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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

@Cla68: I'd forgotten that, but yes, that is true and does put this up a level in the seriousness stakes. Too many people have been called homophobes for no particularly good reason. That said I do not think the scope of this case should be widened beyond Fae and his conduct.

@Casliber and Courcelles; there are of course a lot of problems with doing this by motion, but I can easily foresee a case becoming extremely ugly if the evidence and workshop are not strictly policed. My feeling is that this only 60 percent about Fae and is perhaps 30 percent BADSITES case No. 1,989,472.5 and 10 percent Enwiki vs Commons, Case No.1 <?>. Historically arbcom has not done well with cases that purport to be about one individual's conduct but are actually to do with - at least in part - sitewide cultural issues that the community itself is split on (i.e a number of the various Giano cases). I guess you probably do have to take this case, on reflection, as if not it will be back here in a couple of months, but I would give the clerks licence to kill on evidence/workshop stuff that goes offtopic (i.e doesn't really relate to Fae). Otherwise this could be quite teh dramafest. Moreschi (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roger, I think your question to Carbuncle is rather unfair. Fae has a history, particularly under his old ids, of extensively editing sex-related articles and uploaded some sex-related pictures to Commons and to Wikipedia articles. He has also voted on sex-related content on Commons using his Fae id. Fae has also made a number of comments of his own e.g. about his civil partnership but is also liable to complain about comments being made on Wiki by others. (See his explosion at Mbisanz that led to the previous case request.) Do you really think that Carbuncle can provide a full reply explaining his/her reasons to such a general question as you asked without exposing his/herself to an attack by Fae for violating his privacy on WP? It would be much better to get Fae to make specific allegations to which DC can then respond. We have already seen in this case request how such allegations (e.g. claiming that Mbisanz met with Eric and that DC has speculated about Fae's HIV-status) end up being untrue.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Fae has always been quite civil and collegial when addressing me individually, he does seem to have a bad habit of assuming bad faith on the part of people who associate with people whom he feels have done him wrong (his initial response to this case is a very good and current example).

A minor thing that bothers me about Fae is his insistence that we as a community must forget what he did as "Ash", because I don't see anything wrong with owning up to personal growth, and simply acknowledging that your opinions have "evolved". The major thing that bothers me about Fae is that he's very quick to accuse people who disagree with him of having a homophobic agenda. The other major thing that bothers me about him is that he doesn't intervene when his "defenders" are clearly being unfair and inappropriate.

This all comes down to a question of "conduct becoming of an administrator"... admins should (at least in my idealistic view) try to keep drama to a minimum, because drama distracts from the mission (writing and improving an encyclopedia). Admins should not create dramas that distracts from the mission, full stop.

There is also a simmering and seething undercurrent involved here, because apparently more than a few people believe that there was something deceptive about Fae's RfA. That issue really needs to be addressed here, because (if I understand correctly) ArbCom was perceived to have endorsed the view that "what happened before was no biggie", but it's pretty clear now that the "no biggie" would have been a serious issue for some of the RfA voters. I realize that the comment in question was just a committee member voicing his own opinion of the matter, but perhaps in the future the members of the committee might resolve to discuss such issues privately, and not comment as individuals on such matters unless there is some consensus on the matter (or offer a "minority opinion" if a committee member feels strongly that they need to speak against the majority). I understand the committee's reluctance to expand the case, but I really do think that it should expand it in this direction.

As far as results go, I would like to urge the committee to force Fae to do a "redo" of his RfA, in the interests of putting that part of the issue behind us. FWIW, I would vote in his favor, because I absolutely trust him not to use the buttons inappropriately. Let's have closure and move on, please. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some of the comments below (including Fae's, but not just his), I hope that a "principle" of this case will make clear that "Assuming Good Faith" implies not attributing malicious intent to those who provide criticism. This should especially apply to accusing people of bigotry, because that's an extremely offensive thing to be accused of if you don't happen to be a bigot. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please only accept this case if you, the committee, are prepared to fiercely curate the case pages for relevance and civility. I see several issues:

1. Fæ dropped his earlier account name and claimed to be leaving the project in the middle of an RfC/U that looked likely to sanction him in the area of BLPs. ArbCom agreed to a clean start. In his subsequent RfA Fæ said he'd changed his name after an RfC/U^[1] and that he'd never been blocked or sanctioned under the earlier name.^[2] This implied, to the !voters at his RfA, that an RfC/U had found nothing sanctionable. There is some likelihood that he would not have passed RfA if !voters had known that he left in the middle of an RfC/U that was calling for sanctions.

   You may want to address Fæ's fitness to edit BLPs, which is still an open question.

   Perhaps ArbCom should have insisted he return and complete the RfC/U before agreeing to a clean start.

   The obvious right thing to do, given his (possibly inadvertent) misleading evidence at his RfA, would be for Fæ to ask the community to reconfirm his adminship. It is argued that the value he adds to the project as an admin is too great to jeopardise with a reconfirmation RfA. You'll have to decide this.

2. It is claimed that Fæ and his supporters have accused critics of homophobia. This is a serious charge and you should call for (a) evidence of accusations of homophobia, as well as (b) evidence supporting such accusations. If Wikipedia users can reliably be associated with homophobic comments those users should be site banned. If unfounded attributions of homophobia have been made, the record should be put straight, and those making such accusations should be sanctioned.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the school of thought that while obviously the diffs cited in this case are less than ideal, that Fae has done nothing wrong or actionable, and is being hounded far more than other editors who do exactly the same thing. With that said, I urge the ArbCom to take this case and resolve it quickly, which will hopefully lance the drama boil and clear the air sufficiently that everyone can get back to writing articles and creating content, rather than stirring up drama and being internet detectives. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This proceeding is the outcome of a widespread political conflict in Wikipedia over whether "offensive" and especially sexual topics should be covered, which governs everything from what the Ash RfC was about to why many of these accusers have been calling for the destruction of Wikimedia Commons on Jimbo Wales' home page. Cla68 and Anthonyhcole have called for a narrow focus on Fae and those making accusations of homophobia. But a proper arbitration should examine both sides with equal scrutiny, including WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment itself, WP:OUTING of Fae based on WHOIS sleuthing, WP:CANVASSING of editors on off-wiki sites, even the violation of WP:Child protection by false allegations that Ash kept an image of a naked child on his page, a situation curiously occurring by the alteration of a Commons file a few days after that account ceased editing. I do not want it to be that Wikipedia editors' first consideration, even above Wikipedia policy, should be to think of how it will look for their name to be plastered all over the Internet next to a selection of anything embarrassing that can be extracted from their entire editing history by a few dozen editors dedicated to suppressing coverage of certain topics - nonetheless that is absolutely so, and it will continue to be the case unless ArbCom makes some wise and seemingly unexpected choices as this proceeding progresses. Wnt (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Delicious Carbuncle

