Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 01:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Case Closed on 22:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 7:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 11:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 23:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ

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:

• Wikipedia:ADMIN#Accountability, Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility
• Wikipedia:Harassment#What_harassment_is_not
• Wikipedia:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F
• Wikipedia:Etiquette#Principles_of_Wikipedia_etiquette
• Wikipedia:Canvas#Stealth_canvassing
• Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia:CleanStart#Editing_after_a_clean_start

As a third aggravating factor, under line three of Wikipedia: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 ^talk 21:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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 ^talk 01:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading MBisanz's complaint, I am confused by the random scattergun evidence or what the expected outcome is here given the lack of prior appropriate dispute resolution by MBisanz. I am open to recall, if MBisanz feels there is a case for obliging me to hand back the mop, that would be the correct process to follow, as it always has been.

Examining the items of evidence in order, where possible linking to the original full discussion rather than the selected partial diffs given above:

1. WQA This was raised on 2 May 2012 by MBisanz, invalid as it was opened on the same day as the last RFAr raised against me. The RFAr was declined as MBisanz failed to attempt any form of dispute resolution in advance of approaching Arbcom. I struck my comments in both WQA and RFAr, once Arbcom said that any comments I made could be interpreted in my role as Wikimedia UK chairman. If there are complaints about me as a trustee of Wikimedia UK these must be raised for investigation by the charity or the Charity Commission, I will be unable to reply on-wiki. MBisanz's claim that I "rendered" myself "unquestionable and unaccountable" is a confusing response to these governance processes which formally deal with questions and ensure accountability and transparency for trustees of charities.
2. My talk page comment, on 8 May 2012, this was deleted by me before anyone replied to it. My edit comment was clear on why I withdrew; "Too pointy, and I need more thyroxin before writing this". MBisanz made no objection and should have followed the policy for personal attacks if he thought my comment unfair, in fact I was under the impression that he never noticed it.
3. User_talk:Fæ/2012#Sig_comment, raised on 6 May 2012 by MBisanz on my user talk page just 3 days after the RFAr. MBisanz has called this a technical matter, others in that discussion called it obsessing and trolling on his part. It was an incorrect complaint, clearly pointed out. Re-reading my reply to MBisanz, I see nothing there that supports an allegation that I had "an unacceptably rude and nasty manner". My key comment was "Please go away, seriously, I can see no possible good coming from you writing here again with further warnings or unwanted advice, and it now looks as though you are on a personal campaign to hamper my enjoyment of this project", though I am open to alternative explanations of what this was about if I missed the point.
4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, 15 May 2012, this had nothing to do with MBisanz. Rather than following the clean start policy, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz decided to start notifying me about an AFD on a gay porn actor that predates my account and that I have never edited using my account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is fully aware of the background of my long term hounding. This is not evidence of "unacceptable conduct and refusal to discuss that is evidenced", in fact I did discuss the matter, on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's user talk page.
5. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ, 25 January 2012, MBisanz raises this as evidence that "His conduct has been discussed by the community". This is no evidence of any misconduct on my part. The RFC/U was created by Delicious carbuncle (DC) in conjunction with a series of canvassing threads of Wikipedia Review that included a large number of personal allegations that then were partially duplicated on Wikipedia (Redacted). A total of 29 members of the community, some held in very high regard, supported the view that "This request is simply an extension of harassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harassment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety." The RFC/U was raised on the claim that User:Ash manipulated BLP sourcing, this was not demonstrated despite several people hunting for evidence. It should be noted that since the moment when DC posted my home phone number and address on Wikipedia Review, swiftly after s/he stated how sorry they were to see a personal direct threat against me on Commons, I have followed DENY and not replied to the multiple questions s/he has raised on any Wikimedia project apart from on the talk page of this RFC/U. Unlike MBisanz' characterization, I did not "refuse" to comment on that RFC, it was blatantly used as a tool to harass and out me and I could see no benefit in engaging directly with DC.

