Revision as of 04:17, 24 May 2012

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Fæ

Initiated by MBisanz at 21:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Request_for_notification

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Fæ
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz
• User talk:Fæ
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive235#User:Fae

Statement by MBisanz

Hello. Today I bring a matter to the Committee regarding fellow administrator Fæ. I bring this matter under clauses 1 and 3 of WP:AP#Scope_and_responsibilities, as the community has been unable to resolve issues raised regarding Fæ's conduct and I believe his poor conduct and tendency towards disruption renders him unfit to hold adminstrative access. Specifically, I cite Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Accountability, Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying_incivility, Misplaced Pages:Harassment#What_harassment_is_not, Misplaced Pages:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette, Misplaced Pages:Canvas#Stealth_canvassing, Misplaced Pages:No legal threats as policies and guidelines I believe Fæ has violated via his generally disruptive conduct and refusal to engage those who question his conduct.

Fæ has rendered himself unquestionable and unaccountable regarding his conduct because he responds in an extremely rude manner that personally attacks those who question him. This includes the broad mischaracterization of comments regarding his on-wiki conduct as harassment. See Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance/archive118#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz, RFAR, talk page. While it's clear that Fae has been treated poorly by some users off-wiki (and possibly on), he now responds so violently to any commentary about him on-wiki, whether well-intentioned or not - that his behavior has become the issue itself. He also acted in an unacceptably rude and nasty manner when a technical correction was brought to his attention here. These actions are part of a broader pattern of unacceptable conduct and refusal to discuss that is evidenced in this response to an AFD notification and this AN thread.

His conduct has been discussed by the community to a stalemate at RFC (see also RFClose stalemate) and AN and he has been banned by User:Jimbo Wales from his talk page for his deception and poor conduct. His use of deception and mischaracterization has also been cited by myself and AGK in the prior RFAR.

As aggravating factors to his poor conduct, I cite his private canvassing of me regarding my participation in his RFC. I also cite his refusal to be held accountable for content he added under a prior account, in violation of the policy regarding failed clean starts. Misplaced Pages:CleanStart#Editing_after_a_clean_start

As a third aggravating factor, under line three of Misplaced Pages:AP#Jurisdiction, I cite his broad invocation of external legal authorities at commons:User_talk:Fæ/2012#Threats as a violation of WP:NLT because it is conduct designed to chill those who jointly edit EN.WP and Commons from questioning his conduct, lest they be investigated by the police at his behest.

This sort of conduct—the deception in his clean start RFA and since then in mischaracterizing comments, the gross assumptions of bad faith and harassment, the unwillingness to discuss mattes and conduct, particularly his blank refusal to comment at his RFC, and the continued disruption of numerous areas of the project, is unacceptable conduct for an administrator and warrants Arbcom intervention. MBisanz 21:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to Fæ

Fæ is mischaracterizing things, again. 1. I have never spoken to or met with Eric Barbour. User:Alison ,however, claims she met him in the recent past. 2. I have made three contributions to Wikipediocracy 1, 2, 3. They dealt with possibly meeting Greg Kohs in connection with his travels to DC for Wikimania, my cable television service provider whom he works for, that I think Greg's behavior is still incompatible with Misplaced Pages, and that I have no interest in involving Greg with my complaint against Fæ. I assume SBJohnny can attest to my non-use of Wikipediocracy's message system and I can see if Greg is willing to let me put the email followup I had with him regarding my television service on-wiki. Why Fæ believes my personal travel plans and my cable television provider are relevant to this complaint about his conduct is something I cannot understand. MBisanz 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by Themfromspace

