Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge/Workshop

message: Ali'i has made a start at it, but no one seems to be actually making a coherent defense. What is attracting all the wordage is:
1) Attacks on the CSN process.
2) Attacks on editors who have objected to Ferrylodge's behavior.
3) Claims of ignorance of what he might have done wrong from Ferrylodge.
In light of past claims that Ferrylodge lacked the time to defend himself, it seems to me that it is about time for someone to defend him if he won't do it himself. Ali'i's work is a stub for what should be there. --Pleasantville 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said at the evidence talk page that I intend to get to this over the weekend.  Some of us "sociopaths" have other obligations that prevent us from spending unlimited time with you fine people here at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please actually defend Ferrylodge on the evidence page? 

message: In light of B choosing to 'retire' instead of actually addressing the giant chasms in his argument, I propose that all of his evidence and his proposals be stricken from this case.  It is only fair.  Why should FM and ON continue to try to uphold their good names while B gets to retire and wimp out?  Baegis 00:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rocksanddirt and Tango. We don't desysop someone for gathering evidence and making an accusation, even if it does turn out to be wrong. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is ok to desysop someone (or even allow such baseless claims to be examined) based on the claims of someone who decided to leave the project rather than face the inevitable questions following his accusations?  People should be severely reprimanded for bringing such false claims.  Plus, if anyone would like to read through this  it is quite clear B has undertaken some questionable activities in which he has crossed paths with FM and ON.  It seems pretty clear that he has a past with these two and these allegations are obviously meant to cause harm to their name, especially in light of his decision to pack his bags rather than fully explaining anything.  I am not 100% sure of B's motives in leaving, but in doing so he has conveniently removed himself from any sort of punishment for his actions.  This is a slippery slope if we allow users to do this because they have a personal problem with other users.  This is neither the time nor place for such allegations.  Plus, since when does a CU not clear someone?  Baegis 18:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All checkuser can do is determine if IP addresses being used by two users are the same or similar. It is thus very good at proving guilt, but not so good at proving innocence. If, for example, I normally edit from an IP at my house, but deliberately go to the home of my friend across town's house to use my sockpuppet, the accounts might appear unrelated. I'm not saying this has happened here or anything else concerning the merits of this accusation, it's just possible and explains why Checkuser can't really exonerate someone. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We examine based and baseless claims of all manner of things all the time here (at wikipedia).  Fringe theories of shocking complexity on subjects you can't even imagine are brought up all the time.  A shocking proportion of items on the AN/I are frivolous reports from folks in a dispute about content.  Ordinarily, the claims are evaluated and if it turns out to be crap, that is noted.  See Ferrylodges Rfc on Bishonen, it turned mostly against him as a frivolous excersise.  --Rocksanddirt 03:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is premature to be discussing taking action against someone for making accusations before those accusations have even been assessed. If ArbCom concludes that there is insufficient evidence to link FM and ON, then we can consider if anything needs to be done about B. It's a very simple question that needs to be answered: "Did B genuinely believe the accusations he made?" If so, then however wrong they may be (and that hasn't been determined yet), he still did the right thing by reporting his concerns. If not, then it's a bad faith action and needs to be dealt with, however I have yet to see any evidence of that. That AN/I report doesn't tell us much - B and FM are active admins, it's not surprising they've crossed paths, and it's also not surprising that they've both done things people consider questionable, it goes with the territory. --Tango 09:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: AFG doesn't mean you ignore it when people do something bad. It means you give them the benefit of the doubt until shown otherwise. It is possible that it will come to light that B was acting in bad faith (I've yet to see any evidence of this, though), in which case we would need to do something. Until that point, we assume good faith, of course. --Tango 10:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The accusations of B 

message: Banno, FeloniousMonk was not involved (aside from one warning) in the events that lead up to Ferrylodge's banning, so probably isn't the one to request links to dispute resolution from. He's a party in this case based on his decision to ban Ferrylodge and the timing of that ban. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, although as banning admin he may be aware of some attempts at dispute resolution that swayed his decision to ban. In any case, I've broadened my question to asking for any attempts, not just those of the involved parties. Banno 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banno's questions 

message: Both sides in this case have made multiple mountains out of molehills. It should never have reached this point. They should shake hands, make up, and get back to contributing positively to the encyclopedia.
Here are the major elements that appear in the evidence:
*Ferrylodge (FL) is blocked 24 hours for harassment
*FL posts at ANI objecting to the label "harassment"
*FL files at RFC objecting to the label "harassment"
*FL is blocked 48 hours for 3RR
*KillerChihuahua (KC) files at CSN
The one-day block for harassment was a molehill; FL turned it into two mountains: the ANI, then the RFC. The charge of harassment might have been inappropriate, but was not unreasonable. The block was for just one day and most people probably would have let it go. FL objected (and still objects) not to the block itself, but to the label "harassment." He appealed to ANI and then RFC (and even now in this ArbCom) with the stated objective of removing the label - just the label, not the fact of the block. In so doing, he turned what would have been an insignificant bump into a huge mountain which threatens to obscure his otherwise very productive record.
Having said that, many people are very protective of their reputation. It is a very reasonable and human thing to do. FL should not be punished for pursuing legal avenues to correct the (perceived) wrong to his reputation. The community and specifically this ArbCom should consider FL's record as if the ANI and RFC had never happened.
:;FL's filings in ANI and RFC were not improper
:FL's filings in ANI and RFC were stupid and ineffective but were not improper. His stated objective was to remove the label "harassment" from his record. The ANI and RFC were the only paths available for him to do that. They were not a form of harassment. They did not hurt Bishonen; they only hurt himself. They were ill advised and he should have realized that they were doomed to failure, but they were not improper. When evaluating FL's record, they should be ignored.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbowers3 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. It doesn't even begin to address nearly half the evidence available here. It completely ignores the RFC and his harassment of Bishonen. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've inserted above an explanation of why the ANI and RFC were stupid but were not improper. They were not harassment. They were an ill-advised attempt to clear his record and were the avenues available for him to try to achieve a proper objective. Sbowers3 11:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mountains out of molehills