here we are today, complaining about how long it takes for things to get deleted, how the backlogs grow, etc. Commons was left worse off for that bit of "moderation". Perhaps a warning some here should consider. Resolute 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple observation: AvH was told by a number of people to back down at multiple times rather than have this go to ArbCom. He had been advised by many to admit what faults were real, and not to plan on surviving full scrutiny. I suspect this advice was given by people at the higherst level several times. This was not a "political purge" in any sense, it was an attempt by ArbCom to ensure that Wikipedia maintains the same rules for all editors, and any other editor who did exactly what AvH did would have been barred a long time since. Lest anyone view me as "Anti-AvH", I would point out my edits at the RfC/U, and at the ArbCom case as indicating that I hoped the case would not be dragged out to a conclusion involving banning anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for course of action

• I was thinking this over for awhile, and I think one course of action that concerned WM UKer's should consider, since the current Board is covering their ears with their hands, is to start their own, competing WM UK organization. Then, petition the WMF to rescind the current WM UK's charter and recognize the new organization as the rightful WM UK. Follow that up with a notification to the UK government that the original WM UK is no longer recognized by the WMF. Jimbo could actually be of help in getting something like this done. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, a petition for an EGM has been posted. All interested parties should participate. Cla68 (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone over there might want to fix the link at wmuk:Call for EGM 2012#Statement to link to w:en:User:Fæ instead of to w:uk:User:Fæ (taht's teh Ukrainian Wikipedia;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to note that it was been fixed. KTC (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae has resigned

I've just had an email from Jon Davies saying Ashley has resigned and a new chair is to be elected tonight. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there you go. ArbCom has no jurisdiction outside of Wikipedia (oh wait, they actually do, despite policy), but they sure as heck can have a very massive effect on someone's life, effectively ruining them. Yet, they undergo no training. Jimbo, I wonder when WMF will start to think this is a highly irresponsible approach to management of this project? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who is fairly unfamiliar with this, only having seen it on the sidelines for a while, how do you suppose this escalated so far if this Fae person is 'innocent' of anything, and what would have avoided all the drama? -- Avanu (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not asserting guilt or innocence on the part of Fae. That isn't the point. The point is that ArbCom has no formal training whatsoever, and their decisions have directly affected the professional life of an editor here. Neither of these points of fact are apparently in dispute. The fact that ArbCom can and has had a direct effect on someone's professional life yet lack any formal training for their appointed roles speaks to a very serious management issue on the part of Jimbo and/or the WMF. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded by this at all. What sort of formal training would have changed the outcome here? They made a very solid decision based on facts.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jimbo, I can not further respond to this here without getting knee-jerk blocked for making supposed legal threats (which I haven't, and won't). Saying that much by itself should be enough to shed light on the very serious nature of what has happened in recent cases. Juxtaposing that with ArbCom's status as an amateur body should be alarming to you. If it isn't, then there's not much point in further discussion on the training issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a unanimous decision, and the minority included a lawyer - NewYorkBrad, which rather boosts Hammersoft's point re Arbcom needing formal training. As for the idea that it was based on "facts", the turning point for the ban was because of a conversation between two people at Wikimania. The majority of Arbcom decided not to believe one of those people's versions of the conversation and I'm not aware that they even checked with the other that they'd correctly interpreted his version. Even if you have rung the other person in that conversation and asked him whether Arbcom correctly interpreted his version of events as contradicting Fae's, it would be stretching a point to describe the decision to ban Fae as based on facts. ϢereSpielChequers 00:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of professional life exactly is affected by being banned from wikipedia?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Telegraph article Fae is an IT Project Manger in RL and he had a "volunteer role" as Chair of Wikimedia UK i.e. unpaid. Hamersoft's point therefore seems overstated. I suppose it might be relevant to a Wikimedia employee who was indeffed. But presumably any admin could do that, not just ArbCom. DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Not overstated at all. What if Fae should re-enter the job market and would-be employers search the Internet for articles about him? ArbCom's decision has had a direct effect on his professional life. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then he'll be in the situation of any other person who's gotten himself in trouble by doing stuff on the internet they wouldn't like their future or current bosses to know about. That is not really on the order of human rights violations in my book. Doing stuff on the internet has consequences and they are not always predictable. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's kinda what happens to guilty people; they don't get the benefit of a clean reputation anymore. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be fair and equitable if the system under which a person was found guilty were fair and equitable. That is not the case with ArbCom. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess we must have different recollections of what actually happens in an Arbcom case. My recollection is that everyone who wants to gets to have a say, present evidence, and argue the arguments. Sounds pretty fair & equitable to me, unless one's definition of fair & equitable is "its only fair if you find in my favor". Tarc (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have found a number of shortcomings in the ArbCom process. One of them is the inability of respondents to view all evidence being held by ArbCom against them. I consider that to be unfair. Another is the word limit restrictions on the accused parties. On small cases, this is not an issue. On large cases with many editors submitting evidence, it permanently hamstrings the accused from adequately responding to evidence presented. I consider that to be unfair. ArbCom is not required to show any linkage between Remedies and Findings of Fact. In essence, this constitutes summary judgement. I think this is unfair. Arbitrators can list themselves as recused for a case, but can vote for acceptance of that case. I think this is unfair. I could go on for quite a while here. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, escalation means that disputes get more heated not that disputes get resolved. So if one points to an escalation, then that is usually a sign of a failed dispute resolution process and it typically doesn't tell you much about who was right or wrong in the underlying dispute that started it all. E.g. in April 2004 there was a big battle in Falluja, and that could eventually be traced back to Saddam's WMD, that actually did not exist. Count Iblis (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of this would have ensued had Fae said "mea culpa" at the RfC/U and placed himself up for RfA again. Collect (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but I wonder if you're underestimating the determination of his pursuers. Formerip (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Or underestimating ArbCom's lack-of-training induced incompetence. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on here, Hammersoft. What kind of "training" do you think arbitrators should have? Who is going to pay for it? Given that arbitrators are spread around the globe, what if they aren't in a position to fly to wherever it is that the training will be held? If some sort of training was offered, would arbitrators (and Arbcom candidates) then get ripped for "wasting" donation money? On what grounds are you correlating lack of "training" with the result of Fae's situation? Is there a reason why you are not inquiring what kind of training is provided to Chapter board members and chairs (who have access to funds to pay for such training)? I do hope you will run for the Arbitration Committee this fall, so that you can actively participate in addressing the concerns you seem to have. Risker (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really admire you for giving his accusations a serious response.. --Conti|✉ 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've moved further discussion on this point to the subsection below. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is said in government resignations, his presence had become a distraction. That's an actual issue, not just some line. This had gone beyond blaming and finger-pointing. This needed to be ended so Wikipedia could move on. The Telegraph has reported his resignation and what's coming next. Quote from Davies: "He is keen that there should be no division in the Wikimedia UK community over his role as Chair, especially at a time when so many great things are being achieved. He has therefore resigned as Chair." 184.78.81.245 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea - Anonymous users (ya-all know who you are) that encouraged and supported Fae towards this real life crash due to his being real life exposed should be ashamed. - This site has a serious problem with advocacy and promotion of minority issues by interested users. A few anonymous users with fringe beliefs caused all this shameful issue - and they are still here , this is not over at all, there are still serious problems at Commons and at Wiki UK - The Arbcom made a simple easy and clearly correct decision in this case. - Youreallycan 18:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support blue - a quick look at the users edit history shows a single focus on supporting blue - User supports blue. Keep anything blue - lol - Youreallycan 19:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "What if Fae should re-enter the job market and would-be employers search the Internet for articles about him? "

  I believe that that is covered by: WP:REALNAME? - jc37 19:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So, since we have a policy on this it's ok for anyone to say anything about someone, most especially if it is their real name? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING in particular. (easier for me to point to the sections than to try to re-explain what is already there.) - jc37 19:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As the community matures so there are increasing pressures for people to disclose their real names. It helps if you are involved in our GLAM outreach, it wouldn't surprise me if it was encouraged in our educational programs, it is certainly required of charity trustees like Fae and it is almost universal amongst those who take WMF contracts. If we are going to encourage editors to link to their real life identities then we need to be a bit more cautious as to how we handle their reputations online. The way that Arbcom currently works is more akin to a bouncer than a magistrate. Instead of there being a presumption of innocent until proven guilty they seem to be working on a balance of probabilities. Combine that with the lack of an independent appeal process, the use of evidence that isn't necessarily disclosed to the accused and the shift from proportionate to punitive sanctions and you get the current unsatisfactory situation. ϢereSpielChequers 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The attempts to use and abuse posters' identities will not be going away - they are integral to the Wikipediocracy model. For the theoretical underpinning, see lilburne's comment on a meeting between Peter Damien and Jon Davies ( wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=319 ), in which he quotes Alinsky's 13th rule of power tactics, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" This is what was done to Fae - all the WO people have been steadfastly going after him and only him; they've used photos and sexual traits to personalize the situation; they've made the situation entirely polarized. As Alinsky writes, they chose a target who seemed vulnerable, and one in a position of power. Then on Page 2 you see them setting up for a run on Risker. Though I see they're also mulling over Courcelles on another thread - I don't think we'll know who they'll go after until they decide, but as per this tactic, they won't change targets afterward. I doubt they'll settle for anything less than an Arb, though. Wnt (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom training

Risker, I'm splitting this out so it isn't buried in the above thread; it's an important point and one worth discussion I think, whether here or elsewhere.

Hold on here, Hammersoft. (Q1) What kind of "training" do you think arbitrators should have? (Q2) Who is going to pay for it? (Q3) Given that arbitrators are spread around the globe, what if they aren't in a position to fly to wherever it is that the training will be held? (Q4) If some sort of training was offered, would arbitrators (and Arbcom candidates) then get ripped for "wasting" donation money? (Q5) On what grounds are you correlating lack of "training" with the result of Fae's situation? (Q6) Is there a reason why you are not inquiring what kind of training is provided to Chapter board members and chairs (who have access to funds to pay for such training)? (Q7) I do hope you will run for the Arbitration Committee this fall, so that you can actively participate in addressing the concerns you seem to have. Risker (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, I've taken the liberty of adding "Qx" numbering notation to your questions to better enable my responses. I hope you don't mind. Responding to your questions:

Q1: There are a number of professional opportunities for arbitration training (ex: [2]). Some organizations require such training (ex: [3]). I am quite confident that the WMF could contract with one or more professionals in this field to develop a body of training appropriate to what arbitration committees are tasked with.

Q2: The WMF.