It may be that you are right - that you were not suggesting to discriminate against Fae for homosexuality or (assumed) risk of HIV, rather for a perceived interest in bondage. [3] Does that make a difference? And I don't think that is how your original comment on WR would have been interpreted by a reader. In any case, you accused an editor of "sex in a public place" based entirely on a PG-rated photo showing one person in a closed room - because it was convenient to you to say that he put himself at "legal risk" to explain away your own comment - then played the victim of personal attacks because people interpreted your comment about how "risky behavior" makes someone unfit to hold Wikimedia office as being anti-gay! Wnt (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the important question is this: can an administrator ignore dispute resolution processes, or otherwise fail to answer community concerns, and still keep the bit? I think the answer ought to be no. Fæ offered no substantive response to the (admittedly messy) RFC. On his talk page, I raised a particular concern to give him an opportunity to address it outside the context of the RFC, but he chose not to reply. Admins must be accountable; that's policy. This is sufficient grounds for a desysop. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting for reference my comment at the RFC/U:

The issues regarding the prior account, the RFC/U closing, and the new account then applying at RfA are real and substantial. Those indicating a concern have evinced no anti-gay, homophobic or other concerns here at all. This is not a "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist" debate at all, it is a discussion about whether Wikipedia procedures have been fully and properly complied with. Nor is this a venue to discuss abrogating WP:BLP or any other fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And my summary of the entire RFC/U at [4] which I regard as accurate in all respects. Collect (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the committee decide to hear this case it is important that they remember the basic principles pertaining to the case which I have already spoken to them about.

Moreover, while action on Wikipedia is important, should the scope of the case tend far enough to include all the matters raised by the person bringing the case, then the action of other editors to act as a concert party, contrary to WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET should be considered as necessary, just as it was in the Eastern Europe email list case.

Arbitrators should also take note that there has been no attempt at 3rd opinion, mediation or other DR per se. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Having reviewed the above comments, and actually waiting for Fae to respond, my hope is that if Arbcom takes this, it's only to put an end to the harassment of Fae once and for all. Coming into this just recently as an observer, and not being caught up in all the emotion of the buildup, much of the stated history here (especially off-wiki - I know that is outside of "scope" - but hard not to take it into consideration here) comes off as either blatant homophobia or sexphobia - neither of which has any place in an encyclopedic setting or wiki community. The ongoing rants about changing identities seem both silly and bring up arguments already addressed repeatedly in the past and with other examples. The policies on enWP users ability to do this seem pretty clear and this does not strike me as a violation - even considering the timing of nominations, etc. The attacks on Fæ outside of enWP and in real life seem to be obvious examples of crossing the line from concerned Wikimedian to obsessed bully. If enWP truly wants to be a safe space for LGBT editors and for folks looking to be free of relentless bullies that only stop (maybe?) when you have been thrown out of a community they are eager to sabotage. As I've said before, I will concede that like most people involved in this incident, Fæ could benefit from taking a longer pause before replying to wikidramas and focusing on areas of greater need - like chapter development and Wikimedia outreach. However, as I've also said, I'm empathetic to the reality that it's hard to resist conversations that you're baited into entering and mentioned or attacked by name. Especially when it's so relentless, on and off wiki, and discriminatory in nature. While I do hope some users involved in this incident are reprimanded - it is not Fæ. If Arbcom does see fit to take some action against or send a statement to Fæ regarding this - I will be very disappointed if an even stronger action is not taken against the cyberbullies involved. --Varnent (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Recuse - Tiptoety ^talk 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I will be mostly inactive starting 1 June - 28 July --Guerillero | My Talk 01:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Recuse, I have previously been vocal in my support for Fae, and will most likely continue to do so. That obviously precludes me from any involvement as a clerk in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Original Discussion

Initiated by Fæ (talk) at 12:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

This restriction is not logged as an action resulting from the Arbcom case. It was added when I was unblocked as documented on my talk page.

A previous discussion in advance of this request was made here in January 2014.

The restrictions were stated as:

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

I would like the committee to remove the restrictions. They are so broad that they remain blight major barrier to my return to productive work as a Wikipedian editor, my future employment as a Wikipedian in Residence, and ensure I cannot create proposals for, nor take a lead in, future Wikipedia projects.

Failing removal, replacing with a narrow and well-specified restriction that is relevant to the original complaint in 2011 (which never went to dispute resolution as it was resolved amicably with the other editor), would prove far less damaging, such as restricted from adding external links on BLP articles to sites featuring sexually graphic material, excluding external links to germane non-profit/charity archives with educational medical or political material, such as the Wellcome Digital Library, British Library or similar respected archive or museum. However even this seems excessive, when there are sufficient members of the Wikipedia community closely following my edits to ensure that any problematic link would be rapidly challenged and widely discussed for consensus.

The previous discussion confirmed that members of Arbcom are not of one mind on how to read the restrictions, leaving them interpreted as broadly as technically possible. This stops editing where there would be any way of interpreting the topic relating to sexuality, women's rights, or of LGBT cultural interest. Specific examples included:

• Suffrage in Britain.
• Ancient history connected to gender or sexuality. I have created Assyrian statue (BM 124963) only after reviewing it specifically with Arbcom.
• Women in Science edit-a-thons that touch on sexuality, for example my article on Professor Susan Lea, created before realizing her speciality is sexual assault.
• LGBT cultural initiatives within the Wikimedia LGBT programme.

Specific projects that these restrictions have made impossible, damaging content improvement for Wikipedia:

• Educational material to support Wiki Loves Pride 2014. Of the 100,000 images that I have been working with the Wellcome to make available (see demonstration upload set), a significant number relate to AIDS education and ACTUP posters, as well as more general LGBT related historic material. I am free to support these on Commons, but unable to help on Wikipedia.
• My proposal with an LGBT archive was withdrawn due to these restrictions. I was hoping to start this project back in February (diversity awareness month).
• I have not applied for Wikipedian in Residence positions in 2014.

In January it was suggested that I create new BLPs to demonstrate my competence (I improved several hundred before the Arbcom case). I have created the following articles in the last couple of months, mostly on living women:

Biographies

Historical biographies

Two of these, along with my photograph, were featured on Signpost as part of promoting Wikipedia's improvement during Women's History Month.