This confrontation stems from Fae's controversial RFA and subsequent user RFC. Views at the RFC were divided over the legitamacy of Fae's adminship when it was alleged that heleft his previous account "under a cloud". Questions were raised about the scope of ArbCom's involvement in the RFA (Fae stated that it was sanctioned by ArbCom; John Vandenberg stated that Fae was mistaken and that only he endorsed the RFA). Compounding the difficulty of the situation are allegations of harrassment, outing, and tendentious editing. I think there have been more than enough attempts at dispute resolution, documented above by MBisanz, to warrant an in-depth look. The committee should accept the case to examine the procedure of Fae's original RFA and post-RFA behaviour, as well as general user conduct in the dispute resolution process. ThemFromSpace 23:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi

In my spare time I have delved into this a fair amount. It is fairly clear that had all the information been available at the time that the original RFA would not have passed, but then again the original RFA voters also knew that something was up and still passed it anyway. This was probably an error of judgment on their part, just as Fae and John V erred in judgment in not fully disclosing Fae's history, but errors in judgment do happen, and, well, it's hard to see how a mutual balls-up is cause for desysopping.

The broader issue seems to be that Fae feels persecuted by the WR crowd, who now seem to have migrated to Wikipediocracy (although Wikipediocracy does seem like a significant step up from WR). I can sympathise, as I've had Paul Wehage aka one half of User:Musikfabrik (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau) aka the fieryangel aka oscarlechien opening threads in these various places criticizing my every decision for 4 years, and calling me some rather nasty names in the bargain, almost regardless of whether what I was doing had any merit or not. It doesn't feel terribly pleasant, particularly when your fellow Wikipedians are apt to show a distinct lack of DefendEachOther. As a result, Fae seems to react extremely badly, causing large dramaboard threads where Fae and various Wikipediocracy posters (many of whom edit here in all good faith) snipe at each other. This is not helped by the ongoing controversy over the toxic culture and content at Commons, with which Fae seems to have become associated.

Now, it is my impression that although in quite a few of these dramaboard threads Fae is behaving quite badly, and too often resorts to a kind of catty tone that's both provoking, patronising, and not conducive to a collegial atmosphere, this does not really rise to the level of a desysopping, and I think that if ArbCom takes this case all they will do is succeed in giving Fae a slap on the wrists, which hardly seems worth the time and drama of a full case. IMHO the thing to do is pass a couple of open motions telling Fae to calm the bleep down and react much more coolly, and in a manner more befitting a sysop, to questions about his actions, even if he feels the questioners may not be acting in the best of good faith.

My own advice to Fae is this: 50 percent of what people say about you at WR et al is simply driven by hurt vanity: 40 percent is based on misinformation provided by those of the hurt vanity, and 10 percent (at best) might be fair criticism of some validity. If you can't filter out the white noise it's better not to read the threads at all, and just keep working quietly here without starting vast drama-filled BADSITES AN threads in which you then go make yourself look awful. Moreschi (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Relaying a message from Fae

--Guerillero | My Talk 00:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Request from Cla68

If this case is accepted, could the scope please be set to include editors who made ad hominem and other personal attacks during the Fae RfC and in other forums in support of Fae? Some of the behavior from involved editors has really crossed the line, and I think should be examined. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Moreschi's comment: I think much of Moreschi's analysis is true and on target, with one key omission, and that is the ad hominem accusations or insinuations of homophobia that Fae and some of his supporters have lobbed at people who disagree with them. Accusing or insinuating that others are offering criticism or disagreement with you because they are motivated by some kind of prejudice or hatred (unless it can be backed-up with clear evidence) is unnacceptable. I'm sure that most of us have observed this occur in certain topic areas and would, perhaps, agree that there are few behaviors by Misplaced Pages participants that are more unhelpful, divisive, hurtful, dishonest and contrary to a spirit of congenial cooperation, collaboration, and compromise. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by MZMcBride

I'll repeat what I wrote in the discussion following my attempted redirect of User:Ash to User:Fæ:

I don't necessarily have an issue with clean starts. There are certainly legitimate reasons one might need a clean start. But if it's truly a clean start and you've left your old account for being an asshat, it shouldn't be possible for others to figure out who your old account was or want to associate you with it. If it is possible or they do, it's almost certain you're still being an asshat. And that indicates that you need to either leave or start again. If you choose the latter, you have to change your behavior in the next reincarnation so that nobody is able to figure out who your former nasty self was and it's truly a clean start.