Q3: Online training opportunities are virtually ubiquitous in today's world. Disparate geophysical locations are no longer an obstacle to training.

Q4: There are plenty of contrasting questions to this, such as can we afford not to?

Q5: The answer is self evident. If you have an arbitration panel consisting of people with no training in arbitration, it is unreasonable to expect competent results.

Q6: I am not discussing the WMF or Chapter board members; my attention here is ArbCom. I believe the WMF suffers from a number of problems. I have commented elsewhere about such issues.

Q7: First, I choose to remain only in the most important position on this project; editor. Someone even once forced me to have the rollbacker right. I asked for it to be undone by that person (and they did). Second, membership or lack thereof in ArbCom does not qualify me or disqualify me from participating in effecting change with ArbCom. Your membership on ArbCom does not confer any rights on you to effect change or prevent change on ArbCom. I fail to see how my being on ArbCom would grant me any special powers.

--Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got some problems here with your logic, Hammersoft. I can accept that you (and many others) don't like the result of a case. That does not mean that "training" would have given a different result. And, excuse me, but you've failed to address the cost issue appropriately. Arbcom does not have access to WMF funds. If the WMF was to sponsor "education" for arbitrators, it would have to do so for all of the arbitration committees — roughly 100 people spread around the world — and these sessions cost in the range of $10,000 per person. Now, I'm not opposed to being provided with "training", but that's an awful lot of money, especially if travel expenses are added in. (And no, there's no way to justify training *only* English Wikipedia arbitrators, except possibly as an "experiment".) Frankly, quite a few arbitrators over the year have been elected by the community *because* they aren't involved in any other WMF-related activities, and in some cases at least in part for voicing opposition to proposals from the WMF. How can they retain their independence from the WMF if, as a requirement of being a member of the committee, they must take a WMF-sponsored (and approved) training session? What happens to an arbitrator who does not participate in this training - is their election by the community invalidated? If they don't "pass" the course, are they forced to resign? Are they going to be compensated in some way for taking this mandatory education you propose?

And I very much disagree with your belief that Arbcom membership does not confer any "rights" [I'd call them responsibilities] to effect change on the committee; if I believed that, I wouldn't bother wasting my time. Arbitrators are chosen specifically because they are *not* puppets on a string, as far as I can tell. I've never seen any candidate supported with words like "will do exactly what we tell him to do" or "has no desire to change things so is perfect". I think perhaps you're a bit out of step with the community on that point. Risker (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My concerns vis-a-vis training have nothing to do with a particular case. I am not expecting a different result for a particular case as a result of training. Your assertion that training would cost $10,000 per person is unsupported. Yes, if they did not take the training they would not be permitted to serve. This is no different than the current requirement that the WMF must have arbitrators' real identities on file. You believe that being on ArbCom grants you special privileges to effect change on ArbCom? What special privileges might those be? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hammersoft, as I write this I've got half a dozen promotional packets from recognized traning groups for different types of dispute resolution training, and the least expensive of the lot is $15,000 for a course, with prices ranging upwards of $50,000. Now, having worked with similar programs before, I figure if we were really lucky, we could get a stripped-down course without certification for quite a bit less; however, any customization of the training would result in a commensurate increase in cost. Have you done any research on it at all? Are you aware of any courses that specialize in dispute resolution for online forums?

And yes, I believe that the broad support of the community granted to members of the Arbitration Committee confers a responsibility on the committee to address concerns and to consider and develop new processes - usually in consultation with the community. The AUSC was developed in consultation with the community, and features community members. Community involvement in selection of checkusers and oversighters was developed in consultation with the community. But at the end of the day, the community has selected the members of the Arbitration Committee to make decisions; that's our responsibility. If you want to restructure arbitration process (including candidate selection and appointment requirements, case management, grant applications to the WMF, and so on), that's up to you, but don't expect other people to do the heavy lifting for you. At this point, you've not illustrated that there's actually a problem that the community feels should be fixed. You've still not shown any correlation between "training" and results. Risker (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Risker, as I write this I have zero assessments on my desk of the training required, means of conducting that training, and expenses involved. No, I haven't done any research on it at all and neither have you, so you are not in any more position to declare what the expenses of the training would be anymore than I am. Discussing what the costs are now is seriously cart before the horse. We don't know what the needs are as no assessment has been done. We don't know what the alternatives are to addressing those needs. But, we're ready to conclude what the costs are? I don't understand this. Why is there such resistance on your part? I'm not asking you to do any heavy lifting. But criminy I'm not asking you to do heavy lifting to shoot it down either. Accepting a structure where group incompetence is guaranteed is astonishing. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You have to have estimates on what potential training would cost before you do the assessments because you have to know if its worth the time and effort to do the assessment to begin with. That is standard operating procedure out in the real world. So it is definitely not cart before the horse. If you think the arbs should be trained its up to you to make your case by doing a mini assessment on your own which would include estimated prices so you can make your pitch the community at large to take the time and effort to do a full assessment and proposal. You certainly never jump into this kind of assessment without already having done a cursory assessment on which to decide if a full scale assessment should be done. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks, Hammersoft. In what way is "group incompetence" guaranteed? Is this the way you feel about all elected roles? You've been going on about the need for "training" for arbitrators for quite a while now in various forums, but you've not given any indication of what *you* think arbitrators need to be trained to do. Dispute resolution programs resulting in certification are very expensive; customized ones even more so, because their potential audience is limited. They're also very time-consuming, between 50 and 500 hours of time that a person needs to invest. As I said below, it's your cart, and you started it careering down the hill. Time for you to start supporting your own claims. Risker (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take it Hammersoft is not a fan of representative democracy. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So now we have to devolve into my political stance in order to shoot this down?!?!?!?! Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, and I'll strike that. I was trying to make a point through sarcasm, and text didn't convey it. I stand by my intended point though: ArbCom is an elected body. We elect them because we think they're the right people for the job. If we didn't think that, we could elect other people instead. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I trust you will pay the (roughly) $50K per person needed for that training by reputable in-person trainers. Short seminars would only run $5K per person, so let's be cheap and ask who will pay the $80K+ for the training. In short - we might as well ask that editors be trained as well while we are at it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And now Risker's unsupported assertion of $10K per person balloons to an unsupported $50K per person? There's plenty of 4 year institutions that would not require $50k in tuition to graduate. We're not talking about a four year degree in arbitration here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are real - I suggest you look at college fee schedules for post-graduate studies on this. A four year course would run on the order of $150K plus. It is a specialized post-graduate area. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hammersoft, if you feel those numbers are unrealistic, would you do the research that finds otherwise? Personally, I think that 50K is unrealistic, but although 10K seems excessive and unfair, it's probably pretty accurate. Running off my own guesstimates, though, I'd predict $7500 per person for a 2-day training, not including travel expenses. I'm also going to guesstimate a flat $20K one-time for developing the training curriculum. I'll take Risker's number of 100 arbs across the various projects at face value. That comes to $770K total, just for current arbs. And any new arbs would have to be trained, too. Guesstimate of 20 new arbs a year who haven't been trained previously. So $770K the first time, and an additional $150K a year. Even going for conservatively cheap guesstimates, that adds up bigtime. Where does the money come from? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think any assessment of the cost of training can be done until a decision is made about what that training would comprise. The entire model of training would have to be concluded as well before any assessment could be made. If online training were done, for example, no travel would be required. We're putting the cart before the horse here "bigtime". --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's your cart, Hammersoft, and your case to make. Risker (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Therefore, best to shoot it down before it gets off the table? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) And, just to add, that model-design would probably cost money to put it together in a way that will be taken seriously too. If I were you, I'd start there - put together a proposal that the WMF commission a study into the viability and cost-effectiveness of this idea. It'll cost money too, but it's a good enough idea that the numbers should be figured out. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom's problem is that they made the wrong political decision. I don't know if they really dreamed that banning Fae was going to end the drama, or are so arrogant that they really can't accept someone would want to preserve a right to privacy on other projects or think that asking WMF for help was acceptable, or if they were fully in on the plan with the WO people, or if they were just plain scared of what would happen to them if they didn't play along. But training wouldn't fix this - it would just help them to talk more conventionally in that faux-caring, not so subtly condescending tone used by professional "human relations" people everywhere to put down the people they sort and discard. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you took every opportunity to shoot down this discussion. You want to assert thousand and (even hundreds of!) thousands of dollars to train ArbCom I obliged you by closing it, but you forcibly re-opened it. We couldn't even get to the point of discussion on possible benefits of this before you shot it to pieces with your assertions of cost. Maybe, just MAYBE people could come up with a way to provide reasonable training to ArbCom without it costing an arm and a leg, eh? No, that's impossible. Shoot it down, with a vengeance. I'm shaking my head in disbelief. NOTHING will come from this discussion precisely because of your passionate resistance to it even before we had a chance to discuss. Prove me wrong. I dare you to approach ArbCom with the idea, and work towards a possible training solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Hammersoft, that's not how it works. It's your idea, YOU have the burden of setting it up. If you want to ask other people to help you do that, may I suggest the Village Pump? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, right. So, I create an article and everybody tears it down, with the excuse that it's my burden to get the article to FA before someone deletes it? I seem to recall that isn't the model we used on that thing we used to call Wikipedia. You know, where a bunch of madmen had the outrageous idea that people would work together towards a common goal? I know, it's a fairy tale, but still... --Hammersoft (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well this is not an article. People have pointed out the hurdles you have to overcome for your proposal to be viable, we can all come up with ideas if they aren't viable, then yes they'll be ignored. If you want to put it in article terms: you go to AFC and pitch an article, various experienced editors point out you lack sources for notability, the concept is unverifiable and it's basically a bunch of original research. Do we (a) create the article, then list it for deletion or (b) tell you what's wrong with it before that happens. Of course after we've done (b) you could go away and do the research, maybe get past the problems and create a great article proving everyone wrong, or of course you could just become very indignant and throw your toys around. I know which one most people will find a mature and potentially impressive response. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• +1. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• -1 more like. If beating the living crap out of any idea until the person suggesting an idea fleshes it out to the nth degree is the model we're supposed to follow, we might as well close up shop and go home. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight change in direction here. While I don't think that spending a lot of donor money on an illusory and ill-defined "training program" is a good leap at this point, Hammersoft isn't totally off the wall; I think he's just moving far too fast. There is something to be said for the idea of finding ways for our project (and our sister projects) to identify and develop leaders in various areas, including dispute resolution. Perhaps a first step would be developing a questionnaire to be circulated amongst the 10 largest communities, or the various arbitration committees, to better understand how slightly different communities handle issues - with the objective of learning from each other's experiences, and perhaps developing some best practices. I am fairly certain that this is something that could gain WMF support. Any thoughts about this? Risker (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c, randomish placement) Sharing of best practice would be a good idea, and certainly fits in with editor retention (though there's that weird disconnect between one view that most editors don't pay any attention to ArbCom and the other that ArbCom is simply destroying the very will of our best and brightest). I must say, though I was quite skeptical of WP:DRN, it seems to have worked out pretty well. That noticeboard, and many others, are our development grounds, and to me it's not hard to see which are the leaders in successfully resolving issues. The tricky bit is to get them to stand for the Arbitration Committee, which too often seems to be the ultimate punishment. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, cool headed, objective, expert analysis and decision making takes an immense range of qualities, knowledge and skills. I have a hard time imagining training that would do much for that. North8000 (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems rather excessive to demand that people voted into arbcom should require more training than people voted into the legislative bodies of most of the world's countries (i.e. none). Secondly there seems to be no reasonable grounds to expect that training would have changed their decision (to my surprise I often find that no matter the degree of training they receive people still disagree with me...). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is ArbCom a legislative body though?