I believe the broad restriction was partly in place out of concern for my welfare. My interactions on controversial LGBT topics, LGBT safety rating for Wikimania bids and Ticket:2014033110012549, show that I can handle difficult discussion on LGBT topics and BLPs without inflaming debate.

@AGK: I am sorry that you read my request so negatively. I have removed the word "blight", which I meant in a technical sense (I am used to the word being used in a legal context), this may have set the negative tone you were reading into my statement. I am presenting the relevant impact the restriction is having, which includes employment prospects. My intent is not "martyrdom", but to ignore the facts would seem odd, particularly if a concern of the committee was to place restrictions as a means to protect me, or to protect Wikipedia from me. --Fæ (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Responses to questions:

1. This is Arbcom's call, I have no issue with a gradual approach if they feel it is helpful.

2. First choice would be LGBT biographies and cultural images so I can support Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014 next month and may be able to renegotiate the LGBT archives proposal I had to withdraw. The contested site back in 2011 was part of a legal case, adding a link to that website without a community consensus was a serious error in judgement. I have learned a lot about how to interpret policies both here and on other projects with regard to respect and dignity of the subject in the years since then. That case is quite distinct in my mind to the projects I have mentioned above where I can support Wikimedia with relevant illustrative historic images from respected sources, or images from public events illustrating contemporary LGBT culture.

3. I suggested a refined form of words above, though I wonder if rather than spending time debating a technical form of words better to define a restriction, a probationary period for BLP editing and images relating to "sexuality" would be pragmatic, perhaps running a log of articles as evidence of review during probation in preparation of restrictions being removed.

@Beeblebrox: @Worm That Turned: and all Arbcom members that have found my mention of future paid projects offensive. I apologise for mentioning this in my statement. It is completely irrelevant to this request and I have struck it. It was never my intention for this to be read as a criticism of the Committee. I understand how this was read as an attempt at manipulation of the Committee or a way to make a martyr out of myself. I hope the Committee can now ignore it. --Fæ (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, Beeblebrox, Seraphimblade, and Worm That Turned: In the light of views for keeping a core restriction and gradual relaxation, I would like to suggest a simple amendment to relax the topic ban to introducing sexually graphic images or adding new information about living people's sex lives or sexual identity to articles unless there is an existing consensus to do so. This would enable expansion or creation of LGBT related articles and BLPs, including adding portraits or images such as the Wellcome Library's posters, historic images such as my restoration of an 1869 Park and Boulton photograph or cultural illustrative photographs as part of the forthcoming Wiki Loves Pride. As a good practice, I intend to stick to 1RR for both BLPs and topics related to sexuality. After six months, I would hope to appeal this remaining restriction for further amendment or removal. --Fæ (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: Could you please provide evidence to support your claim that I attempted "to suborn the committee through [my] position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter". Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurtis: Sorry for spelling this out, "suborn" can be read as an allegation of an unlawful act between two or more parties, and if proven may lead to people losing their jobs or prosecution. Unless you have evidence that myself and others engaged in this act, please remove the allegation as statements like this tend to get re-cycled later as factoids, as has been my experience with the UK press. --Fæ (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your amendment. I firmly refute the assertion that I "attempt[ed] to subvert the committee through [my] position as chair of the UK Wikimedia chapter". If you have evidence to the contrary, please put it forward either here, or to the Wikimedia UK charity's board of trustees for investigation. Wikipedia:BLPTALK applies to assertions about my life, as it does to any other living person. Please consider removing allegations where you have no verifiable evidence to support them, they do not help resolve the issue at hand. --Fæ (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned and Newyorkbrad: Thank you for discussing a motion. I may be wrong, but it may be worth clarifying that the issue was more about sexual images rather than images relating to gender identity, and that images such as my restoration of Park and Boulton are not sexual, but might be suitable for me to add to articles if considered to be about gender identity. It would be helpful if Rexx's suggestion were picked up, so that I were able to provide evidence at my next appeal of how my contributions to the encyclopaedia demonstrated the behaviour you require of me in order to remove the topic ban, similar to my list of BLP creations included in my statement, as was suggested in the January discussion. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fae's statement implies that the committee decision is affecting his real-life employment. This does not mean the ban was unjustified, and I am not impressed he would claim otherwise (or by the tone of his statement in general). As this subtextual martyrdom is the same sort of conduct that led to Fae's ban in the first place, I question whether he has reformed. AGK [•] 07:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee is explicitly required to act in the best interests of the English Wikipedia - it is not in their remit to consider how their decisions may or may not affect someone's personal life. In my opinion, this amendment request should succeed or fail solely on the basis of whether the Committee believes that removing or relaxing Fæ's restrictions will be a good or bad thing for the Encyclopaedia. Whichever they decide though, it is important that the reasoning is explained so that all parties may understand why that decision was reached. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: Given that at this point a complete removal of your restrictions seems unlikely but a partial relaxation has not been ruled out, it might be helpful if you could offer some thoughts around the following questions:

1. If you were offered a partial relaxation, would you accept one (depending on the exact terms) or would you reject it in favour of an all-or-nothing approach?
2. If you do want a partial relaxation, is there one area you'd prefer to see relaxed first?
3. Again only relevant if you do want a partial relaxation, but if the partial relaxation doesn't take the form of narrowing the scope, is there any looser but still realistic and practical form of restriction that you would be happy with and that you think would allow you to demonstrate to the committee that you are ready to return to full editing?

I guess input from the Committee other interested people about questions 2 and 3 might be useful to. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partly per Seraphimblade, I don't think that this is very well worded motion as it is not easy to interpret. I think it would be clearer to replace the second restriction, "topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed", with something like

"topic banned from images relating to sexuality post 1000 AD, broadly construed"; or

"topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed, except where the image and any surrounding context relates entirely to pre-1000 AD"

(I realise that these options differ in whether the single year 1000 AD is allowed or not allowed, but unless Fæ indicates otherwise I highly doubt this will be significant). Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question that ArbCom needs to address is how they are to manage restrictions on editors. If the intention is that certain editors are to carry restrictions forever, then be honest and say so. It is cruel to offer false hope and the editor affected at least can make a decision on whether they wish to continue editing at all under those restrictions or whether they will channel their energies into something else.

