Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AlexandrDmitri (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 3 May 2012 (→‎Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/1/1): update tally in header to 0/9/1/2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Fæ and MBisanz   2 May 2012 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) Motion none 17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing none (orig. case) 8 September 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Fæ and MBisanz

Initiated by MBisanz talk at 00:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MBisanz

I opposed a proposal by Fæ, stating it was contrary to a position he took via email at an earlier date. I immediately received a second email indicating he believed I had violated his privacy by referencing the earlier email on-wiki. I responded by indicating that I did not believe I had violated his privacy and was forwarding to AUSC/OTRS-admin/Steward/Ombudsmen so that they could investigate the allegations that I violated his privacy. He continued to object via email and I indicated I did not desire to receive emails from him. He continued to object in the thread above, indicating I was being uncivil, disrespectful, untrustworthy, and in violation of my duty of confidentiality as a trusted user. He requested I withdraw the requests for review by the referenced authorities and I refused. He has continued to say I am acting in an uncivil and disrespectful manner, have violated his privacy, and otherwise made serious allegations as to my reputation as an editor and trusted user. Since he has declined to seek my recall or withdraw his allegations, I am seeking a public review by Arbcom. MBisanz talk 00:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response
I do not object to the publication of the emails.
You have accused me of violating duties related to my use of restricted tools. These cannot be reviewed or adjudicated at WQA because of access levels of the responding users and the inability of those users to sanction me by removal of my tools. Only Arbcom can remove my restricted tools, so they are the appropriate forum to review these allegations.
You continue to claim this involves a highly personal matter and continue to engage in throwing your allegations at me. You cannot have it both ways. Either your desire to engage me or your desire to not be open must prevail.
You stated "I suggest you follow up with the many people you have so widely circulated highly confidential information that they will be in no doubt is none of their business, to check if your inflammatory behaviour, which could have been so easily resolved through direct personal discussion, reflects badly on someone with trusted access. The fact that you have repeatedly refused to take any responsibility for my wellbeing or that of other involved parties, and in the process have forced me to raise my concerns about a highly confidential matter in public, by rejecting email correspondence, should be of general grave concern. Our community does not work by falling back on theoretical legal arguments every time there is a problem, if you are incapable of treating people in a respectful and civil way, then expecting the community to put our trust in you is misplaced." How is that not a request to withdraw my request for review of my conduct and an accusation that I am an untrustworthy holder of advanced permissions? MBisanz talk 01:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of making the emails public without your consent, but you were the one who continued to engage on AN and throw accusations, you cannot now hide behind the claim that those accusations cannot be discussed publicly. Again, you can't have it both ways. MBisanz talk 01:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Points of clarification. You expressly indicated I could contact Phillipe regarding your email of May 1. Your email of January 26 indicated I could contact Sue (among others) regarding that email. Your email from May 1 also indicated things contrary to your statement now, but which I am prevented from disclosing per WP:EMAILABUSE; it did not indicate "not to be shared" with other individuals via email. MBisanz talk 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ continues in this RFAR to level the allegation that I am continuing to reveal confidential data in violation of my duty as a trusted user of advanced permissions. I do not know what forum I can seek the prior DR Arbcom has indicated, given these allegations directly implicate my advanced permissions and my alleged use of allegedly confidential information. If you really want, I will find someway to phrase everything in an AN thread so that it does not reveal any information from the emails and permits the community to review my conduct, but it still seems like a severely suboptimal solution, given the alleged abuse of trusted access and confidential nature of large portions of the evidence. MBisanz talk 08:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okey, I've opened Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#F.C3.A6_and_MBisanz as this was apparently a premature step. MBisanz talk 16:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy with how the WQA has turned out with regard to my handling of advanced permissions. I am gravely disappointed by Fæ's stated refusal to participated in DR and that his invective and accusations, followed by claims of persecution and withdrawal from dealing with me appear to be part of a larger behavioral problem that other users have experienced. MBisanz talk 20:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Elen: I've been willing to engage in DR and Fæ has stated he is not and to "push off". I'm also satisfied with how WQA turned out. I'm willing to drop my participation in a case if Fæ's refusal to engage in DR is part of a larger pattern of poor conduct as an editor and admin that the Committee wishes to handle separately. I'm also willing to continue participating if you would like. Just let me know if there's anything I can do to help. MBisanz talk 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ

I am too busy with inter-chapter business until at least the weekend to give this any real thought.

