User talk:Russavia

If you're blue and you don't know where to go to
Why don't you go where fashion sits
Putin on the Ritz.

Can you help?!? I am in constant need of photos for various articles I am working on, and I am in dire need of the following photos from around the globe. So I turn to the community in the hope that someone out there is able to take the photos that I require. If you can help with photos of any of these subjects, please upload them to Commons, and then post a short message with a link to the photos on my English Wikipedia talk page. In the event you don't have a Commons log-in, you can email them to me at russavia.wikipedia@gmail.com and advise which licence you would like to licence them under, and I can do the uploading, categorisation, etc. I have provided as much detail on what I require, including addresses, links to online maps, and photos of the subject that I am unable to upload to Commons, in order for photographers to identify the subject I require. More info at User:Russavia/Required photos

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message, alternatively you are welcome to email me. If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. All users have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time.

Comment from AGK

Please note This is in response to a discussion at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_24#Polandball_can_not_into_Wikipedia.3F

• Russavia, if I was just a little more sure that "tied up" in your reply to Fae is not the innocent idiom it purports to be, I would block you indefinitely for abusive behaviour. AGK [•] 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Before I respond to you AGK, I am asking you a serious question here. Are you serious with what you wrote above? Or are you simply buggering about? Serious question asked, serious answer requested. Then you will get my response. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not waiting for a response from you AGK.

1. Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Russavia?
2. Have you seen User_talk:Fae#Harassment.
3. Did you see the emails I sent to Arbcom regarding the actual abusive behaviour and harassment that Fae was subjected to at that RfC? I know they were received because I got replies "thanking" me for bringing it to the Arbcom's attention.
4. Did you see the other emails that were sent to Arbcom by other parties? I know they were sent, and I know they were received.

So AGK, tell me, being a member of the above referenced spineless Arbcom, can you tell me where you stood on the issues I have just linked to, and which I emailed Arbcom about? Do your other Comrades want to chime in with their stance? You lot aren't known for your transparency, so I am guessing this question will go unanswered. But that is the modus operandi isn't it? Leaving issues unanswered.

Are you, or the Arbcom, willing to tell us in the open why you ALL sat silent and did absolutely diddly squat about what was going on around the time of the RFC/U? Gutless is how I would describe the general situation, and cowards is how I would describe the Arbcom as a whole in this situation.

And now, you come to my talk page, and accuse me of being abusive towards Fae?

I honestly don't know who you are trying to impress, or what you are trying to prove, but if you were serious about abusive behaviour towards Fae, you would have done your job several weeks ago.

I've shown the committee in the past to be a bunch of incompetent fools who would rather close ranks to defend themselves as a group and continue with their non-transparent ways (TLAM unblock); and this seems to be yet another instance of Arbcom incompetence.

If you would like to continue with the outing of Arbcoms neglect on this issue (and this includes yours...especially yours), then please stay seated on that high horse, and I will continue to expose your fraudulent ways so long as you keep coming into my house and waving your tools around in my face like you have here.

So, anyway, you were saying? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

In my own view, irrespective of an arbitrator's individual distaste for the abusive undercurrent to the Fae RFC, the committee as a body is not qualified to summarily shut down community discussion about an ostensibly-legitimate problem. Therefore, we did "diddly squat" because we were between a rock and a hard place. If we closed the RFC, one portion of the community would be in uproar that we are intervening in genuine dispute resolution. If we did not close the RFC, another portion would view us as unwilling to intervene in what they perceive as harassment. (A third option might be to try to guide the RFC towards closure using an advisory statement, but I am dubious as to the value of such statements, and I have no doubt that it would have had no effect in the given case.)