On the other hand, if Arbcom believes that no-one is irredeemable, then it would make sense to encourage whatever processes of rehabilitation are considered suitable. For infinitely banned users we have the standard offer, but I am unaware of any similar guidance for indefinitely restricted users. Were I in your position, I would be looking for clearly defined milestones that a user could aim toward in order to show that they no longer need restrictions to be able to edit productively and without undue conflict. If you are serious about bringing editors back into 'normal' editing, then you ought to be marking out timescales and expectations for targets that restricted editors could achieve to demonstrate their progress. Simply leaving them without any direction and having to guess how to demonstrate their progress is just not good enough. If that's too much work for ArbCom - and heaven knows your workload is heavy enough - then find some reliable way of delegating the tutoring of restricted editors back into full editorship. --RexxS (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand ArbCom's desire to ensure that our BLPs are as free from problems as possible. I would therefore suggest in this case that someone - an ArbCom member, a clerk, or an uninvolved admin - assemble a collection of diffs of problematic BLP editing by Fae and enter into a dialogue with him on how he would avoid such problems in the future. That should give you a lead on what he must do to demonstrate that he has moved forward. Obviously, the more diffs he is given to address, the more time and effort he'll need to undertake in order to illustrate his progress. That would at least be a step forward in clearly defining the problems that need to be solved. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has Fae ever fully disclosed every single one of his sock accounts to the Committee as he was required to do? If so, please tell us that he has so the community can let that matter drop. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worm that Turned, acknowledged as resolved. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the original decision, with which I strongly disagreed, nonetheless finds only that "Fæ has added poor quality material to biographies of living people and, on one occasion, added a highly inappropriate link." So far as I understand, the link referred to is one which related a film "Superhead" to the person who comes up if you search that term on Google. I have to ask: why is such an anemic finding as this used to place Fae in what sounds like a very special category of people who are viewed as unrehabilitable? The repeated use of the term "at the moment" below seems out of place for a two year old case. How many years is does a moment last? Also, Arbcom has failed to explain how any editor is supposed to know when WP:WELLKNOWN does not really apply to information which is well known. So far as I know, no one has actually written any policy against providing information about porn stars, yet the clear lesson here is that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy competitor to Google on this sort of information.

The message I infer from this is that ArbCom believes it has to take a realistic view toward political issues, which includes such necessities as ensuring that articles about famous people don't include unpleasant information about them. Truth must take a backseat to power, and a part of that is that it is essential never to say it openly. Nonetheless, even assuming this unalterable reality, it's not clear why Fae has to take the brunt of it. And is there any reason why ArbCom would need to restrict Fae's editing about academic sexuality? Surely the prohibition could be limited to BLPs of sexual performers, while permitting him to do good work with BLPs of researchers doing sexuality studies or people advocating on LGBT issues, etc., without preventing anyone from keeping their unmentionables unmentioned.

Wikipedia's treatment of one of its best admins and prolific editors, which ignored and worked hand in glove with a cyberbullying campaign off-site, is appalling. Even so, it doesn't matter that much. Wikipedia remains firmly on a downward course in editing and readership and I fear the end may not be that far off. I hope that Fae will find a way to get involved in a successor prepared to take up the cause after Wikipedia's final foundering. Wnt (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I don't believe for a moment that Fae has "proved that he cannot be trusted". There was a range of opinion about his edits, with many of us finding them reasonable enough - more to the point, there was never any situation where he was given a chance to show he could "improve"; all the offending edits are ancient history from before any decision was made. And I think it's really offensive to say there was no upside to Fae's contributions, when he has contributed a torrent of great images and content edits to match, including those of sexual BLP related topics. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: I see no particular risk from Fae editing, but I do see a risk that you could lose what you admit is a very good editor, because either (a) with opponents closely watching him, he gets fouled up on some trivial technicality, or because (b) after seeing the totality of his contributions treated as if they have zero value, and looking at a future where he will apparently never be treated as the equal of a teenager logging in after school, and working here yields nothing but attacks and humiliation, he simply gets disgusted and leaves. I know many who opposed him would cheer that day as a victory but I can assure you it is not a victory for Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned and Seraphimblade: I see a need for greater clarity on the text caption issue. For example, suppose that Fae wants to add an image of a Roman mosaic to an article with the caption (and perhaps some accompanying text in the article) that it was unearthed in 1974 on an expedition by A___, carefully restored by B___, placed in the C___ Museum of Roman History, where curator D___ described its discovery as a "key milestone in our understanding of how Romans viewed sexual identity". (Or it might plausibly be "irrumatio" at the end of that quote) Of the living persons A___, B___, C___, and D___, which are Fae not allowed to mention?

I would like to take this opportunity to publicly distance myself from a statement I made in 2012 following ArbCom's decision to ban Fæ from editing Wikipedia. In retrospect, I would say that I found him to be very aggressive towards other users at times, and that he handled criticism rather poorly. But the parts where I said that I have "absolutely no confidence in Fæ's honour, or his integrity", and that he will "never regain even a modicum of the trust necessary to be welcomed back here"? I don't stand by those statements today at all. I suppose I was responding more out of emotion than anything, and was upset by his attempt to subvert the committee through requesting a WMF official to intercede (at least, that's how it was presented). However, looking back, I believe he was on a downward spiral at the time. We all go through hard times where we say things we really shouldn't have. It's also unfair to cast all of the blame on him; he was the victim of a sustained campaign of harassment, after all.

So the question is, should we consider relaxing the restrictions at this time? I think there needs to be a demonstrated understanding of what constitutes a reliable third-party source, and how important it is that the citations used in an article assert precisely what they are referencing. This threshold is obviously amplified for BLPs. If Fæ can show that he has learned from his past mistakes, then it would serve no real purpose to keep the topic ban in place. For now, I think it would be best if he took the time to develop a better track record of conscientious article writing, and then return here in October-November to submit a second appeal. Once he has shown a greater understanding of his past issues, I would support lifting the active sanctions against him. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ — That was the consensus among members of the 2012 Arbitration Committee. I don't know the full situation, but it sounded like an attempt to use connections within the WMF to subvert the Arbitration case. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what they had said. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ — I've altered the text to avoid misinterpretations of any sort (similar to the revision made by Jclemens at the time). But I do have to reiterate what the Arbitration Committee has said, that the onus is on you to avoid sabotaging yourself and your career with what you do online. You've tied your employment to your activities across the Wikimedia community, which can have a broad range of consequences depending on which course of action you take. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why I should be required to provide evidence or retract any part of my above statement. I'm not making allegations, I'm parroting what was discussed in the 2012 ArbCom case. I even linked to the specific subsection where it was brought up. I don't see how anything I've written constitutes a BLP violation. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten that sentence so it will no longer present Fæ as having abused a position of trust in his capacity as chair of a Wikimedia charity. I did not intend to slander him in any way, and I apologize if that's the impression I had given off. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the stricken text and other relevant aspects of the above statement pursuant to a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Kurtis ^(talk) 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4.5m+ articles on Wikipedia. Fewer than 1% of those involve the restrictions that Fae is barred from, yet many of those are amongst the most controversial and prone to problematic content. Fae - via his current, and previous accounts - has previously proved that he cannot be trusted to edit BLPs in this area (nor, indeed, to deal with relevant images in those areas), so I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to expose itself (again) to possible problems with no upside whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt:. I didn't say there was no upside to Fae's editing per se (he is clearly a very good editor), merely that it would appear to be prudent to limit him to the 4,000,000+ articles that don't involve content with which there have previously been issues with his editing. Personally I don't think it's worth the risk. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Changed to an amendment request as it is asking for a past decision to be changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. AGK [•] 07:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm still considering this, but I will comment on RexxS's point. There are editors that I have come across since I have been on Arbcom that I would say should never have their restrictions relaxed, just as there are a small number of editors who I would be reluctant to unban under any situation, even OFFER. I will say the area I'm least keen on relaxing restrictions is on BLPs where there has been previous problematic editing.

