Fæ faces site-ban, proposed decisions posted

No cases were closed or opened, leaving the number of open cases at three.

Open cases

Fæ (Week 8)

See related Signpost coverage in this week's Special report

The case concerns alleged misconduct in aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions. The case was brought before the committee by MBisanz and also involves Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle. In response to a workshop proposal calling for the removal of his adminship, Fæ's administrator rights were removed at his request on 18 June.

Proposed findings of fact include Fæ's violation of clean-start restrictions: his failure to disclose other accounts during his request for adminship (where he claimed to be making a clean start with no imposed sanctions), and neglecting to mention that he left during an active request for comment. Fæ's mischaracterisation of good-faith concerns and harassment were noted, as were personal attacks directed at others, deceiving the community with attempts to withhold key evidence, lack of response to good-faith criticism, use of ad hominem attacks to discredit others, and accusations of copyright infringement. Also noted were harassment from Michaeldsuarez, and Delicious carbuncle's posting of identifying information.

Part of the proposed decision stipulates that, given Fæ's resignation under controversial circumstances, he must start an RfA if he wants to regain adminship, and must publicly declare his past accounts. There are remedies calling for Fæ's file contributions to be reviewed, a limitation to one account, and admonishment for him and Delicious carbuncle. A newly proposed remedy calls for Fæ to be indefinitely banned from the site, following his attempts to solicit intervention from the Foundation, and his claims that publicly listing all his accounts would be too onerous due to "ongoing security risks". In the same remedy, it was noted that at the time of his appeal he was still an official on the Wikimedia UK chapter. He was further criticised for attempting to dodge good-faith concerns. A few arbitrators believe that if Fæ's claims are valid then he must be removed from the community.

The case concerns behavioural issues related to Ohconfucius, Colipon, and Shrigley. The accused parties deny TheSoundAndTheFury's claims, and have decried his alleged "POV-pushing". According to TheSoundAndTheFury, the problem lies not with "these editors' points of view per se [but is] fundamentally about behaviour".

Proposed findings of fact include that involved parties edited in a biased fashion—in particular that edits by Homunculus favoured the Falun Gong movement and discredited the Communist Party of China, whereas Ohconfucius and Colipon edited with the reverse bias. It was found that Ohconfucius engaged in uncivil conduct. Ohconfucius and Homunculus have edit-warred on topics related to the movement.

It was proposed that Colipon, Homunculus, and Ohconfucius be topic-banned from articles concerning the movement and related government persecution. Mandated external review by uninvolved administrators was also proposed; editors placed on review would be required to seek consensus for major edits (beyond grammatical and aesthetic changes); and once a consensus has been reached, the discussion must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor, after whose approval the editor under mandated review may proceed.

Perth (Week 5)

The case, filed by P.T. Aufrette, concerns wheel-warring on the Perth article after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by admin JHunterJ, and after a series of reversions by the other involved parties (all admins).

Some findings of fact: JHunterJ closed the request and moved the article accordingly, but responded to criticism problematically; Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved in discussion regarding the merits of moving the article, made edits to related topics, and reverted the original decision without discussion; Kwamikagami upheld the original decision without discussion; Gnangarra upheld the reversed decision without discussion; and the page moves on 9 and 10 June required the use of redirect suppression and were therefore covered by the wheel-warring portion of the administrator policy.

It is proposed that Gnangarra, Deacon of Pndapetzim, and Kwamikagami be desysopped; but only the last of these has reached the required threshold for enforcement (subject still to reversals in the voting). Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has voiced his opposition to these remedies, calling them "completely disproportionate and excessive" (due to admissions of poor judgement and subsequent disengagement), noting that both Kwamikagami and Gnangarra have been good contributors to the project and have, for the most part, unblemished records. It has also been proposed that JHunterJ be reminded to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding administrative actions.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