Initial reactions that I will revisit at the weekend:

  • MBisanz has yet to try any form of dispute resolution, you will find the link provided to WP:AN links to a completely different matter, not the material of MBisanz's complaint which was not an AN matter and only a tangential discussion (now collapsed by an admin due to being tangential) in another thread. Raising a complaint on this page for someone so experienced in these processes as his first response is hard to fathom.
  • I am puzzled as to why this is an ARBCOM issue, if MBisanz has a complaint about me, this appears a matter for WQA or for him to wait for a reply from the many email lists he has already emailed to in an apparent punitive blitz. As he has yet to exhaust those processes and made no attempt to try any other avenues first, then raising here is obviously premature and invalid.
  • This involves a matter relating to my personal life and safety that I consider highly confidential and that MBisanz has failed to treat with dignity or respect. Due to the confidential nature of the information involved, I am not sure that I can discuss this openly on this page without compromising a matter that I have been independently advised, several times, not to talk about in public. I do not believe that Arbcom are in a position to advise me on these matters.
  • At no point did I request that he "withdraw the requests for review by the referenced authorities", I did ask him to find a way to put things right, and that the many people he has now unnecessarily emailed a personal confidential matter to, will doubtless judge it to be absolutely none of their business. It is likely to be information that they would much prefer not to know.
  • "expecting the community to put our trust in you is misplaced" does not carry the same meaning as "untrustworthy". MBisanz appears to be complaining about words I have not actually used to exaggerate the situation.
  • At no point have I asked for adjudication - removing a reference to a private and confidential email that had no bearing on a noticeboard discussion would have been sufficient remedy.
  • If there was any action for MBisanz to take to improve his own understanding of respectful and civil treatment of confidential matters and the private lives of other Wikimedians than that is entirely his to assess and for his conscience to encompass. I have neither requested nor expect enforced sanctions.
  • I have respected MBisanz's request to cease email interaction with him from when he first requested it.

--Fæ (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Risker's question I have no intention of making my private emails public, particularly as these emails contain the confidential information in question that MBisanz's actions has put at risk. I want to re-enforce this point, if you have this information please do not post it here or elsewhere. I am distressed at the risk that MBisanz has presented for me and others without this being realized because MBisanz unfathomably has tried to raise an Arbcom case out of a situation he created and could easily have resolved by civil discussion by email. --Fæ (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General point MBisanz is using this Arbcom case a reason to gradually reveal more of the contents of my email of 26 January. This is the precise matter that I want kept confidential. There is absolutely no good reason for MBisanz to do this, it is not essential to any case he might want to take up in dispute resolution and it is causing me distress. This is not the respectful behaviour I would like to see from people with a high level of trusted status on Wikipedia. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Canvassing and soapboxing I would always trust Arbcom members to be uninfluenced by off-wiki sources. However it must be noted that the off-wiki canvassing discussion at "Wikipediocracy is evil, doncha know?" is being actively encouraged by trusted Admins and Oversight members who regularly contribute to Wikipediocracy and as a result appears to have attracted some of their members, such as Peter cohen and SB_Johnny to raise old failed grievances and use this page as a public soapbox to ridicule me by linking to sexual and outing material and encourage anonymous attack accounts to write abusively on my user talk page. It would be hard to pretend this is not making this case an excuse for a pile on for the mob to have fun giving me a public kicking. Not a great day to show how these processes, or groups such as Arbcom, are supposed to benefit our community. --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forum shopping MBisanz has referenced here a WQA case he has raised in parallel before this arbitration request has closed. As an experienced bureaucrat he can be expected to know how dispute resolution is supposed to work, this is not it. His choice to go forum shopping appears deliberate and bizarrely inappropriate behaviour for a trusted user. I'm going to focus on my travelling arrangements and deal with my meetings for the next few days. Hopefully MBisanz will be able to reflect how he has failed to do the respectful thing by not forwarding confidential facts about my personal life to however many people (a hundred maybe) as some sort of apparent punishment for my temerity in questioning his action in referring completely unnecessarily and unhelpfully on a public noticeboard to a private email I sent over 3 months ago. Arguing instead on AN that he has not broken the legislation in his country is, well, so far short of WP:5P#4 that I am still astonished at his status in our community. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikimedia UK Comments by AGK as an Arbcom committee member about the UK chapter are not appropriate here. If AGK has a complaint of some sort about me as a charity trustee, he is free to follow the set whistle-blowing policy and contact the Chief Executive. I ask for them to be struck from this request. To clarify I am not, nor have ever been, an employee of Wikimedia UK. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This evening I have been sent emails from the Arbcom committee which support AGK's view that my comments here may be interpreted as part of my role as the Wikimedia UK chairman, while at the same time his comments are not to be read as part of his role on Arbcom. I disagree, but will seek advice from the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive before making any statement that might be read as being on behalf of Wikimedia UK. Until I receive that advice, due to travelling, probably not until next week, I have struck my comments here and will not be participating in the WQA, where MBisanz is explaining his actions, in parallel with this open dispute resolution process where he is also free to continue to defend his actions. --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Snowolf