  Now, I'm open to a relaxation, but not a removal at the moment. I will need to think about what relaxation would be appropriate - and would be interested in hearing from other committee members to see if one is even worth proposing. Worm^TT(talk) 07:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've had a little while to think about this and have a few ideas on a possible relaxation. However, @Fæ: I have been struggling with your request due to the way you've framed it. AGK may have used evocative language but his point is well taken - if the ban is affecting your future livelihood, then that is unfortunate but should not be relevant to the Arbcom's decisions. It should not be down to the Arbitration Committee to ensure your livelihood - if you insist on tying your income to Wikipedia, you make damn sure to follow the rules. Raising the issue of future employment appears to be an attempt at manipulating the committee, similar to the behaviour which landed you in the situation in the first place.

  On top of this, you've implied that you are restricted from areas that you don't appear to be. Suffrage, for example, is about gender, not sexuality - and if you cannot tell the difference between those terms, you should not be working in either area. LGBT cultural outreach should not require you to be editing the BLPs. If you are leading by example, there are many non-BLP LGBT articles. The Assyrian statue you checked with us that it was outside the scope of the restriction, we agreed. There wasn't confusion there, no Arbs suggested it was a problem.

  @Cla68: per this, Fae needed to pass the committee a list of his accounts prior to being unbanned. I, for one, was satisfied with his disclosures and consider the matter resolved. Worm^TT(talk) 12:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fæ: I've been struggling to come up with a relaxation that will actually allow further participation whilst at the same time keeping the protection in place. However, due to conversations we've had, such as this one, I'm no longer sure that a general "relaxation" is a good idea - I can see significant potential issues with allowing you to edit areas which cover human sexuality. What I will suggest though is a specific exemption - that of images regarding ancient sexuality. For clarity, I'd allow images relating to periods pre-1000AD, which I think is a very generous definition of ancient. I've posted a motion to that effect below. At present, I'm not willing to relax the BLP restriction, nor the image restriction that might directly affect BLPs. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding RexxS's suggestion, if a committee member had the time to do that, I'm sure they would have volunteered, I wouldn't presume to tell a clerk or uninvolved admin to do so. I'm afraid to say that due to the voluntary nature of Wikipedia, people do what they want to do - if someone was interested in that role, I dare say they'd have made themselves known (and would be very busy... editor review is failing for this exact reason). Worm^TT(talk) 14:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wnt: That would fall under the BLP exemption, not the image exemption. Whether it is a violation of the BLP exemption would be based on the context of the situation, but given the scenario described I would personally have no issue with any of the people being mentioned. That said, the sentence could equally be written without the names of the people involved, and I would advise Fae to take care in how he writes such captions to keep in mind his restrictions - which I'm sure he would. Worm^TT(talk) 06:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If there were to be any relaxation, given that BLPs are involved and with the previous issues in the BLP area, it would have to be very, very gradual. I would be categorically opposed to a total removal of the ban, but might be willing to consider a narrow exemption for some particular purpose to gauge things, with an understanding that any problems will lead to that exemption being revoked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the above comments, I do not think a wholesale removal of restrictions is what we want to do here but I might be persuaded to support a more gradual reduction on a trial basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with Worm's statement above. Sorry Fae, the best interest of the project, not your paycheck, is our bottom line. We already do the worst job here and we don't get a penny, so forgive my lack of compassion for your alleged inability to make money from your involvement with this volunteer-run non-profit organization. Now, if you want to drop the martyr act, show a little humility, and discuss ways in which your sanctions might be slowly eased back on a provisional basis, I am still open to that, but if you want to just appeal to our sympathy with your inability to get a Wikipedian in residence job, well, that's your own problem and your own fault. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the preceding comments. There is a core of restriction that should stay in place for now, but the boundaries may sweep too broadly. I have no interest at this stage in the issue raised by Cla68. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely agree with Worm That Turned that "sexuality" is quite different from "gender." Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Worm That Turned's statements above, but I am not yet sure if I agree with some of my colleagues that the restrictions should be relaxed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 2 who are recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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.

Support

1. Proposed. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   Copyediting of anything I write for the committee to vote is always welcome, it's not my speciality. Worm^TT(talk) 13:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support in principle, though we might want to do a bit of copyediting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   I've made my proposed copyedits to the motion. Any arbitrator who disagrees with them may revert in whole or part to the original. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support, but would prefer with the change I suggested below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. In the hope that it is understood that this very slight easing of the current restrictions is a sort of probation, and if there are any further issues in this area the pendulum will swing back in the other direction. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. My thoughts echo Beeblebrox's. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sounds good. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Not because this particular exemption is highly troubling, but because IMHO allowing the thin end of a wedge has higher costs than benefits to the encyclopedia in this case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments by arbitrators

• I'd be inclined to support this, but if we're going to allow the exemption, I would prefer to allow both images and text related to sexuality in ancient cultures. A literal interpretation of this motion wouldn't even allow a caption to be added to an image. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be happy with a change if you want to put it in, but at the moment Fae is under 2 editing restrictions - images relating to sexuality and BLPs relating to sexuality. If Fae was under a topic ban re: sexuality, I'd have put it in, but otherwise the change seems rather moot. Worm^TT(talk) 09:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct, I misread. I don't think there's much chance of a BLP being at issue in that time frame. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motion carried. Clerk to post and notify. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Fæ (talk) at 11:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Fæ arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 2

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• None

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• N/A

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Fæ limited to one account

• Details of desired modification
  • Permit use of authorized bot accounts.