As true then as now. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Peter Cohen

I've noticed drama in a few places on wiki which might be more suited for the evidence page. However, the events on Jimbo's talk page leading up to this post should be worth delving into. I don't always agree with Jimbo but the opinion he expresses there tallies with the one I have independently formed of Fae's actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse - Tiptoety 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• I will be mostly inactive starting 1 June - 28 July --Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Note: The clerks have been advised to hold back on opening a case until 2359 UTC on 28 May 2012, should the usual net-4 acceptance level be reached more than 24 hours before that time, to permit Fae to respond, and arbitrators holding their acceptance/decline vote to have the opportunity to read and consider his statement. Those commenting on this request may wish to bear this in mind. Risker (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/2/5)

• Recuse. AGK 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. Statements should focus primarily (if not exclusively) on Fae's editing of this wiki and reference off-wiki communications, if at all, only to the extent they directly affect this wiki. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In view of the comment from Fae above, just posted, I do not plan to vote until well after Fae's return to editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements also. Note that according to this edit Fae won't be available 24/25 May. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept I am aware that concerns have been raised regarding Fae. I'm also aware that Fae feels harassed at times. I feel a case looking into the issues would be worthwhile, and it would be useful to get a range of statements to map out the parameters of the case. Statements should focus on conduct on Misplaced Pages as that is the only place where the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction. SilkTork 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. I have been keeping an eye on this unfortunate situation ever since the last time this case was before the Committee. There, we declined to hear a case because the matter presented to the Committee (supposed misconduct of someone with advanced permissions) had not went through DR (informal, formal, or specialized like AUSC). Since then, the conflicts have raged both off the en-WP site (which we couldn't necessarily control) to on the english Misplaced Pages site. This matter is both unduly divisive amongst the community (see the RfC) and has been through the prior steps of dispute resolution. Therefore, the Committee must accept this case, in my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse. Kirill  01:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting Fae's statement, but leaning acceptance, as I think a lot of what SirFozzie says is spot-on. One thing I wonder is this, we we decline this case, it should be with the expectation that there won't be a third such request here this time next month. I'd like to see statements urging decline to spend time on convincing that a decline is a step towards resolution, rather than delaying. Courcelles 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Also awaiting Fae's statement and leaning toward acceptance. As to Cla68's request, I am hesitant to expand the scope of any case to matters that were better addressed more temporally, but should the case be accepted there is little doubt that the RFC in itself will be in evidence. Risker (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning Acceptance - Moreschi has a view which we may end up agreeing with and we may very well come to the same conclusions. However, we'll need to look at the issue longitudinally firsthand to come to the same conclusion. Many of us are familiar with segments of this, I can't see how that can be done by motion unless a quorum of other arbs feel confident enough to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think this can be dealt with in one or two motions unless they're large "omnibus" type motions, and as someone said on a request last year, paraphrased, when you get to that man motions, you don't have motions, you have a case. If accepted, we might get to PD ad find Moreschi right, we also just as likely could find him well off base once the evidence is in, but I'm skeptical a small number of true motions (as opposed to "PD-in-form-of-motions") can resolve this. The idea of looking at this longitudinally is important, because almost all surely have heard some aspects of this issue, ad a case rather than motions, lets us have the time/space/outside input to do that. Long winded a of saying I'll be voting either accept or decline when all the statements come in, not to a solution by motion. (Not really directed at Cas, sorry for the indentation, but general thoughts on solving this by motions stuck down here just because Cas is the first one to comment on the idea) Courcelles 03:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Accept given the scope and issues, there is simply nothing Fae could say which would convince me that a case is unnecessary. We tried to defer this earlier, without apparent success; I do not see a credible argument that we can continue to do so. Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)