Most strategic decision-making groups within organisations of any sort of stature have a training budget. I would imagine the WMF board has one. I would say the question is whether we consider ArbCom and its decisions important enough to merit one. Personally, I think there are problems with ArbCom, but they're not to do with training. Usually, you're training decision-makers around their brief and parameters, but those are not well-defined for ArbCom. Formerip (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see Arbs as more akin to magistrates than politicians, and where I come from Magistrates get training. Mind you so do most politicians, not as an official precondition for standing, but as part of their role, and in most parties as a requirement for being approved as a candidate for that party. ϢereSpielChequers 23:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really see this going somewhere. Arbcom has ruined someone's professional and, likely, personal life. Doesn't matter to them, i'm sure they don't even care. Funny enough, that's one of the things about Arbcom, they don't really have to care about the effects of their actions. It's not a real job, they're not getting paid, so if they happen to harm people along the way, no biggee. The only control the community apparently has over them is who is elected, so make sure not to vote for any of the current Arbs in the next election. I know i'm not going to. Silverseren^C 21:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what then, the only ArbCom candidates worth voting for are those who would never ban anyone, lest that "ruin" some aspect of their life? Or just those editors who use their real names, they get the magic immunity of not having to answer for their actions? Or just the editors you personally agree should be banned? Or is it really truly just the current dastardly and corrupt lot, but smooth sailing thereafter? Your voter guide to the next AC election will doubtless make interesting reading. Franamax (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment wasn't even in reference to this case specifically. Really the cumulative amount of cases since the new Arbcom was elected. They've just not been making good case decisions altogether. Silverseren^C 23:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this "Arbcom ruined..." meme needs to be nipped in the bud before some clueless sucker actually gets deceived into beliving you're saying something truthful. The reality of the situation is that Ashely Van Haeften ruined Ashley Van Haeften's professional and personal life. This is what can potentially happen when one uploads semi-naked pictures of oneself to the internet, or behaves in a disruptive, abusive manner on a public encyclopedia project and becomes rather careless about leaving breadcrumbs behind on who he is in real life. Negative actions have negative consequences. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you striking the "sucker" and those ban-because-of-defending-naked-picture claims. The Arbitration case could not be clearer that the ban is not enforced for his stance on those media or his sexual preference, but puppetry and consistent verbal abuse. While his stance on defending those media could be the cause of his behavior, this is entirely his own problem. Being a gay doesn't automatically make me feel sympathetic to his homophobia claim, it's just a cheap way to shirk responsibility. But now the media believe this and use it in the headlines, I can't say I would forgive him if he decides to plea for unban after some time. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I think the idea of providing dispute resolution, group problem solving, arbitration, project management, or critical thinking training for members of ArbCom isn't such a bad idea. The WMF does appear to have enough money right now to fund it. One way to go about it would be for each arbitrator to choose a training course in their local area, then petition the WMF to pay for it. I think the current ArbCom is doing a fairly good job, but there isn't any reason why attending training might not give them some good ideas for how to improve their deliberative processes. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would cautiously support that, whilst keeping in mind that decent training is generally $1000+ per day. But I would be more likely to support the idea for editors farther down the dispute-resolution chain (DRN, RSN, FTN, PUI, WQA, MedXXX) where disputes can actually get resolved. By the time it gets to ArbCom, it's generally already become a slash-and-burn issue. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further down the chain things are more rule-bound, effects are less wide reaching and there's not an identifiable group of editors to be trained. Formerip (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily identify at least 5 or 6 editors off the top of my head who are top-notch at those boards and could likely benefit from further training. They are the people we should be developing for the longer term, and whether or not they join ArbCom, their improved skills will benefit the encyclopedia for as long as they choose to volunteer. The current ArbCom is subject to intense NYB-reasonableness radiation, so I would suggest they have access to all the training they need. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia is interested in such training, obviously the first step is to figure out everything that people do on those $1000 training days, write it up in a Wikiversity course, and put the trainers out of business. (Actually, I don't think it would work - I suspect you could make an even more prestigious training course if you charged $1 million a day to wave a smoking sage stick over a group of CEOs one at a time; the expense would ensure that no riffraff were certified, and anybody foolishly claiming their boss's certification was bunk would be out of a job and unhireable... my guess is that a $1000 training program minus the $1000 fee would be valueless, but what do I know?) Wnt (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded assumptions

I think there seem to be some assumptions above that the public fallout over Fae's banning was not foreseen. While I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, I will say that for my part, this scenario was not unanticipated, but that the evidence before the committee compelled me to vote for Fae's ban despite the negative consequences. Sometimes, one has to do what one believes to be right, no matter how unpopular the consequences. By all means, disagree with me over whether the consequences were worth voting as I did, or whether my votes were the correct ones based on the evidence (note: that's rhetorical, as people already have done both), but don't assume that all of ArbCom are so stupid that we cannot see the potential political fallout. I think it's a fair question to ask each arbitrator in the next election, but here's my response: I wished this didn't have to happen, but I was not going to let what I still believe to have been an attempt to exert backroom influence on the community by a chapter officer in a conversation with a WMF employee go unnoted solely for the sake of avoiding negative public press. The mess, I'm afraid, was not of my making, and I was not and am not willing to be part of a cover-up of such an ethics breach. Jclemens (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this judgement about how bad his behavior was, is correct then it is still not clear why he had to be site banned. I can understand that the ArbCom findings imply that Fae cannot be in an position of trust like an Admin or be a checkuser. But there is nothing to suggest that Fae is unsuitable for simply editing Wikipedia. Also, even if there were some problems with his editing, then the banning policy says "Editors are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors."

So, not only should there have been extreme and persistent problems with Fae editing here (which ArbCom said were not there), dealing with such problems with remedies lesser than a site ban should likely have failed. Count Iblis (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if it were not the head of WMUK but some random editor (or admin?) who contacted the WMF liason to request the WMF protect his right to not disclose personal information about his Commons accounts, you would not ban him? Wnt (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Ignoring the mischaracterization of the conversation for the sake of brevity...) Of course not, because Fae's position was part of the problem: [4]. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as an addendum, the statement of not-unexpected consequences above is really not an invitation to further discuss Fae's history of problems with honesty that led to the ban. My statements on the matter elsewhere are sufficiently open and as exhaustive as I believe to be healthy. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then Fae was banned for two things, neither one of which is an offense: a) asking for help, and b) being head of WMUK. To be clear, from what you've written here and there, it is a logical conclusion that Fae was banned for being head of WMUK under some specific circumstances where otherwise he would not have been. No where in policy does it say that heads of Wikimedia chapters are subject to any different rules than anyone else. You say that he deserved special treatment i.e. being indefinitely banned for "numerous violations" because of his position. I don't know if he sought special treatment in the opposite direction (to escape desysoping, for example), but I think the wave of publicity in international media he has suffered demonstrates that there was some reason for him to receive it. In any case there can be no justification here for jumping to an extreme punishment merely because you say he sought leniency by what should have been a permissible route. Wnt (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again completely misrepresenting what people say, you know. Jclemens quite clearly said that Fae was banned for attempting to use their position as chair of WMUK to create improper interference with ArbCom. I'm getting sick of seeing you (and several others) completely twist what other people say in order to fit your preconceived notions. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would Fae "use" a position in WMUK, an independent organization, to influence Philippe, in WMF, to interfere with ArbCom, which is generally free from WMF interference unless there's a good reason? Wnt (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The truth of the matter is that Philippe clearly stated to ArbCom that Fae did not in any way use his position within a WMF-related charity in conversation with him. Jclemens knows that as well as the rest of ArbCom does, and to claim otherwise is an untenable position. ArbCom has put its own spin on that conversation for its own reasons; that much may be speculated about, but the fact that Philippe regarded Fae as making a request in his individual capacity is beyond contention. --RexxS (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that it is beyond contention, then it means that you have an independently verified video and audio recording of the conversation, or of Philippe typing those words into an email. Could you post it please? Cla68 (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failing that, I propose that Arbcom enter into the decision record that, "We believe our decision to be the truth as we perceive it, but recognize that RexxS states that a differing interpretation is "beyond contention." Arbcom concedes that anything that RexxS says is "beyond contention" may very well be so." Cla68 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconvenient as the truth is for your little campaign, it is still the truth. As an obvious other option, you could ask Jimmy or any member of ArbCom whether I have in any way mischaracterised what Philippe told ArbCom. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is "my campaign" RexxS? What is Arbcom's "campaign?" What is your "campaign"? Please answer all three questions. Cla68 (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Jimmy or ArbCom yet? Why not? --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, have you asked what my or their supposed agenda was, or have you simply assumed? Notice that I haven't assumed what your agenda is without asking. That's the difference. Ask questions, then ask follow-up questions, then judge. If you lead with accusations, it appears that you have already made up your mind, and that may affect the credibility of your argument. Cla68 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked Jimbo or ArbCom whether I have in any way mischaracterised what Philippe told ArbCom? It's a straightforward question, no matter how much you seem to want to deflect onto meta-issues. Ask them that question; and their answer - or the resulting silence - will make everything clear to you. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's fine RexxS. Ask Arbcom that question, without assuming first that there is something wrong. Ask on ArbCom's talk page. Phrase the question politely and neutrally, then wait for an answer. Cla68 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Cla68, but you're the one who cast doubt and mocked me when I wrote "Philippe clearly stated to ArbCom that Fae did not in any way use his position within a WMF-related charity in conversation with him." I explained to you how to verify the truth of that. Ask the question and you'll know that what I said was completely accurate. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never did get an answer to my question. How can Fae's role in an independent organization be abused here? I should note that the first two versions of the principle (the third removing all explanation whatsoever) actually say that Fae was "attempting to appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to prevent disclosure of his accounts." Where does it say that WMUK officials can't do that? Now is there some social pressure involved - maybe, I don't know what happened because Philippe has resolutely refused to explain what was said during those few minutes in public, even as Fae has been dragged through the media mud over it on three continents. But how often is an Office Action not due to some kind of arm-twisting, whether it's an outraged starlet threatening a lawsuit or some murky possibility of legal liability if they don't prevent a potential pedophile's possible pandering? I don't think Fae applied nearly as much pressure, by whatever means, as most who get Office Actions done for them ... or else the WMF would have done it. Wnt (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, nobody seems to care about the news articles. Sure, it's getting reblogged to other newspapers a bit, but rather minimally, considering. And the views on them aren't that spectacular.