If you look at the situation from a more balanced view, I'm sure you will realise that ArbCom was never going to float down from on high and dispense natural justice. We are simply not qualified or authorised to intervene in cases like this. You may think us to be incompetent fools (and may be the grand analyser of committee performance you purport to be), but it is the community of your peers that has limited our power - and rightfully so - to act as a super-government. Of course, it remains the case that I, personally, wanted to shut the whole thing down and indefinitely block the proponents, but I am only one vote in a committee of fifteen, so this is an irrelevancy

I did not remember reading your outside view at the RFC (and I never did read Fae's talk page), so of course my predisposition to misinterpret - what was, admittedly, an unhappy choice of words - was an assumption of bad faith on my part. I apologise for this. I assure you that I am not "trying to impress" anyone or "trying to prove" anything, though I'm not entirely sure what on earth you might mean by that. I'll be waiting four hours then sending you an e-mail that you must respond, because of course I "will not be waiting for a response"... (Do you see now how unreasonable that is?) Regards, AGK [•] 13:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note for context: This thread was forked from a previous thread by Russavia. --AGK [•] 13:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AGK, considering correspondence about my harassment earlier this year, I am astonished to find out that you, and presumably the other committee members, never took the time to read Delicious carbuncle's RFC/U against me. You may want to do so now, including the abusive use of off-wiki speculation about my sex life on the associated talk page. I have no idea how Arbcom could consider any decision for action or inaction appropriate if this sort of information (that was highlighted to the committee) was ignored. As the victim of abuse, your statement here is the closest I have come to receiving any official feedback on these matters. In fact I have seen more thought and engagement from Arbcom members replying to questions from banned users on Wikipedia Review than I have found in reply to my direct emails. Perhaps the message intended from Arbcom is that I should use off-wiki manipulation to get things done rather than wasting my time on-wiki? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fae. Because this is going to go to the heart of the issue and will not only greatly influence my reply to AGK, but will determine whether this needs to be investigated further, can you please confirm for me that it is a true and correct statement that you made above, in that AGK was made aware by yourself of the harassment you were undergoing, and that his statement above is the only response that you have received from AGK (or the Arbcom) on that matter? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 14:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Fae, I did not say at any point that we did not read Delicious carbuncle's RFC, and this is wholly untrue: we considered the RFC at length over a period of days, and repeatedly in conjunction with your follow-up e-mails. I also did not say that I did not read Russavia's contribution to the RFC; what I did say was that I had forgotten he had posted such a statement. If you recall, there were countless contributors to the discussion, and it is far from unreasonable if I forgot about one author of one statement - especially in light of such an unhappy turn of phrase as "tied up". Please do not put words into my mouth. AGK [•] 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AGK, I accept your apology. There are further things that need to be discussed however, but I am taking one thing at a time here. The thread on ANI is at this point number one, then I'll come back to you. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Chewed out my arse indeed. My vote went to ban Delicious carbuncle, and I do not follow how you reconcile that with your portrayal of me as defending homophobia. I genuinely expected better. Also: while I am sure no editor particularly "likes it" [being criticised], it comes with the role of arbitrator and I would hope you have thought me to be sufficiently forthcoming in the above thread... AGK [•] 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, thank you for your responses here AGK; they have been quite insightful. And yes, I did chew your arse out, but not because you think I am thinking you are "defending homophobia"; but because you came to my talk page and threatened me with an indef block over a comment which you weren't sure what attacking Fae; yet those editors who you know were acting in a homophobic way towards Fae, I can see no such warning towards those editors. So for some reason I wasn't afforded the same courtesies as others. Anyway, as we said moving on, I've accepted your apology, and we continue to discuss this.

On your talk page I also took you to task for what I, and many others, see as inappropriate interactions on wikipediaforum.com. You acknowledge two things in your reply, that I would like to continue to discuss here initially.

You mention that it's probably best that you stay away from sites operated by and which have participation in by people such as Eric Barbour. I couldn't agree more. Roles of editors who are Arbcom members are responsible to the community; not to people as Eric Barbour, who is not a member of the community, and not without good reason; and certainly not to Wikipediareview or Wikipediaforum. You stated that Wikipediaforum.com is more of a serious attempt at a WR. I disagree. For example, in that thread that you participated in, Eric states clearly that there is a "private" Wiki in which details on numerous editors are being collated; likely for use in future. This is not very transparent of them.