Based on Risker's advice, I am limiting my statement to the first 5 items of evidence chosen by MBisanz to meet the word limit. As this is the third time that MBisanz has quoted the same private email, I am prepared to publish the email of 26 January 2012 where seeing that MBisanz was a trusted user, I highlighted key evidence for DC's extensive hounding and the off-wiki smear campaign against me. I named a number of independent people he could approach before deciding how to take the RFC/U against me further. I neither asked for specific action one way or the other, and I did not ask MBisanz to avoid the RFC/U. MBisanz replied by email and made no complaint or that he considered it canvassing. I would prefer not to publish this email, I believe in the ethical principle that private personal correspondence should be kept private.

Should Arbcom investigate this case, then they should take into account my request for help and advice from AGK with regard to threats, hounding, harassment and off-wiki canvassing back in January 2012, my summary report that he forwarded to the committee at that time, and the decisions that they took in response. The Foundation has recently improved the terms and conditions of use of the projects explicitly to address harassment, stalking and threats and I recommend these are considered a basis for action. --Fæ (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In his statement, Fæ writes in part "speculation about my sex life and HIV status was posted by DC on ANI". I have never speculated about Fæ's HIV status on ANI, on Wikipedia Review, in private emails, or anywhere else. I have not speculated about his HIV status anywhere, publicly or privately, nor would I. This is a gross personal attack and should be treated as such. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although we're not lawyers, it'll be difficult to come to a ruling about off-site activities without first determining whether Fæ qualifies as a public figure. [1]. Fæ's userpage, talk page, and activity are all accessible to the public. Fæ is currently a member of Wikimedia UK's Board of Directors. Fæ has served as Wikimedia UK's interim Chairperson. Fæ has spoken to both the UK Parliament and to the media: [2], [3]. Fæ speaks about his "private" life in detail on Wikipedia. Fæ has uploaded semi-nude images of himself onto Commons. Fæ voluntarily placed himself in the public eye, and due to his position and influence, he should be subject to public scrutiny.

I hope that ArbCom can not only distinguish the difference between criticism and harassment but the difference between ridicule and harassment as well. Ridicule isn't the same as harassment.

Disclosure: I haven't ever commented or mocked Fæ's sexuality on ED, WR, or on Wikipediocracy. I've also created Fæ's ED article, but it doesn't mock Fæ's sexuality. I originally conceived the article as a wall (similar to ED's "Offended" article) of images that people regret uploading under a free (often irrevocable) license and try to delete. I originally conceived it as a page to teach people why they shouldn't license images of themselves under a free license. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. AGK [•] 22:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia as that is the only place where the Arbitration Committee has jurisdiction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
• Recuse. Kirill ^[talk] 01:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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, if 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)[reply]
  • Aceept I'm not sure anything Fae could have said would have left me to vote decline after reading all the comments, and that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon. That said,I do think there might be more parties conduct worth examining that just those listed as named parties. Courcelles 03:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Accept 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. Should have learnt from last time we proposed complex motions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Accept Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for Delicious Carbuncle: Thanks for your brief statement in which you comment on off-wiki sites. I've noted what you say about HIV and personal attacks but perhaps in your expanded statement, you could clarify whether or not you have commented on Fae's sex life, here or elsewhere, and if so in what context.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of outside conflicts—is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2) All Wikipedia editors, regardless of the length of their service or any positions they may hold, are expected to abide by at least our basic standards for user conduct. Administrators are expected to adhere, at a minimum, to at least the same standards of behavior that they are responsible for enforcing. In the same vein, editors who see part of their role here as making constructive criticism of other users must strive to live up to the same standards to which they would hold others. Double standards, actual or perceived, can be seriously demoralizing.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

3) While wider community participation in dispute resolution can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

4) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be faced with sanctions by the Arbitration Committee, including the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

5) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Passed 11 to 0, with 1 abstention at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

6) A user-conduct request for comment ("RfC/U") represents a forum in which editors may raise concerns about the conduct of a fellow editor or administrator. Although this procedure can be misused, when utilized in good faith, it presents an editor with the opportunity to learn that concerns exist about his or her conduct, respond to the concerns, and if appropriate adjust his or her conduct. RfCs should not be used abusively, nor should the concerns raised in an RfC be ignored.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

7) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or forums critical of Wikipedia or its contributors, is in most cases not subject to Wikipedia's norms and policies, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action including sanctions can be undertaken by either the community or by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

8) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

9) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits. Attempts to discredit people's views based on personal traits such as race, creed, nationality or sexual preference are in most cases Personal Attacks. Accusations of bias in article text can be resolved through normal editing procedures, however editors should not lightly accuse other editors of bias. Such accusations, if not backed up with evidence of such bias, could be considered a personal attack.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

10) Users who give up their administrator (or other) permissions and later return and request them back may have them returned automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. This is generally to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion, but an administrator who requests removal of permissions while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will generally be deemed to have resigned under controversial circumstances unless otherwise noted.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

11) Files hosted on Wikipedia's sister-site, Wikimedia Commons and used on the English Language Wikipedia must still comply with all relevant policies, including that of copyright. Users must take care to properly license such files on Commons before adding them to the English language Wikipedia. Failure to do so can lead to community or Arbitration Committee sanctions.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

12) Articles relating to living individuals continue to be among the most sensitive content on Wikipedia. As the English Wikipedia remains one of the most prominent and visited websites in the world, a Wikipedia article mentioning an individual will often be among the highest-ranking results in any search for information about that individual. The contents of these articles may directly affect their subjects' lives, reputations, and well-being. Therefore, while all Wikipedia articles should be factually accurate, be based upon reliable sources, and be written from a neutral point of view, it is especially important that content relating to living persons must adhere to these standards. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy that enforces these precepts by requiring, among other things, that articles containing biographical information must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy. There is widespread agreement in the Wikipedia community regarding the importance of the BLP policy, which was adopted and since its inception has repeatedly been strengthened by the community. In addition, this Committee has reaffirmed the values expressed through the BLP policy in a series of decisions and motions, and fundamental norms concerning biographical articles have been emphasized in a resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Passed 8 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

13) Editors are expected to be truthful and accurate in statements and evidence presented to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

14) Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, including disengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has used multiple accounts. The account Ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) retired in 2010 while a Request For Comment was active. The user later declared a Clean Start as User:Fæ. In March 2011, Fæ successfully applied for administrator status. There were concerns raised with respect to the clean start in a January 2012 Request for comment, in which the majority (if not consensus) view was that there had been issues with Fæ's declarations in that request. In May 2012, MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) opened a Wikiquette assistance against Fæ based on accusations that Fæ had made before and during a request for arbitration (which was declined at that time due to lack of prior dispute resolution).

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2) Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) declared in their request for adminship that they were a returning user who had taken a clean start with no sanctions against them. This was only partially correct, as they did not disclose there was an active request for comment against them at the time of their previous account's retirement. They had linked several accounts as legitimate alternate accounts at the time of the RfA, including User:Fae, User:Faes, User:Faelig. However, there was a number of additional accounts that had not been disclosed, as they were claimed for privacy reasons. These accounts include but are not limited to: User:Ticaro, User:Era8, and User:Speedo, also known as Speedoguy. Not all of these accounts were disclosed to the Committee at the time of Fæ's request for administrator tools.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

3) Fæ has been the target of a sustained campaign of criticism and some harassment, related to images that he has uploaded to Wikipedia's sister site, Wikimedia Commons, his administrator status on Wikipedia, and his role involving a Wikimedia Foundation-related charity. However, he has at times failed to differentiate between those who are harassing him, and those with good-faith concerns.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

4) In both the January 2012 RfC and the May 2012 Wikiquette alert, Fæ did not significantly participate, despite good faith concerns raised about his conduct on Wikipedia.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

5) Fæ has added poor quality material to biographies of living people and, on one occasion, added a highly inappropriate link. (cf. Evidence of Peter Cohen)

Passed 6 to 0, with 1 abstention at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

6) Fæ violated the restrictions on WP:CLEANSTART in several fashions. They created the Fæ account on April 29, 2010, announced they were retiring the Ash account on May 1, but continued to use several undisclosed accounts through August 2010. This violates the rules of CLEANSTART, which states that: If you decide to make a fresh start and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue the old account(s) and create a new one that becomes the only account you use.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

7) Fæ has responded to good faith concerns by attempting to link the people with concerns to the campaign against him. ([4], (as Ash), [5])

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

8) Fæ resigned his adminstrator tools while this case was active. [6]

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

9) Throughout this case, Fæ has attempted to deceive the community and the Committee about the true extent and status of his accounts and contributions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

10) Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created an article on an external website, which may reasonably be considered harassment of Fæ.