The Olympics probably factors into that. And the simple fact that no one really cares. At this point, the recent Wikipedia study appears to have already gotten more coverage than anything to do with Fae. Silverseren^C 10:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Somebody you've never heard of gets in trouble for moderately unpleasant behaviour at job you would never have guessed existed, resigns from organisation you didn't know existed" is not a compelling newspaper headline. WilyD 10:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably why the papers are sticking the word porn in anywhere they can, no matter how erroneous it makes the articles. Silverseren^C 10:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. And people wonder why I argue that news media should not be considered reliable sources. — Coren ^(talk) 15:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

insert edit break

Jc:I was not going to let what I still believe to have been an attempt to exert backroom influence on the community by a chapter officer in a conversation with a WMF employee go unnoted. This is the crux of the issue. It would have been absolutely reasonable for ArbCom to note this. But it doesn't appear to breach any WP rules or norms, and it is hard to see how it is a bannable offence. ArbCom gives the impression of making things up as it goes along and of being influenced by noises off (this is the worst part) rather than following a line of reasoning. Very arguably, Fae had a right to approach WMF - even if he had no particular right to be taken seriously - if he felt that ArbCom was overreaching by requiring him to provide details of his online activities outside Wikipedia. ArbCom seems to feel that its authority is not only unlimited, but also that attempts to challenge it are beyond the pale. Formerip (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each potentially bannable offence cannot be enumerated in advance. In this case, there was only one prior precedent (Gerard/Godwin), and that so tangentially applicable that the committee members who knew of it didn't actually bring it up in the discussion. In this case, it appears that some editors do not agree that attempting to use real-world back-channel influence to affect ArbCom workings is a bannable offense. I disagree. The issue wasn't that Fae appealed a decision to WMF in lieu of Jimbo because Jimbo had kicked him off of this page, but that Fae communicated with two different people (one WMF staffer, one Commons admin), directly but informally and off-wiki, asking each of them to use their personal authority and responsibility to change where the in-process case was going. He could have instead asked the committee himself to change its tack; he did not. When confronted about these issues, Fae lied about the content of at least one email, and issued a half-hearted semi-apology at the last minute after the ban motion was already passing. When I was trained as a corporate investigator, telling the truth and cooperation in an authorized investigation were both an absolute must: regardless of any other circumstances, a lie told in the process of a duly authorized investigation was a terminable offense, as was a refusal to cooperate with such an investigation. Fae's not banned because he appealed to anyone, because what he did wasn't an appeal: it was an attempt to use his positional influence to make a problem "go away" and his subsequent dishonesty about his efforts that did him in. Open and straightforward dealing is a fundamental part of a collaborative project like that. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each potentially bannable offence is specified in advance if ArbCom is enforcing policy. What you're saying is that "ArbCom does not make policy" --- but apparently that is only because they don't have to bother writing down why they make decisions at all! They can go along based on their own opinions, who's good, what's bad, and it's up to the poor suckers out in the community to try to do Kremlinology post hoc and guess what de facto policies they're actually applying. You've reverted to a situation that predates the Twelve Tables, a strictly personal and arbitrary enforcement that does not deserve to be compared to law.

In reality WMF has an executive power to deal with unforeseen situations - they can enact Office Actions, like the one Fae is (perhaps) accused of asking Philippe to do. But those haven't been delegated to ArbCom, they're not presented as punitive reactions to some editor wrongdoing, and they're done by people who so far have been pretty fastidious about not doing them frivolously. And banning someone because he tried to change your decision - that's just frivolous, petty, vindictive, anything but beneficial to Wikipedia, as this media circus now makes all too very clear. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jc: Recognition that ArbCom's actions are going to have an effect in public is only one part of wisdom here. In my opinion, ArbCom has an ethical duty to get their assertions right most especially when they have reason to believe their actions will have public effect. In such cases, they should be bound to support those assertions with iron clad evidence. That didn't happen with Fae. Coming up with publicly displayed "Findings of Fact" (so titled) such as this before all the information about this event was in, before Fae had a chance to respond, before Philippe had a chance to respond, was grossly irresponsible. If ArbCom were not amateurs, this would have been avoided. This sort of behavior is flatly indefensible. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hammersoft, do you think that Fae could have done anything better, and, if so, did you tell him so when it was timely to do so? Cla68 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a vested interest in Fae. My focus here has been on ArbCom's actions, not Fae's. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an objective evaluation of an arbcom case should examine the behavior of all the participants- arbcom members, the case parties, and the peanut gallery. Now that you have critiqued ArbCom, do you have any feedback on the behavior of the case parties or other participants in the case? Cla68 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I see the Fae case as symptomatic of larger problems. If we place the requirement that before one can comment on ArbCom, one must know every detail of every case, we'll never move forward. If we place the requirement that before a person can comment on a case, they must know everything about the case, there will be silence. Nobody...not even members of ArbCom (by their own admission, many of them don't even read the talk pages)...would be eligible to comment. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you have provided rather strong opinions on the Arbcom decision in this particular case. If you aren't familiar with all the details, why do you feel so confident in giving such a strong opinion? Is it a result of a general feeling you have about previous cases? If so, which ones? Cla68 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand your line of questioning. I disagree with its direction, per my above comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is typical behaviour – normal even. You'd certainly not be the first to argue that since you disagree with the ArbCom decision, then it cannot possibly be well founded and there is obvious malfeasance. Neither would you be the first to note that a complete examination of the context is hard work, and obviously not necessary since you've already established that ArbCom Was Wrong(tm). — Coren ^(talk) 15:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It's common with human beings that we decide what is true or who is right, then interpret (or ignore) the facts to support our conclusion. I have done it before. Cla68 (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep! See confirmation bias. Although I'll concede that ArbCom is just as vulnerable to it as the rest of us. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, if you want to dismiss my comments, fine. I can be just as dismissive of yours, and use similar strength of argument to do so. That doesn't move us any further forward. Effectively, you're telling me that unless I know every case in every detail, then I have no business commenting on ArbCom's procedures, training, etc. If that is the metric we are to operate by, then nobody will have the privilege of commenting...not even ArbCom itself, as I pointed out above. This isn't a question of confirmation bias. If I am looking at a car with a flat tire, I don't need to have an ASE mechanics certification to be able to say "Yep, that's a flat tire". I don't have to be well versed in every single detail of the case to know that making accusations such as this when not all the information was in, when Fae hadn't had a chance to see it and respond, when Philippe hadn't had a chance to see it and respond, was indeed grossly irresponsible. That accusation created a serious dispute on the PD talk page, forcing a complete rewording of the FoF three days later. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another edit break

I can't speak to other users' confirmation bias, but I can say that I think Fae's conduct on Wikipedia was serious, and it may even have been serious enough to warrant a ban. But the trouble is that ArbCom explicitly found that that was not the case. They banned him because - and only because - he complained about them to a WMF employee. That's just extraordinarily stinky. Formerip (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the harrassment, Fæ's conduct was still excellent for the vast bulk of his hundreds of thousands of valuable contributions. Otherwise you have it exactly right FormerIP. Perhaps the most valuable lesson from this debacle is how a tiny random event can change the outcome of a major decision. Prior to Fæ's chance encounter in a Marvin Center hallway, the Arb case was heading towards a much more favorable outcome. Fæ looked set to avoid serious sanctions, while at least one of the WR accounts was facing an imminent ban. While perhaps somewhat harsh, such a result would have reflected a reasonable weighing of the evidence on the offsite harassment and its understandable effects on Fae's recent conduct. As it is, due to the all-powerfulness of success in social affairs, WR accounts can now make their attacks against Fæ's defenders with the expectation that many will take them seriously. So its most admirable that Prioryman, Wnt , Sillver and a few others have continued to speak up for him. After one's taken a fall, such support can make the difference between a downward spiral and an ultimately positive experience, where one uses the wisdom and motivation gained to become even more effective at making the world a better place. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've vaguely been following this and I can't say that I care very much about what Fae did or didn't do or his fate generally. But I've been trying to pick up on the crux of what went on at ArbCom - which is not that easy because (a) the ArbCom pages are not that accessible except with considerable effort and (b) there's a lot of (clearly) irrelevant emotive stuff flying around by the pro- and anti-Fae partisans. I have, though, gradually been getting the picture that FormerIP's post above is the nub of this. I would very much like someone who thinks ArbCom did a good job on this to provide an answer to FormerIP's point. DeCausa (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair and honest question, and the Committee members should not feel threatened or hectored to answer it. Cla68 (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no one outside of Arbcom and the one(s) who told them about the Fæ / WMF employee meeting can answer the question, and even if they did, why would those who tend to accept Fæ's side of things believe them? So there will always be a stink. If the Arb's initial account of the meeting was correct, then they did a fine job. Maybe they are being criticized unjustly, and it would probably do more harm than good to try to achieve transparency on what happened. Sadly the WR accounts are the only ones with something to smile about, might be best to accept it and move on. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would be much more comfortable if the evidence was public and laid out; regardless of outcome, it should all be out there. And I would not be inclined to accept Fae's version but against an evidentiary void, it is impossible to contravene it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what that goes to show is that the coverup can be worse than the crime, i.e. the Nixon Effect. Fae tried to solicit someone to intervene and get him off the hook, and it backfired. Badly. Call it a life lesson, both for Fae and for the gaggle of supporters who are still carrying the torch, and move on. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Fae wasn't the president of Wikipedia, he had stepped down as Admin already, and the ArbCom finding will make it difficult for him to regain that status. And note that Nixon wasn't banned from the US, he just resigned. As I explained above, the banning policy says that we only ban people as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other editors.