The second point is the most important point. Critique sites, in some opinions, may serve a purpose. But they should not be given information when detailed information on a case is not provided onwiki. Such as this case. Additionally, onwiki is the place to critique anything to do with the community, such as what I have done in the past, and am doing right now, because to do otherwise is playing into agendas that others may have with this community.

You noted above that you voted to ban Delicious Carbuncle. I can only see one place on WP where any such vote took place, and that was at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Block_request -- note, that from that section to the very bottom of the page deals with Delicious Carbuncle; first where he tried to have me blocked for bringing in the much supported view that he was harassing Fae -- compare this to DC's summary that was supported by only a single person! Having gone thru this entire discussion I can't see your comments, nor vote, there. So this leads me to assume that discussion occurred on the Arbcom mailing list; because again, I can see no discussion anywhere onwiki by the Committee.

Just yesterday, I saw that the WMF has passed a resolution on transparency; it got me thinking, perhaps our community, and especially the Arbitration Committee, should have requirements for transparency on this project. But it already does have such procedures in place as per Wikipedia:AC/P#Committee_resolutions, which require that resolutions and their results be posted to the Arbcom noticeboard. In this instance, it has not occurred, and because there is no privacy concerns in relation to this case (banning of Delicious Carbuncle), so it is in itself a breach of the internal policies and procedures of the Committee; and even moreso when Fae was never notified of the outcome of discussions and votes.

In the interest of transparency, and keeping inline with these policies and procedures, I requesting that the Committee published as required, the resolution/s as it/they was/were discussed and was voted on, to the Arbcom noticeboard, and also in the interest of transparency for the following Arbcom members indicate whether they supported the banning of Delicious Carbuncle from the community for what many community members felt was harassment of Fae.

1. AGK (talk · contribs) : Voted to ban
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) : ?
3. Courcelles (talk · contribs) : ?
4. David Fuchs (talk · contribs) : ?
5. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) : ?
6. Hersfold (talk · contribs) : ?
7. Jclemens (talk · contribs) : [1] Did not discuss this on Arbcom mailing list, did not express opinion
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) : ?
9. Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) : ?
10. PhilKnight (talk · contribs) : ?
11. Risker (talk · contribs) : ?
12. Roger Davies (talk · contribs) : ?
13. SilkTork (talk · contribs) : ?
14. SirFozzie (talk · contribs) : ?
15. Xeno (talk · contribs) : ?

Only with the publishing of these resolution/s and their resultant vote/s can we even begin to say that the Committee is acting in accordance with requirements for transparency to the Community. And it is something that I, and undoubtedly others, will continue to push for.

AGK, are you able to publish those resolutions and results on the Arbcom noticeboard as required? Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

To respond to a single point, a complainant cannot expect a transparent hearing if they do not submit a public request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee never received a request for arbitration, which is how it conducts the majority of its business. Only if our processes are properly used can the Arbitration Committee investigate a matter in a transparent, exhaustive manner. AGK [•] 14:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Now you have me confused AGK. You stated above that you "voted" to ban DC, but on your talk page, you state that you only "voted" (or expressed opinion) for the committee to review this. Obviously these statements are completely different and contradict one another. This means that there was some sort of dissent on the committee for even looking at it; in which case, it means that some sort of opposition to the issue. Who discussed this on the mailing list? Who was for looking at it? Who was against looking at it?

You say that one can't expect a transparent hearing if they don't submit a public request for arbitration. I, and I am guessing the community at large, expect the Committee to be transparent 100% of the time, not just when it is in the "public" eye.

Other than, I am reading between the lines very clearly here, and I sure that your suggestion will be taken on board in the near future. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left requests on each individual Arb's talk page requesting transparent answers to the issues and questions raised here. Time will tell if individual Arbs are willing to be as transparent as yourself AGK. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 07:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Recording of responses

The questions asked were:

1. Did you discuss the harassment of Fae on the Arbcom-l mailing list?
2. If you did discuss this on the mailing list, were you in favour or against the Committee reviewing the information?
3. If the discussion got to anything resembling a vote, did you vote in favour or against banning Delicious Carbuncle?