16 July 2012 (all comments)

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Hi James, I'm not entirely sure, but can you recheck the counts of 'Week 3' and so on? May be a bit off. I may be wrong (and probably am), but an extra check would be great. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious, I've been off on my counts for the past 3 issues. Thanks very much LR, it's all fixed now. :) James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:36pm • 02:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that admins look in at the likely desysoping of Gnangarra, as it appears (in my view!) to represent a significant escalation of how ArbCom handles admins who make a mistake. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. While the remedy re Gnangarra ultimately failed to pass, it at one stage had 8 arbs in support and only failed because of immense, unanimous community pressure on the talk page of the proposed decision – which arose only because of the manifest unfairness of the particular remedy on the particular admin and one could not expect such pressure to save a future admin who was worthy but didn't have such an unblemished record – and the courageous stand taken by one arbitrator in the "vote to close" section. The remedy against Kwamikagami, which did pass, was partly based on information which was not the subject of a finding of fact or evidence which really came up during the evidence or workshop phase. The case to be honest has destroyed my faith in the present ArbCom to be even remotely reasonable. It is a huge change in ArbCom's perception of its own role. Orderinchaos 05:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"after his attempts to suborn the Foundation into action and intervene, claiming that publicly listing all his accounts would be too onerous due to "ongoing security risks."" is untrue as I have not approached the WMF, only had a private conversation with Philippe as a friend about privacy matters, and I did not ask him to intervene. The word "suborn" according to my dictionary means "bribe or otherwise induce (someone) to commit an unlawful act such as perjury" could the authors of this piece please supply some evidence before making such serious claims? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fae is correct. I was the one who used the term originally, and altered it to "subvert" after the nuances to which Fae objects were brought to my attention by a third party. I will make the change in the above article, since it was my fault that the inappropriate term was used in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi James, a couple of minor points. Firstly, the story in regard to the Fae case is perhaps slightly misleading as it implies there was a proposed finding of fact that Fae had infringed copyright. The finding was that Fae had been 'accused of infringing copyright', which is substantially different. Secondly, in regard to the Perth case, I drafted the 'JhunterJ advised' remedy because of my perception that JHunterJ could have handled situation better, irrespective of the later wheel-warring. Otherwise, I'm unsure about 'the committee believes that if Fæ's claims are valid then he must be removed from the community', while I can't speak for my colleagues, I personally don't agree with that view. PhilKnight (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Phil, I've reworded them accordingly. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:54pm • 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make two general points that apply not just to the cases discussed in this issue, but more generally:

Until an arbitration case is closed and the decision is posted, the votes are subject to change. Thus, a finding or remedy on the proposed decision page might be "currently passing" or "appears likely to pass," but nothing is actually passed until the case closes.
For details of arbitrators' explanations for their votes, where they have given them, please consult the proposed decision page for the relevant case.

Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NYB, the wording for those paragraphs wasn't very clear, but what I did was I included remedies and findings of fact where they had reached the threshold for enforcement. I wasn't aware of the need to request permission to quote an arbitrator's voting rationale or their thoughts, I'll bear that in mind for future editions. Thanks James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:54pm • 06:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it's not that you need to ask permission to quote anything—just that you can refer people to the source of the quotation (the proposed decision page) for the complete version. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. I didn't know that, I'll remember that for future reference. Thanks! James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:08pm • 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"At the time of his appeal he was still an official": this very POV wording implies that the situation should change, please fix. Nemo 10:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We get loud and clear that the author of Signpost doesn't like Fæ very much, it's a shame that they can't put that aside when writing about the case here or under other headings. Orderinchaos 06:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't involve myself with the nature of the cases, I actively avoid drama where something does not concern me and I write based on what I see. As a result I quote the posts of other Arbs and that text was there in the finding of fact, quoted verbatim, I'll mention that it was noted he was still an official. I'll ignore your clear pro-Fae bias, Orderinchaos, it's ironic you should be badgering others about bias when you can't set aside your own prejudices. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 12:08pm • 02:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "pro-Fæ", just a fan of fair reporting and fair treatment. And unlike online journalists on Wikipedia's signature news publication, I'm not obliged to be neutral - I'm an admin and an editor and my views on topics are what I write, usually invisibly to anyone who doesn't delve into talk pages. There is a sense of responsibility attached to writing for this thing, and that was my point. Orderinchaos 11:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that I don't write neutrally? I'm sorry, but I find that to be rather insulting. I apologise for being quick to jump the gun; but if you look at previous issues there were also concerns about wording. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I write based on what I observe and I'll either be paraphrasing an arbitrator's words or quoting them directly, I do not word them in such a fashion with malicious intent. I do not add propaganda to an article, I do not add anything that would otherwise hurt another user. If that's not the way you see it, fine, but do not accuse me of attacking a user in an article. My personal prejudices are not even taken into account in these articles. If they are, I'll eat my hat. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 6:05pm • 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about Orderinchaos, but I didn't imply at all that you've not written neutrally. I've stated it. Regards, Nemo 13:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ignoring what I said, I quote what Arbs write and their wording may/may not be neutral, but it is not my own wording. I don't use the Arb Report as a means of spreading propaganda, nor do I have any intention of doing so. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 4:52pm • 06:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for ignoring what I said, I didn't object to any quotation. If you had forgotten qotation marks it would still be your fault, but I checked and it really seems to be your own wording. I'm really concerned that you don't feel responsible at all for your own writing. --Nemo 08:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also said in past issues that I often paraphrase, I don't like quoting huge slabs of text where I can help it. See the proposed decision. I know about the use of quotation marks, I don't need to be told when and where they should be used, however, I wasn't aware that paraphrasing required quotations. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 7:02pm • 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You said "it is not my own wording"; on the contrary, your link shows that the "still" is your own, so I confirm that you've not written neutrally. What's worse, I can now add that you don't even notice when your own opinions slip through your "paraphrasing". --Nemo 19:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These three cases are (or were) set to loose us good editors, it seems to me that the Queen of Hearts now runs ArbCom, and the game is not worth the candle. Rich Farmbrough, 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]