So, perhaps we should rewrite the banning policy and write that being in contempt of ArbCom is also a reason to get banned, even if you are an excellent editor who edits without much problems. Count Iblis (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a precedent for "contempt of Arbcom" well before this case and this particular committee came in; see A Nobody (talk · contribs) and the motion he violated. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear. Fae was banned after the word with Philippe became known. But it was just part of the reason behind the ban. My impression, and I was watching the case quite carefully, was that it and Fae's style of non-disclosure tipped ArbCom over the edge into a site ban. In isolation, I doubt that merely asking if Philippe could do something would have resulted in a ban. It's the cumulative effect of a number of things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It simply and plainly wasn't "just part of the reason behind the ban". It might be just part of the reason you think it was justified (and you are entirely entitled to that view), but no sensible reading of the ArbCom votes can lead to a conclusion other than that the ban was for speaking to Philippe. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have been happy with Fae handing back adminship, based on the problems with his RfA. My impression from some arb comments on the first proposed Fae remedy (6) is that some felt affronted or betrayed by his approach to Philippe and were acting out of hurt feelings or crimped pride. But the remedy that passed was 6.1, and the deciding voters were Roger, Risker and Silk Tork, whose responses were more measured, and that's what I'm thinking of when I say the Philippe thing was rather the last straw than the entire reason. The committee seems to have responded more to their judgement of Fae's character, as revealed in his behaviour toward them and other editors, his approaches to Philippe and the Commons admin, and other evidence presented, rather than to one particular incident, and I think they're entitled to do that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon. That really isn't a sensible reading of what's on the page. You've bent so far backwards you're upright again. What is it that you imagine you're defending? Formerip (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's my reading. On the public evidence, I wouldn't have voted for a site ban. But, on the public evidence, a site ban is not an unreasonable response either. It depends, mainly, on your attitude toward undisclosed accounts. I'm a bit more relaxed about that than some. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even still, each brick of the cumulative evidence should be established on firm, dispassionate, public, evidentiary foundation. Impression is not the way to go. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Hammersoft that the process was rushed. As I pointed out twice at the time, Fae was hit with new evidence about his interaction with Philippe -- according to ArbCom's own procedures, they should have allowed a week for evidence to be submitted from all parties, then a week for workshop principles and debate over these points, then another week to propose a decision. This was not done, eliminating any real chance for cooler heads to prevail on the surprise ban proposal (which is one reason why it's turning up here now). Note that for this case, the crucial part of the ArbCom process did not go via evidence -> principle -> proposed decision; rather, the ban, signed sealed and delivered, preceded any public discussion of the evidence and barely took 24 hours from the private discussion, so far as I know from reading about the case. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the exact time periods for doing that are not that material but it should proceed from evidence put in the record and cross examined before anyone even thinks of forming and rendering a decision, that much is clear. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am pleased that AvH/Fae has done the right thing. Thank you. I'd like to second a point made above: "None of this would have ensued had Fae said "mea culpa" at the RfC/U and placed himself up for RfA again." — I think that's exactly right. Now it's a much more complicated thing, it's clear that there is a network of alternative accounts that need to be revealed and renounced before the restoration of trust can become possible. I hope that AvH/Fae will get that list into ArbCom's hands as a first step towards ending this fiasco for good. This whole thing has been a snowball that has started an avalanche and it's time for us to dig out. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's not true. The moment any new account would hit their hot little hands, Fae's opponents would be filing processes, posting off-line gibes, having a field day with it. ArbCom can't block people off-line for posting stuff if they don't helpfully disclose their Wikipedia account in the name of openness. The war drums would be beating on Wikipediocracy for a new round of Examiner articles and appeals to try to get whatever-it-is on Fox News.

If there's any advice to be given to Fae, it's either (a) if he can, use WCA to generate new Wiki projects not subject to Wikipedia's sicknesses, redesigned to minimize its instabilities, targetted to provide just the sorts of material and services that Wikipedia is too dysfunctional to succeed with. (Like comprehensive coverage of breaking news without spending 90+% of your time arguing why it's not "unethical" to cover all the available sources and data) Or else (b) go off on his own with some friends, take the experience he's had working with GLAM and Monmouth, and approach some other British towns with a brand new idea - their citizens getting together in a collective project to document all their interesting features (notable or not) with medium-resolution SA-BY-NC content with hi-resolution photos available for a fee, detailed information available with ads, all the revenue to go to reduce the tax burdens of the people of that town, and locking down every landmark and library with restrictive rules on photography and reuse so that Wikipedia never can undermine them. Who can be so quick as I've been to criticize such a notion anymore, when after all, it might not throw out two-thirds of the content because it's redundant, non-notable, unethical, uninteresting etc., because it would be a valuable money making stream, its copyright treasured until the last star burns out of the heavens and the last proton decays. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or (c) start a small puppet theatre, fashioning his puppets out of discarded socks. Wnt, I think you may have lost track of what this thread was about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ENWP is not Wikimedia UK, so a plea to stop and take it elsewhere

• The local politics (in this case UK) is what one really wishes people would stop importing onto the EN pedia; it has nothing to do with most of us and even less to do with why we are here, to improve content and NOT to focus on each other. These Wikimedia UK issues and personalities, to the extent they belong anywhere, belong on a Wikimedia site, not on one of its language encyclopedias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Training and Arbcom's poor evidentiary process

Issues for training: 1) how to handle public evidence to make transparent decisions; 2) when private information has to be kept private and how to handle it by noting its existence, and not keeping private things that do not need to be kept private; 3) how to treat evidence and conclusions to draw from the existence of such evidence, and not make broad extrapolations. Broad extrapolations are policy making, but Arbcom's role is adjudicatory and therefore must be more narrow in focus, directly from the evidence presented to the community.

Better attention to these things would have made for a better decision and a better decision process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following up: In review, one part of the evidence in the Fae matter (as case study):

1) It appears there were two conversations between Phillipe and Risker [or another Arb] at Wikimania. Neither person [Phillipe and the Arb] provided direct [public] evidence of what was said exactly at those conversations.

2) Arbcom came to a conclusion based on those conversations, without direct [public] evidence. And without any evidence from the accused.

3) Later, Fae provided a detailed accounting of his one conversation with Phillipe. Phillipe did not contradict this detailed account [in public].

That was the state of the evidence on that score, presented to the community. The gaps in evidence and the appearance of a rush to judgment are Arbcom's fault and should not have occurred and perhaps with better training they would not occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Bracketed material subsequently added, after Riskers comment below to clarify meaning Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better way (one way this could have gone down better).

1) Risker [or the testifying Arb witness] recuses -- as there is not a need for her participating, given multiple other Arbs.

2) Risker [or the testifying Arb witness] publicly presents evidence of what was said and what conclusions she draws from exactly what was said (if she wishes to make conclusions).

3) Phillipe is invited to respond, hopefully he does so with his recollection and what he draws from it.

4) Fae makes his statement. The other two respond/question.

5) Only then do the non-recused Arbs weigh-in with questions, community questions, conclusions etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)Bracketed material subsequently added, after Riskers comment below to clarify meaning Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would have gone down better, I agree. I think part of the reason everyone's so up in arms is because it was a little bit out of the blue. The case changed course on us suddenly. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This belongs up above under the heading "unfounded assumptions", as none of the statements that Alanscottwalker makes above are true. I'm not going to encourage this kind of nonsense speculation with any further response. Risker (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the truth, then? There were two conversations between Phillipe and one Arbcom member about Fae at Wikimania, correct? The evidence of what was said in those conversation was not put into public evidence, correct? Arbcom adopted a finding, which was later disputed by Phillipe in part, correct? Fae later made a statement, correct? Phillipe did not contradict Fae's statement in public evidence, after Fae made his statement, correct? So, what is untrue? I have added bracketed material to my statements to clarify, although it doesn't change the points made.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more accurate explanation of what happened would be this:

1. Arbcom receive testimony that Fae has used dishonest and underhand tactics when in disputes;
2. Fae uses dishonest and underhand tactics against Arbcom;
3. Arbcom see the evidence confirmed in Fae's actions and decide that it is high time to give him the boot.

Very few people know what went on between Philippe and Fae. There is, however, a lot of evidence out there of Fae using underhand tactics in other circumstances and little or none of Philippe doing so. Simple Bayesian logic indicates which to believe when they give contradictory accounts of events.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1) It appears only two people know what went on between Fae and Phillipe. 2) It appears that only two people know what went on between Phillipe in conversation with the Arbcom member; 3) Phillipe did not publicly dispute Faes account, after Fae gave his account. 4)What was said to the Arbcom member was not put into evidence. The gaps in evidence are all Arbcom's fault. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just assume good faith that Phillipe did provide a strong testimony for the Arbcom to present the evidence of Fae's dishonesty? Until Phillipe publicly clarifies your doubts, there's no ground to question the committee's judgement. But I believe Phillipe cannot discuss this openly for a reason, a good one to be sure. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And then by definition we have to assume bad faith on Fae, but that is of course OK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith on Phillip and the committee doesn't mean we assume bad faith on Fae. I praise you talent of making fallacy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Can't you just assume good faith that Phillipe did provide a strong testimony for the Arbcom to present the evidence of Fae's dishonesty?" - Can't you just assume good faith that Fae did provide an honest testimony of what he discussed with Phillipe? Because that is all we have. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sameboat: What do you mean? We do not assume evidence? It has nothing to do with good faith. No one has said that Phillipe can't speak? What could possibly be the reason? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't blame the committee because Phillip remains silent. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The committee is responsible for not laying out in evidentiary fashion, exactly what Phillipe said, upon which any decision could be based. The committee is responsible for not taking evidence in an orderly and public fashion. The committee is responsible for its processes producing the evidence upon which its decisions are based. The committee is responsible for doing this dispassionately and deliberately. The committee is responsible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only the statement from Phillipe would satisfy every party. Until he actively speaks up, I assume he concurs with the result of the case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, most people would be satisfied if the committee took information in a deliberate, orderly, public evidentiary fashion and then based its conclusions on that -- not a conclusory fashion, and not based on hidden statements (unless they can and do provide a solid reason why the statement is hidden, or preferably redacted, in part) -- as the basis for its decision, and Phillipe's silence merely means that Fae's account is uncontroverted. At the point of taking evidence, which is what we are talking about -- the evidentiary process -- there is no basis for your assumption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No use pushing the committee if it only escalates the matter to the worse side. If Philippe and Fae's conversation was badly twisted by the committee just for adding accusation into Fae's wrongdoings, Philippe should have clarified, complained or defended for Fae ASAP. None of that happens up until now, after Fae has been indeffed. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The point is to analyse the error in evidentiary process and correct it, not ignore the poor process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the evidentiary problems that are the issue, it's the denial of basic fairness. The remedy to ban Fae was already being voted on before he had even been given an opportunity to put his side of the story. I'm sure it's not a coincidence that the only real-life lawyer on Arbcom, Newyorkbrad, posted that he was "awaiting Fae's statement before voting on this ban proposal." You would think that basic fairness would require that! If a judge was hearing a case for the prosecution, he wouldn't just jump straight to judgement and conviction without first hearing the defence. Instead, no fewer than seven arbitrators - SirFozzie, Jclemens, Hersfold, PhilKnight, SilkTork, David Fuchs and Roger Davies - voted without even waiting to hear Fae's side of the story. This was a gross failure of their responsibility to be even-handed. In my opinion, that kind of conduct makes them unfit to be arbitrators and I will certainly be drawing attention to their conduct in the next Arbcom election. Newyorkbrad, Elen of the Roads, Casliber and Risker acted more responsibly by waiting to see what Fae said in his defence before voting. There is no good reason for people elected to resolve disputes on behalf of the community to be act with such irresponsible haste, especially as there would have been no harm whatsoever in sitting on it for a day or two to allow Fae to have his say. This was not a situation where there was a risk of immediate harm and it's quite apparent from the tone of the comments that individual arbitrators' personal pique - which should never be a factor - was a major motive for the rush to judgement.