Recording of responses:

1. AGK (talk · contribs) : ?
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) : 1) yes 2) Had someone requested a case, I would have accepted, given the complexity of it. 3) I deleted the threads from my inbox and have not yet resubscribed to look at the archives. My recall is that I initially thought (or posted) leaning in favour of a ban, but after reading bits and pieces realised I was going to have to do a whole lot of reading myself to figure where I stood. When one can actually wield a banhammer, and one is faced with the prospect of using it, one (well I do anyway) become alot more circumspect if there are grey areas to consider...and there are some here. [2][3] (note: 2) and 3) had more general answers which are seen in the first diff)
3. Courcelles (talk · contribs) : :In order, the RFC was discussed in very general terms, I did think the entire matter warranted closer review, and no vote was taken. [4]
4. David Fuchs (talk · contribs) : ?
5. Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs) : ?
6. Hersfold (talk · contribs) : ?
7. Jclemens (talk · contribs) : 1) No 2) n/a 3) n/a [5]
8. Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) : ?
9. Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) : ?
10. PhilKnight (talk · contribs) : ?
11. Risker (talk · contribs) : ?
12. Roger Davies (talk · contribs) : ?
13. SilkTork (talk · contribs) : ?
14. SirFozzie (talk · contribs) : ?
15. Xeno (talk · contribs) : ?

suggestions?

Hi, I have seen your great work on Commons and can't help but see your ...uhmmmmm.... perceptible.....input on the English wiki encyclopedia. I am a big aviation buff and am wondering if you can think of any areas of (especially Russian) aviation that need help or a new entry. I especially like the idea of new articles, so let me know any pointers you have. MarshallGeorgyZhukov (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Comrade Zhukov, thanks for your questions. I am currently (which can mean I still haven't finished it after some years) working on, articles such as User:Russavia/Airlines, User:Russavia/Defunctair, User:Russavia/Il-62, User:Russavia/Il-86, User:Russavia/Tu-154, User:Russavia/Yak-42 which have plenty of red links in them which require articles to be written. I was thinking of writing (or expanding) a heap of articles to have a mega-DYK hook on front page (perhaps 40 article hook), which could surely be done -- only thing is they would have to be placed into mainspace at same time in order to qualify for DYK inclusion -- I know a 40 DYK hook is possible, but would obviously need a bit of work to be done, and perhaps this is perfect for collaboration. If interested in doing such a thing, drop me a line, and we can begin working on something such as this. Cheers, Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Tupolev Tu-214 really needs it own article. It did previously, but it was mostly copyvio. There is a wealth of information on this Tu-204 derivative that surely needs to be included, past the 4 lines that other editors deem to be necessary :D Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Harassment of editors and Arbcom transparency

Yes, the matter was brought to ArbCom's attention, but as far as I can see in a look at the emails no vote was ever brought up, formal or otherwise. I haven't been following the affair that closely as personal matters have been taking up the majority of my time as late. Constantly asking questions of the list is not an effective means of anything, really; people are busy and things can often slip through the cracks for technical reasons. Anthony is correct that discussing on-wiki is the best option for transparency and for just getting things done eventually, as we've constantly got the issues in our collective faces. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

David, this occurred during the time that you were listed as an active Arb, and while yes, personal matters can and do get in the way, the fact that the Committee was aware of it speaks volumes to my ears. Discussion onwiki is often not the best way to do things, particularly when an editor is being subjected to harassment (something that I am well aware of thru experience), because to have to answer things in public only gives those harassing an extra opportunity to continue with the harassment, and it makes the editor being harassed feel helpless to stop it. Also, note, this only occurred a few weeks ago, so it should be fresh in people's minds, but if you need to dig into emails to answer the questions, you may wish to do that. They really are simply questions, and require basically yes or no answers. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