I urge the committee to decline hearing this case, it seems to me essentially a dispute on whether it is or is not appropriate to reference emails on-wiki, even in generic terms. Yes, it has other connotations, but those are not essential to the nature of the dispute. I would suggest that a RFARB is at this stage premature, as the problem has evolved only in the last few hours, and neither of the parties is asking that any action be taken against the other party. This dispute, removing its specific details concerning privacy which make a public RFARB unsuitable anyway, can be normally discussed in other, more appropriate forums. The privacy violations, if any, can be privately discussed by the Arbitration Committee and the other relevant authorities if Fae feels the need to make a formal complaint on that matter, but I believe that is not the case. The broader implications of "uncivil, disrespectful, untrustworthy" are not for the arbcom to settle, imo. Snowolf How can I help? 01:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MZMcBride

You could open a case against just Fæ.... --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SB_Johnny

Given that Fae has (1) a track record of not responding to DR attempts (other than to make a rather inaccurate comment on the proceedings), (2) made it clear that whatever it is that's at the heart of the conflict should not be discussed, (3) has apparently received legal advice not to discuss something or other in public, and (4) has on other occasions (e.g.) discussed seeking legal recourse when he is (sometimes rightly) unhappy with the direction of a discussion, it seems unlikely that the normal DR processes will be able to be undertaken in an effective manner. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, did the Committee in fact inform Fae that "[his] comments here may be interpreted as part of [his] role as the Wikimedia UK chairman"? --SB_Johnny | talk 08:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

As per MzMcBride and SB_Johnny, there is potential for a case here about Fae. There have been at least two RFCUs about him in the past. In the case of the one on his Ash account, he sabotaged it by pretending to retire from Wikipedia during the RFC while throwing accusations of homophobia in his retirement statement and whilst already having his new account up and running. In the case of the RFC on his current account he failed to post anything on the main discussion page. This RFAR has been triggered by a typical piece of mud-slinging on his part and that mud-slinging took place in a thread which Fae had started because of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to certain websites.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Salvio giuliano

I agree with MZMcBride, SB_Johnny and Peter Cohen and believe that this incident could occasion an ArbCom investigation into Fae's conduct. This is not the first time Fae has resorted to assumptions of incredibly bad faith and groundless accusations aimed at people he was disagreeing with and I believe the Committee should look into it — not to mention the other concerns raised during his latest RfC. I also don't think another request for comment (or any other dispute resolution methods) will yield any results in this case, as I'm sure that many accusations — of homophobia, harassment and whatnot — would be hurled around, just like last time.

Oh joy, the mudslinging has already begun...

Comment by LedRush

I agree with MZMcBride, SB_Johnny, Peter Cohen and Salvio and believe that this incident could occasion an ArbCom investigation into Fae's conduct. He has consistently and brazenly flouted wikipedia's rules on multiple levels. That Fae is an Admin makes his uncivil, disruptive, and dishonest behavior even more troublesome.LedRush (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Wnt - It sounds like you are accusing everyone here who is critical of Fae's repeated use of unsubstantiated accusations and unwillingness to address his issues as acting in bad faith. I would hope that you could substantiate such claims, retract them, or clarify your position.LedRush (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Wnt