This request is to have the one account restriction placed on me in 2012, amended to permit bot accounts, i.e. specialized accounts with an authorized bot flag. These would be linked on my main user account pages to show that I am an operator/maintainer and responsible for maintaining them within their community agreed scope. It seems sensible to make this a one-off request rather than coming back for an Arbcom decision for every possible future projects where I am operating or co-operating a bot account. As my edits to Wikipedia continue to be scrutinized by multiple users, I believe Arbcom can be reassured that any potential issue would be flagged early.

In the past two and a half years since the Arbcom case, my many projects for images have needed non-bot changes using tools (e.g. batch using VisualFileChange), such as filename corrections, which have affected and improved Wikipedia and many other projects, however it was always within conventions for cross-project/global improvements to be implemented using my single editing account. The project to take the User:Commons fair use upload bot and migrate it to WMFlabs, after the operator recently had their accounts blocked, has brought this to a head as this was an established bot task that would be fully automated. I would like to get this running within a few weeks and then promote it again as a service that benefits Wikipedia as it is an easy way to copy files from Commons when their local use can be justified under a Fair Use rationale, most often when a group deletion request on Commons is likely to make photographs or scans unavailable on Wikipedia in multiple languages. At the current time, users either give up and let images vanish from articles or have the complexity of doing local uploads manually. At times this causes delays meaning deletion requests are closed by the time they get around to it, creating work for Commons administrators to undelete and redelete, rather than simply templating the file for a bot to handle it.

As my various bot projects have been mainly focused on images for the last three years, I cannot imagine a situation where anyone would confuse bot accounts with editors, or editing using my single non-bot account, which would remain the only one used for making edits to English Wikipedia pages not marked as bot edits. At the time of the one-account restriction I was new to creating bot projects, I do not believe it was ever Arbcom's intention to deter me from extending these community supported projects to improving the English Wikipedia as this was not an issue in 2012 and has not been in the years since.

Related links:

• Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_9#Commons_fair_use_upload_bot_and_future_bot_projects
• User:Fæ/privacy statement of accounts
• Current bot accounts not used on the English Wikipedia: User:Faebot (mostly GLAM related work on Commons, plus various maintained reports such as c:User:Fæ/BLP_overwrites and meta:WMF Advanced Permissions), User:Noaabot (daily USA weather maps)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• recuse. When Fæ queried whether this amendment was necessary, I noted that I would recuse unless explicitly asked not to due to our both having extensive interactions with Wikimedia UK. Fæ has not contacted me regarding this, so I am recused. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be initially inclined to grant this, limited Fae to one editing account and whatever bot accounts he and the BAG/crats agree are necessary, used only for tasks approved for trial or operation by the BAG. Perhaps "The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1. 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." I'd leave the number open ended as I understand why someone running tasks from Labs might want to use discrete accounts for discrete tasks. Courcelles 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see any reason to deny this request. If no one objects, I will post a motion along the lines of what Courcelles proposed in a day or two --Guerillero | My Talk 20:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a motion along the lines of what Courcelles proposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per Courcelles. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion, there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting one who is recused, so 8 support or oppose votes is a majority.

Proposed:

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As proposer, copyedit as desirable. Courcelles 23:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Just tweaked formatting. Wording looks good to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. -- Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. -- Yunshui ^雲_水 19:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

Initiated by Xaosflux at 14:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Fæ arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Link to relevant decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#January_2015:_Remedy_2.1

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Greetings, I am a WP:BAG member and we are currently reviewing a BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Commons_fair_use_upload_bot_3) operated by User:Fæ. Seeking clarification on Remedy 2.1, to determine if BAG may authorize Fæ's bot (assuming it meet's all other qualifications) to perform tasks that may run afoul of his topic ban regarding "images relating to sexuality, broadly construed" - as the bot may potentially edit interact with "images relating to sexuality". — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC); (removals and additions — xaosflux ^Talk 15:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• @Courcelles: No intrusion on BAG domain, we are primarily concerned with: the technical aspects of a bot, that it operates within policy, and that there is a community consensus for the activity to take place. With all bot edits being the responsibility of the operator and this restriction in place we are attempting to determine if this is permissible under the restriction or not, if ARBCOM wants to add logging requirements as a condition of the restriction on the operator that is fine as far as the bot approval would go. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I suggest everyone keep in mind that User:Commons fair use upload bot is a good thing, intended to help sustain Wikipedia content and avoid the deletion of images on Commons with demonstrable educational value from being lost to Wikipedia. Any decision or outcome here should be positive for the encyclopedia.

I summarized the technical situation in the BAG request linked above. The request here is slightly misleadingly worded. The Commons fair use upload bot does not "edit" images, nor does it insert them into Wikipedia or Wikipedia articles, it can only ensure images continue to be on Wikipedia unchanged in a way that the reader would never notice.

Though I do not believe a further motion is needed, this does raise a more general issue that Arbcom may wish to clarify, in that this topic ban or future modified versions on my single editing account cannot be relevant to authorized bots, given that BAG decisions over the last few years show that no bot would be acting as an article editor. I would be highly concerned if the "broadly construed" subject of sexuality were to apply to automated bots targeted at general maintenance, as this effectively reverses the Arbcom decision to allow me to be a bot operator by making automated action almost impossible without an advance human review on each action. One might imagine that if the operators of fully automatic archiving bots were to receive a topic or interaction ban on their main account that they would have to abandon such bots for the duration of a the ban, which would be an unintended damaging consequence if bans are intended to be precautionary rather than punitive.

I read the Arbcom placed topic ban placed after I was unbanned as already requiring me to avoid deliberately by-passing the topic ban using other accounts, just as it would require me to avoid 'directing' other editors in a manner that would be interpreted as meat puppetry. Were the operation of a bot be potentially interpreted as being able to by-pass the ban, say because myself as the operator were able to direct its actions making it an oddly Heath Robinson editing tool, then I am sure this would come up at the BAG discussion and a flag would be refused until this were made impossible. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a strike above to reflect diff. --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Yes. I can confirm that the bot picks up images before they are deleted from Commons and localizes them (the bot does not need admin rights on Commons to work). This is why the reader would not know that anything had happened. --Fæ (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your follow-on question, I can add a log. Keep in mind that the same data sits in our public wiki logs for images and the edit log for the bot, so this data was fairly easy to track using current systems. Rather than making surplus edits on en.wp, I would rather that a text audit log is kept on WMFlabs (a facility for easy linking to files was only announced this week, see wikitech). Audit logs on labs are normal for helping track or debug other tools and fits rather better with the fact that we would really want a simple cross-project log and track the same data for projects like Wikisource as well as Wikipedia and other projects that opt in at future dates without having to rewrite much in the core code or have to set up odd log pages on each project. When the tool is running, we can add a prominent link to the audit log(s) on the bot user page for anyone interested to browse.