People bring all sorts of stuff to Arbcom's attention. However, unless it falls within the remit of the committee - which is set out onwiki - there's no legitimate action that the committee can take. Yes, several people from all sides of the debate did communicate with Arbcom. No, there was no action requested that required the action of the committee. I have no idea what Russavia is attempting to prove here - other than deflecting attention from the siteban proposed for posting a cartoon that abused Polish editors of Wikipedia. Let's not forget that this is what started all this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads, please stop. I have already stated on the record, and have asked admins to do so, to go ahead and ban me, if they so wish. I really don't care about that, for that can be dealt with later. The potential banning of me is less important to me, and the Community, than Arbcom's transparency.

What started all this is an admin who is also an Arb coming to my talk page, and threatening me with a ban for abusing an editor (Wikipedia:HARASSMENT#Threats); an editor who he and the Committee was aware was being harassed, and who I was supportive of in trying to stop the harassment. For example Elen of the Roads, it was you who responded to my email to the Committee and thanked me for bringing it to your attention (Jclemens was another).

I see that you have not yet answered the questions asked of you at User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads#Harassment_of_editors_and_Arbcom_transparency, but have instead chosen to come here to attack me. I view this simply as you being unable to separate issues. Please answer the simple questions which have been asked of you, and have been done so only in the interests of Arbcom transparency.

How are other editors going to view this? I don't know but I have dropped notes to several editors letting them know what is occurring here. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 21:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll answer your questions, although I feel Elen already did:

1. ArbCom received a number of emails about the matter.
2. Individual members of ArbCom are free to "review" what they please. We're individuals, not a group consciousness. I read through the emails and looked into the background, but that was about it since no formal requests for action were made. I expect many of my colleagues did the same.
3. Again, since no formal requests for action were made, there was no vote nor need for one.

If you feel action needs to be taken, I'd suggest you file a request at RFAR for a proper public review of the matter. However, I'm not about to disclose the content of private emails sent to the Committee in confidence, which seems to be what you're after. I echo Elen's concerns about your motives here, as your questions are rather leading, particularly when couched by a very charged rant (for lack of a better word) that doth claim too much it is solely in the interests of transparency. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Hersfold, even if it does appear to be a hassle for you. You haven't answered the questions, in particular No 2) - i.e. did you personally discuss the issue on the list? You question my motives; my motives are very simple indeed...to ensure that Arbcom is transparent to the community. Also, the questions I have asked are not leading; they are very simple questions indeed. If you could clarify whether you did or didn't discuss the issue on list would be appreciated, and what if anything you did discuss. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Russavia, I think it is unacceptable that you posted your polemic on my talk page when I am on Wikibreak, and am explicitly inactive as an arbitrator. It is even more unacceptable for you to have posted it on SirFozzie's page when he is clearly identified as being on a health-related wikibreak, and is also explicitly inactive as an arbitrator. There is a world beyond Wikipedia. Either bring an arbcom case or don't: if you do, be prepared to demonstrate why the users you identify as behaving inappropriately are doing so in a way that is harmful to this project. Risker (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Risker, I think it is unacceptable that you have come here, after I have posted some questions to Arbs in good faith and have been attacked in a most unacceptable way by yourself. Please know that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF applies to all editors, including Arbs, and so far I have had Elen of the Roads, Hersfold and yourself, attack me simply because I am putting questions to you which involve Arbcom transparency. I see nothing in the questions that I have asked being polemic in nature, but merely asking you simply whether you have discussed certain things, and for you to be transparent about it.

• • Now Risker, you are listed as inactive, and have been for many, many months (by the looks of it), and I grant that people have real life stuff to be doing, as do I, but as I look at it, you took time out to respond here only to attack me, and you could have simply answered the questions honestly, i.e. 1) no 2) n/a 3) n/a -- if that is true, and your response would have been noted, and left at that for the time being. Instead you wasted 2-3 minutes of your time, 3-4 minutes of my time in writing this response, and I see that other people who have asked you questions on your talk page, haven't received somewhat rude replies from you in response. Would you like to refactor your reply?