There is a pervasive partisanship by a vast number of people on many different issues that affects this dispute. For example, I spoke with User:Salvio giuliano regarding his dispute with Fae some time ago.[1] (I've since criticized his actions on another sexuality-related issue[2]) Anyone reading User talk:Jimbo Wales must be aware of the breadth of the conflict. I think that the conduct of a great many people involved in the broader conflict is more questionable than that of Fae, who, in large part, has simply been the target of cyberbullying. I encourage ArbCom to be skeptical about the neutrality of everyone involved; indeed, I think that even those on ArbCom who have not taken a side on the censorship-related issues eventually will. Please choose wisely. Wnt (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

I recuse from involvement (in my arbitrator capacity) with these proceedings, but Fae's comments on this page amplify my concerns about his conduct. On the whole, I see no issues with his performance in an official capacity as an employee trustee of WMUK. However, I see elsewhere a concerning tendency to aggrandise situations and misrepresent fact. Reading MBisanz's rebuttal to Fae's statement, it strikes me that this incident represents more of the same. Fae ought to take considerably more care in how he deals with other members of the community, and especially with those who also fulfil advanced functions (or are functionaries). He also ought to remember that what he says and does as an individual reflects very directly on the reputation of his chapter.

Nevertheless, I have no clear view on whether this incident warrants arbitration or not. AGK [•] 19:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me: trustee, not employee. AGK [•] 22:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {User}

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/9/1/2)

  • Question to both of you: Do either of you object to the publication of the email exchanges between yourself? Risker (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline No other DR, and the statements do not convince me that this reaches the high bar of "Unusually divisive, even amongst administrators" that we require for case requests that don't have prior DR. SirFozzie (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, as MBisanz states in his statement, he emailed AUSC/ArbCom with this issue, and to the best of my knowledge, at this point, none of the arbitrators who have commented on it have any problem with it. I would suggest Fae simply drop the issue and accede to MBisanz's request not to email him any further. SirFozzie (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, other than mis-identifying Fae as an employee of WMUK (if I am not mistaken, Fae is currently the acting Chair of the WMUK, and running for re-election as a WMUK trustee), there is nothing wrong with AGK's statement towards Fae, and I would strongly urge Fae (as I have done in reply to his email to the Committee) that they would be better served by looking for ways to de-escalate situations, as it is my personal opinion that their tactics are just the opposite and are serving to enflame the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline The matter at hand does not involve the use of advanced permissions at all; and in fact the comment MBisanz made doesn't appear to violate any sort of privacy at all that I can tell; honestly, Fæ, you did all that yourself responding to him. I don't see that there is a need to arbitrate this particular incident, as none of MBisanz's actions require review. To MZMcBride: On what grounds do you suggest we do so? Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To respond to those calling for a case against Fæ, it sounds as though it is possible a case could be opened to examine Fæ's conduct (and, as Wnt points out, whether or not Fæ is a victim in some way), however I don't think now is the best time. Let's see how the current WQA proceeds, and this can be revisited with a different scope if problems continue. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline at present, as other steps in dispute resolution have not been tried. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per above.  Roger Davies talk 05:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as premature. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - this particular disagreement isn't sufficiently serious to require an arbitration case. Regarding the comment by Peter cohen, I think I'd still prefer another RfC first, however a case framed as 'Fæ' instead of 'Fæ and MBisanz', could be accepted at some point in the future, if problems persist. PhilKnight (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline largely per Phil, but I can't see how much good another RFC would actually accomplish. Courcelles 14:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I see nothing useful that we can accomplish here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline without prejudice to a case as outlined by the outside views at some point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe sooner rather than later, given the way this is progressing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SB Johnny - at no time has the Committee told Fae that his comments would be regarded by the committee as part of [his] role as the Wikimedia UK chairman. Personally, I believe there is no question that they are NOT made in this capacity. However, I also believe there is a general principle to the effect that a wider community often does not distinguish between remarks made in a professional and a private capacity, and those of professional standing in a community should bear this in mind. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. AGK [•] 18:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be interested in a case looking into Fæ's conduct as there appears to be some community concerns regarding the user. The question would be to establish if Fæ is being inappropriately criticised by other users. I think such a case would need to be wider ranging than Fæ and MBisanz as there are other users who have questioned Fæ's conduct. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=490513556"