There's a wider problem here, though, which is that Arbcom's formal procedures have many gaps, and some of the existing rules are weighted against "defendants". There is actually nothing in Arbcom's voting procedures that requires it to give a "defendant" an opportunity to put forward a defence before it votes on a remedy. As we've seen in this case, it's quite possible under the existing rules for Arbcom to come up with a brand new finding, vote on it and vote for a ban without the person in question even being given a chance to put forward their side of the story. This is absolutely not good practice in any form of dispute resolution procedure. At the very least, arbitration on Wikipedia needs to be brought into line with good practice in dispute resolution processes elsewhere, because right now it's failing the most basic tests of fairness and propriety. Prioryman (talk) 09:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Prioryman -You need to declare your conflict of interest as a person that has received grants/money from Wiki UK/Fae's interested project - Youreallycan 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are you saying that anyone who has benefited from Wikimedia needs to declare an interest? Then I presume anyone who has benefited or been disbenefited (yes, no such word) by ArbCom needs to declare an interest. Any maybe anyone who's been blocked or banned? I really can't see why anyone criticizing of ArbCom needs to declare any possible interest. Should anyone who's praised or criticized Fae also declare an interest? Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dougweller - Are you involved in Wiki UK? Users that are strongly involved should declare - Nepotism might not quite be the right word - but for a small group of people in charge of one million pounds of charitable funds, there are clear issues in the organization- Youreallycan 11:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no COI - I've never discussed grants or money with Fae. Remind me, why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness? Now how about you address the substance of my comment? Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Still-24-45-42-125&pe=1& Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the previous comment in this thread because it is an insulting personal attack. I've read the talk page and the 3RR report, and Still-24-45-42-125 seems to have been hard done by. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent. Basically, My question is this. Did Still violate 3RR? No. Did they edit-war? Borderline. Does the person who reported them have a demonstrated intent to get them blocked? Yes - Still provided a diff that supports that clearly. In other words, I wouldn't have blocked, and I would have unblocked, were I an admin. I would have trout-slapped Still, though. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FALSE. That is not what was shown in the diff provided by the user. This insinuation is categorically, absolutely false.

Those interested should take a look and judge for themselves: [5] What we have here is a prediction, not a plot. There is little doubt the user thought it was a plot, but that was a paranoid delusion. Belchfire-TALK 19:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him." Sounds like a plot to me. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more to me like common-sense advice on Wikietiquette. Belchfire-TALK 21:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's advice on how to bring a block about and more advice on how to avoid endangering that block. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how to "bring about a block" against a user who maintains good behavior. This user would have never been blocked had he not edit-warred. That's the bottom line, and there's no denying it. Lionel's advice here is to avoid engaging in bad behavior oneself and to respond appropriately when bad behavior is encountered. Nothing more, nothing less. If that is "plotting to have somebody blocked", then half of Wikipedia is equally guilty. Belchfire-TALK 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your first question is irrelevant. He didn't edit war. If what he did is your definition of edit-warring then we'll need a lot more admins to deal out blocks. Lionel's advice is about one user with the purpose of getting him blocked. Half of Wikipedia has not done that and the plans of Lionel, you and ViriiK is harassment because the purpose is to get him off Wikipedia. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant? "Inconvenient" would be closer to the truth. It doesn't matter if you or I think he was edit-warring - the admins think he was edit-warring. But had he not provided any actionable behavior to report, the whole thing would be a non-starter, wouldn't it? No, it's not irrelevant; it's 100% on-point. If you don't screw up, you don't get blocked. End of story. Belchfire-TALK 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant because we're discussing the plan of you three to get him blocked. The report was false because he didn't break the 3RR and therefore shouldn't have even gone to the noticeboard. His actions are performed often on contentious topics and even on uncontentious ones, that's why it's not edit warring. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you politely to refrain from repeating that accusation again.

I checked, and I'm having trouble finding the "contentious topics" exemption in WP:EW. I'm not saying it isn't there, mind you. Just that I'm having trouble finding it. Regardless, I think this discussion has reached it's logical conclusion. Have a good one. Belchfire-TALK 22:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by it. Regarding policy, avoiding breaking the 3RR does not automatically mean you're not edit-warring. However, 3 reverts are performed all the time without blocks being issued. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, I happen to come across this article and noticed you three editing against Still. I chanced upon this page without checking the contributions of any of you so I don't know how many articles are similar. It'd be best to avoid editing in concert against Still anymore, given the plot controversy. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still24 "energetically edited" on several pages, including Thomas Sowell, Mitt Romney, War on Women, Chick-Fil-A, etc. all in the space of a few days on "silly season" articles.

He also warned other editors (vide [6], [7]) about "edit warring" of all things!

And "participated" at WP:DRN at [8] where his parting shot was Got plenty more reliable sources where that came from, but you've cloaked like a Romulan, so I expect that you won't even try to rebut my argument so one might see a problematic editor to say the least. I seriously doubt that he would have gone another week without another EW finding. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my unblock would have been a WP:ROPE unblock, to be sure. But I still would have, were I an admin. Which I never want to be. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Still-24-45-42-125 was probably heading for trouble. Maybe not, though. Anyway, this block was early, and they have a right to be annoyed. Hopefully they'll put it behind them, and maybe avoid the controversial stuff for a bit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to second-guess the reviewing admin, who I think generally does excellent and clueful work. Viewed in isolation, the block was warranted for edit-warring, despite falling short of the 3RR threshold. But I can understand a certain level of frustration on Still's part. Basically, everyone is breaking the speed limit, and he's the one guy who got pulled over and ticketed. I agree with Collect that we should come down harder on combative, politically focused editing. But if that's our standard, then about 4 or 5 others violated it in addition to Still (including the person who reported him to AN3). Such is life. MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read further developments on the user's talk page and followed more diffs, I realise I've been staking out a dogmatic position about something I really know nothing about, again, so will quietly slink away at this point. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick things:

1. Bottom line: The stated reason that I was blocked was alleged 4RR. That allegation, which came from an editor who swore to get me blocked, was false. At most, I hit 3RR, like all the other editors who didn't get blocked. Instead of admitting to their error, the admins who were involved decided to double down on it, finding an excuse to keep the block going.
2. A number of the people who are commenting here are far from neutral. In fact, they're the ones who've been edit-warring to add conservative bias to articles and quite openly plotted to have me blocked.

That's all. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Category:Myers-Briggs user templates, I followed the links to 16 userboxes and counted the Wikipedians who have identified themselves by Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

• User:UBX/ENFJ: 23 (2–5%)
• User:UBX/ENFP: 46 (6–8%)
• User:UBX/ENTJ: 43 (2–5%)
• User:UBX/ENTP: 51 (2–5%)
• User:UBX/ESFJ: 10 (9–13%)
• User:UBX/ESFP: 7 (4–9%)
• User:UBX/ESTJ: 22 (8–12%)
• User:UBX/ESTP: 8 (4–5%)
• User:UBX/INFJ: 63 (1–3%)
• User:UBX/INFP: 106 (4–5%)
• User:UBX/INTJ: 172 (2–4%)
• User:UBX/INTP: 189 (3–5%)
• User:UBX/ISFJ: 19 (9–14%)
• User:UBX/ISFP: 10 (5–9%)
• User:UBX/ISTJ: 76 (11–14%)
• User:UBX/ISTP: 40 (4–6%)

There is also a userbox for editors who have obtained different results from different MBTI tests.

• User:WriterFromAfar755/Creations/MBTI type CONF: 45

Estimated frequencies of the types in the United States population are shown in parentheses after the number of self-identified Wikipedians, and are sourced from the following page.

• Estimated Frequencies of Types - CAPT.org

According to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Applications (version of 19:33, 3 August 2012), the indicator "is frequently used in … group dynamics".
—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that INTP, under-represented in the general population, is the largest group here (at least among the self-identifying, which may somewhat overstate the results).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... don't forget to count people using this modified INFP userbox? :) MastCell ^Talk 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put this in more familiar terms, Wikipedians average Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 7, and are worth 3 experience points apiece. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've got to do something about the -6 on saving throws against personal offense to perceived attacks. 207.224.43.139 (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are more familiar with personality types than they are with Dungeons & Dragons gameplay#Ability scores (version of 11:28, 18 July 2012), and they wish to continue like that, because of Dungeons & Dragons controversies and because of their views about time-wasting distractions. Nevertheless, Wikipedia has Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons/Userboxes.