• • After I posted my questions, I was made aware on email about SirFozzie and him being ill---I do hope he is doing well, and is able to rejoin us on the project sometime real soon. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to note for the record that I received an email from Russavia which notified me of these discussions on the grounds that I supported his post in the RfC and stating that (to parahrase) he was concerned about ArbCom's lack of response and was following up on this and that I might be interested in following the resulting discussions and commenting on them. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D for dropping by. I did inform above that I have contacted several editors. FYI, "I am emailing you as a courtesy to let you know that this is occurring, and you may want to keep an eye on discussions, and chime in if you deem you need to do so."

" I don't think at this time there is any need for anyone to get involved (to chime in), as this is merely the beginning of something that others will probably want to chime into at a later date. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, I don't think you have been given a complete account of events. [..]

Fae was happy to talk about Delicious carbuncle in public, so there was no requirement for privacy. Subjecting this committee to criticism for its refusal to take action is unfair, because the community that elects us had already decided none was justified. We are not designed to overrule a community consensus on the request of any one editor; and I could count on one hand the number of times this committee has directly overturned a community decision. One of our failings is that, although I communicated directly with Fae, ArbCom as a body did not send a final "decision". In this respect, Fae has my apologies (as do the many other editors who have found ArbCom unresponsive; the usual explanation is that the huge volume of mail we receive mean this sometimes happens).

To return to your complaint, please consider this. If a private request is made to ArbCom to take action, why would we disclose the mere existence of this request - let alone how we voted and what was the rationale for our decision? If a private request was made to overrule the community, and an arbitrator informed the complainant that we would not do so, is the subsequent fury with that we were not transparent in this request, or with that our decision was not the one hoped for? This committee refused to become involved, because it is outwith our remit, and I really do not see what else can be done about this. AGK [•] 13:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

AGK, you stated above that "Fae e-mailed us in late January with an allegation" could you give me the exact date when I emailed Arbcom? This does not match my records as I find no such email. I did correspond with you, personally, and you later asked to raise the matter with Arbcom. This is not the same thing and may be misleading.

At no time have I ever been "happy to talk about Delicious carbuncle in public". Surely the fact that I made no reply to the RFC/U he created against me indicates that. As for you directly quoting our correspondence, I am amazed at your indiscretion. You even told me off for copying in the UK CEO on one of our emails. Exactly why is it now ethical for you, especially as an active member of Arbcom, to start posting quotes from our private correspondence in a public discussion on Russavia's talk page? I remind you it was you that took the matter to Arbcom, not me, I only asked for your advice. If there is any failure here is it in your understanding of what could be achieved by going to Arbcom rather than other authorities in relation to Delicious carbuncle and the related threats I received.

The fact that after you decided to help me out by raising my case with Arbcom, you were publicly critical of me in my role as a trustee of the UK charity by using Wikipediocracy to complain about me rather than raising any complaint with me or my chapter directly, has not gone unnoticed. Presumably you wanted my stalkers and harassers from that forum to use the material you were posting against me. During this discussion you have cut me out, or at least not been bothered to tell me this discussion is happening, or get my permission in drawing more attention and revealing confidential matters about the Arbcom case involving my harassment; an Arbcom discussion that you created. These actions are not what I expect of Arbcom and certainly I fail to understand your approach in dealing with Russavia, when you could have just ignored his questions as trolling or given more generic replies to his questions. Please remember that in your actions you are carrying the authority of that committee.