By the way, as mentioned above on the BAG request discussion, only Commons administrators can request that images up for deletion use this bot for local copies to be made. As I am not a Commons administrator at this time, it is already impossible for me to make this request. --Fæ (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update Logs will be maintained at http://tools-static.wmflabs.org/commonsfairuseupload. There will be samples to look at during the trial period. --Fæ (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: thanks for putting a motion. I am concerned that the wording means that future bot activities that include the English Wikipedia will end up being returned by BAG to Arbcom for future motions, one for each project, even where this is an existing approved bot.

I believe it would be a benefit all round if the motion can be expressed in a more generic fashion before it is passed that can apply to future projects, without necessitating further Arbcom requests. --Fæ (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: @Seraphimblade: I hear what you say. I do not believe it is appropriate for any bot operator to run bots that enforce their personal editorial values, neither do I imagine that the Bot Approval Group would let such bots run on this project. If I have to have my ban lifted before it is realistic for me to operate bots on this project, then I will prepare a request, however due to real life stuff I was not planning to have to think about that for a while. --Fæ (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: I agree that reading the source code addresses the points made about whether the operator has some sort of editorial control. Arbcom need not make another resolution or motion on this for it to be effected. Firstly, before this request was raised, I had already chosen and declared that I will publish the active code on Github, secondly the Wikitech:Labs terms of use require the code to be freely licensed and open source, in fact anyone with an account on labs can browse everyone else's projects, and thirdly the BAG process, which is required by the recent Arbcom motion (even though this was the only way to get a bot flag on the English Wikipedia), ensures that the source code is published in order for it to be reviewed. --Fæ (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Please note that the topic ban placed as a condition of the unban at the beginning of 2013 was "Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed". This is a magnitude larger than "sexual images" (as you probably have genital nudity in mind) and has been interpreted by Arbcom to include any LGBT material such as general gay pride photographs which I regularly upload to Commons as part of my work with Wikimedia LGBT, the photographs of long dead suffragettes which I had planned to work on, and would include a large proportion of the 100,000 medical history drawings and photographs I have uploaded as part of my project with the Wellcome Image library, regardless of their encyclopaedic value, unless they are objects such as Roman artefacts or early mediaeval illuminated manuscripts which were created before 1,000 AD. It is this wide and hard to interpret restriction which I was planning to appeal later in the year. --Fæ (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arbs who have already commented should reconsider. Actions taken by the bot where Fae has no editorial input or decision making should not be subject to the ban. The analogy to the archiving bots is quite apt. However, if the bot were discovered to have special logic in it to apply in the banned area differently or preferentially, that would be a very severe issue as it would indicate deliberate circumvention of the ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass this with the stipulation that the code remain open source (https://github.com/wikigit/Commons-fair-use-upload-bot); simpler than trying to infer the logic from a log. NE Ent 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is as straightforward as allowing Fae to edit, for example {{Cite web}} - it will undoubtedly affect sexuality related articles, but not in an intentional manner. It should be speedily allowed.
• I disagree with NE Ent's proposal to require open sauciness. Primarily because this is an intrusion on the liberties of bot-writers. The acid test is always (or it should be) the edits made. In certain circumstances, of course, the Committee, in common with other groups, may not be competent to judge the edits made - help from experts in the community should in those cases be sought. Secondarily open source does not buy the assurance that is promised, for a number of reasons.
• Finally it may well be nearing the time where the Committee should review the wider restrictions on Fae with a view to decreasing them.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC).

Strongly agree with Rich Farmbrough. Speedy allow with the aim of ending restrictions in the future. Victuallers (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with Fae on various projects including several things in recent years on Commons, Fae is a very useful, skilful and prolific contributor. If Fae was running an archive bot that any editor could opt into would we hold him responsible as to which editors chose his bot to archive their talkpages? If not then why would we be concerned about this particular bot? ϢereSpielChequers 21:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please comment in your own section only. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• recuse (as I was recused on the motion that enacted this remedy). Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• We did authorize you to operate bot accounts, but we did not relax your restriction for this purpose. Although I recognize that applying this restriction to fully-automated accounts will be challenging, I feel you are still expected to keep the bot from editing these areas. If you feel this is impossible, then you will either need to appeal that restriction, or have someone else operate the bot. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, after more thought, I've changed my stance here. It would be inappropriate for Fae to create and operate a bot that was intentionally editing in the areas from which he was restricted, but bots such as this (that have been identified at necessary, and are reviewed by the BAG as being appropriate) should not be needlessly restricted because of restrictions on the operator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with GorillaWarfare. It would be necessary either to find a way to keep the bot from making edits in the restricted areas, appeal to have the restrictions lifted, or have someone else operate the bot. Having someone else operate it is an option, provided they understand they will be fully responsible for all edits the bot makes, as is true of any bot operator. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Fæ: Is my understanding correct: The bot does not edit articles, it only uploads images here that are about to be, or have been, deleted Commonsside? And it uploads them under the same name, such that no edits to articles are required? Or does the bot run after the (renamed, but y'all know what I mean) CommonsDelinker ran, such that a revert on the actual article would be required? Courcelles 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the underlying task is pretty much uncontroversial (the former owner ran it with no problems I'm aware of) and that the control of which images to upload here is not being made by Fae, but rather editors on Commons who add Commons:Template:Fair use delete to image pages, I'm rather mindful to craft something to just allow the task to go forwards with a minimum of problems. Courcelles 21:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fæ: Hate to do this again, and I also hate to stray too close to acting like BAG, but would it be possible to modify the bot to make a log page here on enwp of which files were transferred, what article they were used on at the time of transfer, and which editor Commonside asked for the transfer? Because what I'm currently thinking is somehow to allow the BOT to be fine moving such images, but for you, yourself, to not be allowed to request such transfer. If we had a log, I think that could walk a fine line between letting the bot be fully functional, yet staying inside your personal restrictions. Courcelles 22:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think (tentatively) that I agree with Courcelles (as I understand him to be saying). As long as it does only the technical function narrowly defined, it would not be a violation if by accident some sexual images got caught up in it. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That is indeed what I am saying. Courcelles 01:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If BAG allows it, I will allow it. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. If it's ok with BAG then that's fine. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just not sure we don't need to pass (another) motion to that end... Courcelles 17:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be consensus allowing this subject to BAG approval but it does really need a motion to set out the limited exemption to a restriction. This is mainly because it reduces the possibility of future misunderstanding and uncertainty about what Fae can and can't do,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. I feel silly proposing the second motion on this topic in less than 11 days, but I believe that passing this now is necessary if we want to allow the bot to run as intended. Courcelles 17:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think this reasonably addresses the concerns. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Alright. I'd prefer a more general motion, but I suppose that could wait until Fae indicates he wishes to run multiple other bots. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. I too feel silly for this, but I have no objection. I have changed the wording of the motion to require a log, instead of suggest, to avoid any ambiguity on investigation. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Initiated by Fæ at 11:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Fæ arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

An earlier version of this query was emailed to the Arbcom list on 25 November, I have raised it here as requested by the committee.