—Wavelength (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to illustrate, type "E" extroverted personalities have a larger number of friends/henchmen, i.e. a higher charisma; if we assume that Wikipedia has a shifted normal distribution of charisma with (approximately) the same standard deviation, then we need merely consider what proportion is above the median, i.e. Cha 10.5., as (dubiously) evidenced by the "E" self-rating. This gives us 210 above, 675 below, i.e. 23.7% E. This is roughly equal to the odds (25.9%) of getting 13 to 18 on 3d6, so it looks like Wikipedians are at slightly over a -2 penalty to the Charisma score. As I said, assuming a shifted normal distribution, that reduces the 10.5 average to 8. Sorry, I was a bit off in my quick guess. ;) I'll also admit that I still don't really know if the 693 out of 885 for "N" really refers to Wis or the 601 out of 885 "T" really refers to Int. What I'm pretty sure of is that the D&D stats (since appropriated by what must be thousands of other systems) seem more immediately meaningful to read about than these ISTP categories, which seem very nebulous and hard to decide except by answering near-meaningless questions that could go either way. Though Yi Jing I think is to be recommended over either. :) Wnt (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how much validity the MBTI system has, but I mentioned it here with the idea that it just might have some benefit for group dynamics on Wikipedia. After I read about "Int" and "Wis" and "Cha" in your post of 4:25, I did not know what they meant until I had performed a Web search for int wis cha. Anyway, different concepts have different kinds of appeal to different people. (Deuteronomy 18:9, 10, 11, 12; Luke 11:13; Galatians 5:22, 23)

—Wavelength (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC) and 22:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go to far with the Myer-Briggs test considering it's validity is not well established and it's basis is on Jungian thought. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for making everyone jealous of my username, it wasn't my intention. I hope it won't distract the community too much from achieving our goals. Ambiguous Furry Rocking Thing (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimmy! Thanks for your email, I hope you don't mind if I answer here.
I am sorry, I have to decline your WP:USURP request.
Your offer is certainly generous, but I think swapping accounts would cause too much confusion. Ambiguous Furry Rocking Thing (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling me, I don't have a drivers license so I wouldn't even know what to do with a gold-plated Ferrari. Ambiguous Furry Rocking Thing (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Wikipedia redirects to Jimbo Wales. Any opinions about that? Do they ever call you that in the press in any nation? Dream Focus 04:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well where else could that redirect go? ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Dream Focus' concern is that Jimbo's proper title is "God-King of Wikipedia". --Allen3 ^talk 18:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have come here, but then I saw this discussion and wished I had come here earlier instead of WP:WQA. A couple of days ago, I filed a Wikiquette report about BWilkins and his non-admin account for responding to my concerns about his admin actions with personal attacks (that is, a week after I left my original message, a week after he had responded the first time). It didn't help that he never gave a straight answer why he switched accounts, beyond saying he was "harassed" and acting like it was standard admin behavior. Only today has he gone on to further elaborate that it was "formal harassment from the primary editor in that Jimbo fiasco," which lead me here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bwilkins when editing as his "alternate non-admin account" does refer to the Bwilkins account in the third-person confusing the fact that the two are linked as the same person. Properly writting "I am on vacation as Bwilkins" when typing as the other account would be preferable IMO. But if one is on vacation and can not be on the other account, it makes one wonder why the "non-admin" account can be accessed and used for communication and not the admin one. If as now stated it is because of "harrassment", well that should be made more clear on both accounts. Harrassment doesnt mean you can hide. I tried hiding from Bwilkins and I got accused of sockpuppetry. In the discussion above linked by Ian.thomson it is pointed out that Bwilkins could be a little more clear on both pages and when speaking about the Bwilkins account when under the other account. If what someone does smells fishy, then it probably is a fish. BTW I'm Camelbinky, I'm not signed in, and I'm not a sockpuppet, and I'm not afraid of making that obvious.97.85.211.124 (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many administrators use alternate non-admin accounts when they are not on their personal computer or other area where they feel the security might be insecure. If something were to happen and their account became compromised, it would be dangerous if they were using their admin account. I am fairly certain that this is what Bwilkins is doing here. For other examples see User:Hersfold non-admin. Ryan Vesey 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ryan, that wasn't what happened. Bwilkins was told to stay off his admin account because of personal attacks against GabeMc. In an unrelated matter at around the same time, I left a message for Bwilkins questioning his admin actions, to which he responded under his alternate account. Then, a week later, he started attacking me on his alternate account, a week after the issue had been dropped. When I found out that who the alternate account was, he said that he wouldn't log on to his admin account because he was "harassed," and today it's become clear that he was referring to the report GabeMc filed about the personal attacks he (Bwilkins) made. At no point did he imply that GabeMc was trying to compromise his account, he left because he was advised to after attacking other editors, which he has continued to do as a non-admin. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is. I advised Jimbo via e-mail that in lieu of desysopping my Bwilkins account (which would also require the desysopping of an adminbot that performs admin actions), I would be switching to this account, and named it to him. When I first switched, I still had an editor who believed that the occasional swearing was somehow against Wikipedia policy, and was trolling through 6 years of contributions to try and use any bad word (even out of context) against me. That was full-bore harassment, and as such I originally only linked the accounts to ArbComm, Jimbo and one trusted Administrator. Not long after, I formally linked the accounts and continued to monitor my Bwilkins talkpage, etc. Nothing to see here folks. dangerouspanda 15:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you continued to attack other users and refuse to acknowledge it. Regardless of what happened during GabeMc's later report, even Jimbo Wales agreed with the initial point that your incivility was a problem, which is why he recommended you switch accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, continuing to imply that I'm not on Wikipedia to help the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proof is in your actions. This includes the fact that when you have been advised quite clearly to keep off of my talkpage, and the reason provided was quite clear (your brutal bad faith, as evidence by your continued provocation), you need to stay off my talkpage: it isenforceable if the harassment continues. dangerouspanda 15:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)If I hadn't notified you, would that have not opened the door to "oh, you're trying to talk about an editor behind his back"? And for the record, you said "Take your additional bad faith accusations elsewhere," not to not give you standard notification. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this: your notification of individuals related to the previous discussion was very selective: you only notified those who made negative statements: [9][10]. You also appear to have accused Bwilkins of having a sockpuppet account, you also demanded he ban a specific other editor and that he should "responsibility for the tendentious editor and block him". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite confused at ESAL's recent offense over something that I directed at Bwilkins over a week ago, especially after he responded over a week ago as if he was a different person. Another admin made the block of that TE shortly after because it was more than justified, and Bwilkins was why that editor was not blocked earlier. I admit I notified editors who were concerned about Bwilkins's civility problems, along with his non-admin account, and admit that (per procedure) I should have notified the people who would only excuse his unacceptable attacks, as though they wouldn't come out of the woodwork on their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified everyone from the previous discussion except a blocked user and an SPA IP whose only comment was a snide remark. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing to see"?!! Seriously, this crap you continue to do with "I advised Jimbo via e-mail" is ridiculous and is getting old. First a secret apology to "the community" but it is sent to Jimbo's email. You have been a rude editor/admin to US not to Jimbo. You're obligations to be forthcoming and honest is to the Community, to all of us, not to Jimbo and who you choose. This is in no way the proper way to conduct yourself and only shows you lack the common sense and common pure democratic ideas that are Wikipedia, the idea that community consensus trumps all, that the community of editors makes decisions, that even Jimbo whom I personally respect and listen to is NOT the "emperor" people try to smear him with. You continue to obstruct the ability of the community to look into your actions and your behavior, you continue to always say "nothing to see here folks" and hide people who complain or attack them for "harrassment". Ridiculous. I will be watching your contributions as this new account, and I will continue to voice my opinions regarding your ability to contribute without being an ass. You always end your comments with such wording that there is no drama or discussion whenever someone brings you up on "charges"; (Personal attack removed) Now be a hypocrite and ban me, I dont give a flying fuck, Im sick of you and your backdoor conversations and trying to swat people like annoying flies. We are human beings trying to do something, and as long as those like you are around it makes it harder to get anything done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? My apology to the community as a whole was not secret: it was right here in Jimbo's talkpage. I have not attacked anyone, I have not been uncivil in the slightest. Indeed, I've created a couple of stubs, and pretty much stayed off of Wikipedia as a whole for a few weeks now. Please, do watch this account like a hawk. dangerouspanda 15:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your most overt personal attack. Related to this, I note your own past complaint about Bwilkins was about his use of swear words and incivility: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_111#Bwilkins.27_f-bombs. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is these sorts of situations that I find extremely paradoxical; we admins are purportedly power hungry, conniving tyrants who block who they please, yet we tend to be on the end of vicious attacks from non-admins about said personality traits; when that happens, we usually let go without sanction, thereby allowing ourselves to be walked all over. I'm disappointed that Bwilkins has felt the need to take a break from adminning, as I think he's one of our best, and the sooner he gets back to it the better. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this thread pretty much isn't going anywhere useful. Whatever the issues are, I can't see clearly what they are now, and whether they still pose a problem. If BWilkins felt the need to take a break, it was probably for the best, and I would say that he surely understands why it was needed, and I hope he makes the most of that break. At this point, unless there is an immediate problem Jimbo or the rest of us can solve, it might be better to just end this thread and begin anew. -- Avanu (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The account names Hersfold non-admin or Elen on the Roads make the account status plainly clear, the primary accounts are clearly viewable on the user page, and both are listed in the Alternative Wikipedia accounts category. The Bwilkins user talk page states This user is non-permanently away from Wikipedia as of July 23, 2012. (emphasis mine); the reference to Bwilkins on the ESAL page is not plainly viewable but contained within a link. So it's a false comparison to say ESAL is like Hersfold non-admin. That said, the Bwilkins account is off line and the most respectful and appropriate thing to do would be for us to let it alone until it becomes active again. Nobody Ent 16:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Bwilkins is voluntarily not acting as an admin and using his primary account. This was not a Wikipedia sanction as it did not take place at ArbCom. It was not an official sanction by Jimmy, who is not flexing his bit to bypass ArbCom. Bwilkins made at least one mistake, and is taking actions to remedy that mistake. Continuing to badger and bludgeon him over it is unseemly and more importantly, it is simply unfair. Fairness doesn't require a policy to back it up, it should be self-evident and applied to everyone equally, admin or not. If you want to demand that admins treat everyone fairly (and I would join you in that) then you must demand the same from yourself and treat him fairly as well. This has gotten out of hand, and needs to stop. I agreed and stated that Bwilkins needed a break, so I feel I am neutral in saying we need to stop bludgeoning him during this break. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis I respectfully disagree. You can check this page's archives and see that I came to BWilkins' defense when my friend Gabe got too pushy. But at the end of the day BWilkins has no one but himself to blame for all of this. Using another account for the time being is a far cry from stepping down for a while. Had he done the latter I would have respected him. By changing accounts he remains eligible to pick up his tools in six months (or sooner, should he choose to do so.) He has bypassed the need to reapply at RfA, which he IMO would (deservedly) have very little chance of passing. This whole "voluntarily not acting as an admin" thing is a farce and it's shameful. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the separate problem that the ESAL account seemingly existed for years as an undeclared sock of Bwilkins; and that apparently his use of it was in breach of the sockpuppetry policy and had to be pointed out to him. (If Courcelles hadn't spotted it and pointed it out to him, would Bwilkins have carried on without ever publicly admitting the link?) I'm not sure that another editor going through his past contribs, even if taking some of them out of context, is an excuse for that.