Passed 9 to 1, with 1 abstention at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

11) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) posted identifying information on an external website about Fæ that Fæ had not previously disclosed on Wikipedia. Though he later retracted his comments, this was a serious violation of the WP:OUTING policy.

Passed 10 to 2, at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

12) Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been involved in interpersonal disputes with Ash/Fæ for at least two years and has, for example, initiated RFCs on 5 April 2010 and on 25 January 2012. Between 25 November 2011 and 7 May 2012, Delicious carbuncle initiated at least eight threads on Wikipedia Review about Fæ, including one to publicise the 25 January 2012 RFC. The persistence and tenor of Delicious carbuncle's commentaries on Fæ is strongly suggestive of feuding. (cf. Prioryman's evidence)

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Fæ is admonished for making personal attacks and making ad hominem attacks on others based on perceived affiliation.

Passed 10 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2) Fæ is hereby limited to one account, and expressly denied the option of a fresh WP:CLEANSTART. Should Fæ wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username. Fæ must provide a list of all accounts they have controlled to the Committee, with any objections to making the accounts publicly listed. The Committee will then advise Fæ of whether they will need to list the objected to account(s) publicly.

Passed 10 to 1 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This case has been amended to add a remedy related to remedy 2 above, see below for details.

3) As Fæ likely would have had his administrator status revoked as a result of this case, his resignation of tools is considered as "under controversial circumstances", and they cannot get the tools back without first standing for a fresh request for adminship. Should they run for RfA again, they must publicly link to the statement on their user page announcing the accounts they have used previously.

Passed 12 to 0 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

4) For numerous violations of Wikipedia's norms and policies, Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Passed 9 to 2 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

5) For creating a page on an external website designed to harass another user, Michaeldsuarez is banned indefinitely from the English language Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban one year after its enactment.

Passed 9 to 2, with 1 abstention at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

6) Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia.

Passed 10 to 2 at 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

On 21 July 2012, Fæ was blocked indefinitely and restricted to one account as a result of arbitration. In February 2013, Fæ appealed his block to the Arbitration Committee, declaring his past accounts. The Arbitration Committee accepts his appeal, on the following conditions:

1. Fæ is topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed
2. Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed

Fæ may appeal these topic bans after 1 year.

Passed 8 to 1 at 12:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed:

Notwithstanding the existing restrictions on his editing, Fæ is permitted to edit regarding images of sexuality in ancient and medieval times, up to A.D. 1000. This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee.

Passed 6 to 1 by motion, 7:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

2.1) The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1 as follows: "Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one."

Passed 10 to 0 by motion, 11:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite the restrictions on his editing images related to sexuality, Fæ may operate the Commons fair use upload bot if the Bot Approvals Group approves it.

The bot may upload sexuality images that would, if Fæ himself had uploaded them to the English Wikipedia, breach Fæ's restriction, only if the upload is requested by a third party.

The bot shall maintain a log of: the images it uploads; the names of the articles on the English Wikipedia where the images appear at the time of upload; and the username of the Commons editor requesting the transfer to the English Wikipedia.

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 23:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• User:Fæ blocked indefinitely by User:AlexandrDmitri on 21 July 2012 at 22:55
  • All alternate accounts listed in finding of fact 2 blocked indefinitely by User:AlexandrDmitri on 22 July 2012 at 18:52
• User:Michaeldsuarez blocked indefinitely by User:AlexandrDmitri on 21 July 2012 at 22:56
• User:Faebot blocked indef by User:Kingpin13 on 28 September 2012 at 23:14.