Dear Arbcom,

I have been interpreting the remaining restrictions on my account[1], in particular "editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed" as applying to BLP articles in the article namespace, and excluding the LGBT+ studies discussion group, being part of the Wikipedia/Wikipedia Talk namespace, which I have contributed to several times in the past few years (as an example to the LGBT studies guidelines), or other LGBT+ related discussions in talk namespace which may refer to biographies but are not edits in main/article namespace. In addition I have created the BDP for Ramchandra Siras, being notable for the legal case Siras fought in India against his being penalised as a result of being homosexual, and continued my Commons projects almost all of which are post AD 1000 works.

Is my interpretation okay? I ask as a result of the request on 25 November, to help another contributor by setting up a proposed change to the article for the writer Milo Yiannopoulos, controversial for their anti-trans statements. Though contributing on analysing reliable sources using my LexisNexis research access, I neither made the proposal to change the article text, nor am I in any dispute with anyone, nor do I intend to edit the article. My objective was to help with the process for gaining a consensus and no more than that.[2][3] It has only occurred to me on reflection that being involved in the details, may be an issue in the context of the outstanding Arbcom restrictions from March 2013.

If I am astray and should be avoiding these discussions, in addition to not editing BLPs relating to sexuality, please do advise. My apologies if I have misunderstood how the restrictions were intended to work. As a precaution I'll avoid making any further comment on-wiki for the above proposal on the presumption that it may be an issue. I regret doing anything that may be perceived as going close to the boundaries of the Arbcom restriction, as I am planning on making a more properly thought out amendment request in a few months time, with the intention of giving more freedom to engage on Wikipedia with the results of positive content projects I am directly involved with, like m:Grants:Project/Rapid/LGBT/Wiki Loves Pride Featured Picture drive 2016, and would not want a thoughtless mistake to blot my copybook with the Committee before then.

Links

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ#Remedies
2. [13]
3. Talk:Milo_Yiannopoulos#Off-page_discussion

Thank you, Fæ (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @GorillaWarfare: I would be happy to see the restrictions lifted as suggested. This was my aim for an amendment request in a few months time. --Fæ (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Arbs,
I am the editor who made the request for assistance in setting up an RfC or similar structured discussion as referred to by Fæ, above. I was not aware of the restrictions when I made the request, and have only become aware of them as a result of this clarification request; I would not have made the request had I been so aware. I wish to express my appreciation of & gratitude for Fæ's assistance, and for their calm and reasoned input into the discussion which provoked my request.
Should the committee decide that the creation of the article Talk page discussion is within the scope of the restrictions, I would implore them to take no further action regarding it; I firmly believe that the action was taken entirely in good faith, and with intent to improve the encyclopedia.
Separate to the question of Fæ's action in light of the restrictions, I would, however, express my grave concerns with the use of WikiProjects to hold "off-page discussions" on the content of individual articles. This is firmly outside the goals and scope of this, or any other WikiProject, and intersects poorly with WP:CANVASS, WP:TAGTEAM/WP:GANG. I request the committee to confirm that such discussions should take place on the Talk pages of the articles involved; augmented by discussion at the various noticeboards (NPOVN, RSN, BLPN, etc), as required.
Thanks in advance for your consideration on this matter. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ's restriction currently reads: "Fæ is topic banned from editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed.". I encourage the Committee to revise that to one of the following options to clarify the intent:

1. Fæ is topic banned from editing BLP articles and draft articles relating to sexuality, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to talk pages or to automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.
2. Fæ is topic banned from editing (i) BLP articles and draft articles relating to sexuality, broadly construed, and (ii) talk pages of articles and draft articles covered by (i). This restriction does not apply to automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.
3. Fæ is topic banned from editing regarding BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed. This applies in all namespaces but excludes automated edits made in accordance with other remedies.

I do not (at present) have a preference between the options. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other restrictions, "Fæ is topic banned from images relating to sexuality, broadly construed." and it's loosening amendment "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." and those relating to automated editing, all seem (to me at least) to clearly apply in all namespaces and I don't think clarification of those is needed, but appending the sentence "This restriction applies to all namespaces." would I think be sufficient if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: et al, if you do go down the route of a parole then it is still worth clarifying the restrictions so that we don't all end up back here if the parole is not successful for any reason (even though this seems unlikely). Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Arbcom, several years have passed since any edits that this topic ban was based on. Does this topic ban serve any ongoing purpose? I rather think Wikipedia would benefit if you simply removed the restrictions on Fæ. ϢereSpielChequers 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First a disclosure. Fae and I do not get on. Anyone with any long standing knowledge of our interactions can attest to that.

That said, the behaviour sanctioned was a wiki aeon ago. These restrictions no longer serve a purpose and doubt fae would even want to repeat the behaviours that cost him dear now. Policy on blp is much clearer and easier to enforce these days. There is no harm in lifting fae's restrictions.

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

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

• Thank you Fæ for bringing this here. I agree with your interpretation of the restriction (and Thryduulf's option 1): that "editing BLPs relating to sexuality, broadly construed" is restricting you from editing articles, but not from participating in the LGBT studies WikiProject, participating in discussions/RfCs about BLPs relating to sexuality, suggesting edits, etc. I also agree that this restriction is unclear, so we should clarify it one way or another. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the discussion below about lifting the restrictions, I would be fine with that, though I'd like to hear from Fæ just to check that this is something he wants before we go and propose anything. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with GW here. On Ryk's question, I don't think that's pertinent to the substance of the request, nor is it within our remit to tell people which talk pages to use. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Piling on. I agree with GW and with Or's point about which talk pages to use. I do know that in practice Wikiproject pages are often used to discuss articles in the same way noticeboards are used. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Even more pilling on to GW's statement. That said, are considering dumping the second unblock restriction and modifying the first? Or what exactly is in play here? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm willing to lift the restrictions as a parole --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Guerillero. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm willing to lift the restrictions for a trial as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm wlling also. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted - Miniapolis 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
3. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 18:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
4. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
6. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7. kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. On the motion only. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss

Clerk note: There are 9 active arbitrators (not counting 2 who are recused), so 5 support votes or oppose votes are a majority. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]