Ordinary editors have to put up with people going through their contribs; the difference is that administrators, unlike ordinary editors, more often have the opportunity to make that harder for people (notice there's a bunch of edits on the ESAL talk page that are no longer viewable by ordinary editors.) I feel uneasy that there are, apparently, so many administrators who have rafts of undisclosed past accounts when going to RfA, socks for all manner of things, vanished editors that later develop cleanstart accounts and all the rest of it. The problem of the ESAL account identity having been hidden is now resolved, but what should be pointed out (for the benefit of others) is that it's not a good example of how to do things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think experiencing Wikipedia from the other side of the bit is a good thing, rather than a complete break, as there are more lessons to be learned. This is no different than using his regular account with the bit removed (and the bot was the reason it wasn't convenient) As for sock policy, never confuse the word "should" with "must", as it was intentionally added to be vague, to allow for exceptions. Should this be one? I don't know, but this isn't the proper venue to discover that. And yes, I agree it would have been much better if he would have but it is moot now. If there is a breach of policy, then taking it to appropriate venue is the answer, however, and not a public lashing on Jimmy's page. This would be consistent with how we treat every other editor (ie: fairness). WP:SPI is the proper venue for sock investigations, for example. The whole idea is to get a taste of non-admin life, and this current discussion on Jimmy's page isn't facilitating that, as it is not a neutral board. And it is voluntary, as no one has been barred from seeking resolution at ArbCom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, "non-admin life" sometimes involves having people like Bwilkins scream at one as being "fucking annoying" (or many variations on that theme). If you really think "a taste of non-admin life" is the aim, then some criticism in this forum (non-neutral or otherwise) is as good a way as any to get a little closer to understanding how that feels. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1: Bwilkins acts inappropriately. Step 2: Bwilkins is admonished by Jimbo. Step 3: Bwilkins voluntarily takes a break from his admin account and apologizes. Step 4:Members of the community continue to beat Bwilkins's dead horse. Step 5: ??? Step 6: Profit? Sædon^talk 20:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of Pablo Escobar "serving time" in his mansion. If BWilkins is unwilling to step down and reapply for adminship in six months then he should just continue with his main account. This whole dog and pony show of voluntarily stepping down while keeping his admin tools at the ready is an abomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there was not going to be a need for me to re-RFA - not sure where you got that from. dangerouspanda 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he could have just ignored any of it, forcing everyone to go to ArbCom, where it is very unlikely he would have lost the bit anyway. You don't have to like the current situation to accept it, and more importantly, hope something worthwhile is learned from the experience. I have no desire for vengeance, only for change, and everyone should be fair enough to facilitate that change. Beating him up is only going to make someone dig in, it is human nature, and undermines the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a situation on a website reminds you of Pablo Escobar, you really, seriously need to get a sense of perspective; a generalized version of Point 17 rather nicely fits. Incidentally, as like Bwilkins I'm not trying to hide anything, do you have a problem with this alternate account here? Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 20:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The horse isn't dead, the horse seems to have been kicking back for all it's worth, while intermittently being disguised as a different horse. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then...

If Bwilkins/ESAL had not come back a week after an issue was over with to accuse me of bad faith, none of this would have happened. If he had been more upfront about why he was not using his admin account (he didn't even have to connect the accounts for all I care, he could have said "Bwilkins has stepped down because of a discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales) instead of evading the issue, I would not have asked why he didn't carry out the block. If he at any point apologized for calling me a bad faith tendentious editor despite all my article contributions being completely positive and helpful and most of my interactions with users being as cordial as they allow, I would have dropped it.

None of that happened.

I was under the impression that if a user has a behavioral problem that prompts him to step down from his admin account, and that he resumes that behavior a week later, that would be seen as a continuation of the problem and a sign of its severity. I was also under the impression that other editors would only comment if they read what was going on, would not have a knee-jerk reaction that an admin's behavior must be right, and would not defend unrelated behaviors.

I was wrong, and I'm dropping this. I can only hope that:

• people who pay attention, don't play favorites, and actually have read the policies and guidelines handle this,
• or that such people do so in the future,
• or that Bwilkins/ESAL learns to watch his tongue.

Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not resumed any behaviour. I have not attacked anyone, I have not been uncivil - not even sure I've used any "colourful" language. Your continued statements otherwise are unproven, and obviously unprovable. dangerouspanda 21:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis-I have no desire to "beat him up". I'll again remind you that I actually came to his defense when Gabe started getting silly. I too have no desire for vengeance. I have a desire to see his deplorable actions as a Wikipedia administrator stopped, and switching accounts for the moment while keeping his tools does not help that problem one iota.

@HoJ-If you are unable to see that I was reminded of the absurdity of the situation rather than Pablo Escobar himself, I question which one of us lacks a sense of perspective. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got what you were saying, but it seemed within the spirit, if not the letter, of Godwin's Law. I'm as given to hyperbole as anyone, but I try very hard to avoid comparisons to people like Escobar, Idi Amin or my personal favorite, Thích Quảng Đức, because it detracts from the overall message. The rest, I've commented on above; I think this is a case where reasonable people can come to different conclusions, as can a reasonable person and I. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would have been more than happy to stay out of this thread altogether, however, since my name has been specifically mentioned and my actions last month alluded to, I will comment.

• Clarification - 1) I did not search through 6 years of diffs when I was complaining about Bwilkins' pattern of abusive behavious, I glanced over only his previous three months. 2) I made two edits to Bwilkins talk page after he had reverted me there. One was two minutes after, (which I was likely still typing when the revert occured) and one was 72 minutes after, which was a request for admin assistance that Bwilkins ignored and reverted as vandalism. I was not aware of the reverts when I posted those two posts and as soon as I was made aware of them, I stopped posting there. So I am really not sure how that was hasassment of Bwilkins. 3) Bwilkins never asked me to not post on his talk page, he still hasn't, all he said was: "further posts from you will, indeed, be removed at my leisure." So yeah, I can see now how that is very close to saying "don't post on my talk page", but it is not the same thing, its confusing and it leaves too much room for ambiguity. To me, it meant he would delete anything he wanted or not delete anything he wanted, as he didn't revert everything I posted there. Why not just say, "I'm formally asking you to stop posting to my talk page"? Problem solved. IMO, the vague language set a bit of a trap, where it would not be too unreasonable to assume I might unwittingly post there again. I have no idea whether this was intentional by Bwilkins, I will AGF.
• Concerns - 1) It is my understanding, per WP:WIAPA that to accuse an editor of harassment without showing evidence in the form of diffs is in itself a personal attack, and thus a form of harassment, i.e. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Well today ESAL posted this, which seems to imply that someone is harassing him at this thread, but I see no harassment here today, perhaps someone can point out where the harassment is in this thread, as it seems to be a very subjective notion here, applied liberally by some and conservatively by others. I do not think admins should be throwing around the H-word unless backed by diffs. Admins have much power to cast doubt on an editor and unsubstantiated accusations from them can serve to humiliate and defame a user. 2) If Bwilkins is operating socks inappropriately that should be taken to SPI and dealt with there. 3) I agree in principle with Dennis Brown that Bwilkins need not be publicly lashed here, however, I also fully understand the reluctance to pursue the proper channels when dealing with an abusive admin. I too would have been willing to file a formal report last month had I not been completely convinced that nothing could possibly come from it. The current processes for holding admins accountable are currently not sufficient and are even deemed corrupt by many. Why is it that a non-admin user can be indefed within hours of an AN/I report but to hold an admin accountable we need a special cabal/committee? In the end, Bwilkins' behaviours have awoke a sleeping community to the dangers of absolute power without accountability, and as such the community is currently making efforts to reform the process of de-sysoping. Also, I think the record number of 100% supports at RfA these past two weeks is in some way connected to this issue/discussion. I think we have Bwilkins to indirectly thank for all this. In the end, Bwilkins has publicly ignored Jimbo's suggestion, and as a result he has undermined Jimbo's authority, and ultimately, his own. Afterall, who will be willing to voluntarily follow advice from an admin who refuses to voluntarily follow advice from Jimbo? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't "undermine Jimbo's authority". Jimbo chose not to exercise his authority. I think the biggest reason that Jimbo is so often thought of as merely a figurehead is the fact that he so rarely exercises his authority. Jimbo stated BWilkins' actions were "grounds for an immediate desysoping". Jimbo holds the power to desysop. Jimbo should have desysoped him. And while I hold Jimbo in high regard, the fact that he didn't put his money where his mouth was has enabled BWilkins to carry on this "admin without his tools" charade. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is pointless. If anyone has new evidence of an issue requiring attention, it should be at WP:ANI. I see a couple of links above which, when examined, show no problem. The usual suspects are complaining about power-crazy admins going on rampages, but there is nothing substantive in the complaints. My recommendation would be for the OP to welcome one of life's lesson—not everyone sees things the way you do. If the matter is not dropped, it will eventually boomerang as the community has a limited tolerance for the kind of unhelpful pot-stirring shown here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Wales, I would like to bring your attention to the COM:DR for this image, featured on Copyfraud. It has been noted that the fact that Getty placed the watermark over the image may allow them to copyright the watermarked image. Nevertheless, Getty's use of the image violates Wikipedia's copyrights by failing to license the new work under the Creative Commons license.

Please send a cease-and-desist notice to copyright@gettyimages.com asking them to relicense the image under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. Thanks. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a notice really needs to be sent here. This is just...blatant copyvio on their part. Silverseren^C 03:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

email legalwikimedia.org 71.79.250.179 (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots of a particular time in Wikipedia history may not be so cut and dry as far as copyright goes. They would have a hard time asserting copyright over this image in a court situation, but this isn't "Wikipedia text". It is a screenshot of the layout of the page during the SOPA incident. The image only shows the main page navigation with the SOPA banner prominently featured. How about rather than "cease and desist", you just remind Getty that Wikipedia is an open contribution to humanity and that the image should be distributed freely (per CC-BY-SA or GFDL), not copyrighted by Getty. -- Avanu (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]