Please immediately cease referring or quoting from our private correspondence until such a time as you might have my permission. I remind you, that there are matters in our correspondence that would not be appropriate to refer to without getting permission from the people involved and that you previously asked me to keep all our correspondence confidential, even from my fellow trustees or staff in Wikimedia UK. I would prefer you to withdraw all the quotes you have made above, even if they have been reposted elsewhere by my stalkers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fae, I am quoting messages that I sent to you, that I wrote, and that do not divulge (explicitly or by implication) the contents of anything you sent to me in return. Nevertheless, I have removed the contents by your request until or if you answer the preceding point - because it is of course possible that I have made a gross error of judgement. If so, please enlighten me: how does summarising some of the decisions we/I sent to you in any way violate the confidentiality of the situation?

My participation in any criticism website is in my role as an individual and not open to you for use to manipulate the situation to make it appear as though I am, in spite of my own actions as an arbitrator, working against you. Just as I sit in a elected, volunteer position (and am therefore subject to reasonable criticism, and a requirement to respond to the same), you are a member of a Wikimedia chapter and subject to criticism for your own actions.

If you are reasonable, take the other arbitrators and I out of the position we have been forced into, and set the record straight that we dealt with your case in as transparent and rational a way as possible.

As I am sure you are well aware, I did not tell you off for copying one of "your e-mails" to another individual. I told you off for copying that e-mail to another individual, with the whole conversation - including e-mails you did not write - appended. You are conflating the confidentiality of messages you are sent by other people with your own e-mails, which are yours to do with as you wish. Regards, AGK [•] 14:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a reply. I am not happy with your responses, I suggest you take time to reflect on why I might not be. As an Arbcom member with privileged information I do not expect you to be making public comments criticising me on the forums managed by the same people making attacks against me. It is not my role to enlighten you on what is required of ethical behaviour in this situation. I have not created a position that you might have been forced into by your own actions. I did not raise a case with Arbcom. I did not make a request about this matter with Arbcom in January, that was your action.

You are fully aware that I have received advice from authorities on the matter of criminal threats made against me and I am obliged not to discuss this matter in any detail.

I consider this matter closed. If you or Arbcom wish to release any further public statement about me, please write to my Wikimedia UK address or email and I will consult with my board and, if necessary, the authorities in the UK before making any reply. In the meantime I would appreciate no mention of me with regard to this case when Russavia's questions can be answered perfectly well in a generic form with regard to your required ethical behaviour and associated policies. If you expect personal correspondence with me to be made public, I require you to advise me of that possibility when engaging me in private correspondence. Correspondence with my Wikimedia UK address will be considered recorded and may be kept confidential if you wish, but might be subject to assessment should there be any complaint about my ethical behaviour as a trustee. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, I think Fae's reply demonstrates as well as anything precisely why we are all uncomfortable speaking about this incident and answering your questions about transparency. I for one am simply unwilling to juggle a serious incident on one side with shark-like criticism on the other, which is regularly spread onto my talk page. If my colleagues want to continue this discussion then they should feel free to do so. However, your incessant criticism (about which you gloat, as though you are rightfully "ripping the arse" out an arbitrator, and not actually baiting them into divulging the details of a private hearing) has left me disgusted, and I will not participate further if you decide to continue this inquiry.

Fae, if you require a reply to your remarks then I would be pleased to give one, but you will have to continue this discussion on my talk page. I do not want to continue with this thread, and I also do not think it is correct for a conversation between you and me to be on another editor's talk page (albeit under a related discussion). AGK [•] 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, as you know I share your point of view on the overall issue, but I think things may be getting off track here. I know the treatment of Fae was an absolute disgrace, and I agree that there were specific points in there where administrators could have stepped in, but I don't know what you can accomplish arguing with a few ArbCom members now. Superficially, Risker's comment about "either bring an ArbCom case or not" seems sensible enough to me - fortunately, they can't start a case on their own. Now from conversation at [6] I thought that Fae's adversaries might start a case, or else, Fae might start a case; even you could start a case I think. Maybe ArbCom could have butted in without a formal case where one particularly outrageous and unsupported allegation was concerned that I've commented on, if you really stretch WP:Child protection to the limit, but that policy Jimbo Wales wrote has been more or less ignored even on his own user talk page when it was directly relevant, so all and all ... not likely. I am very surprised a case hasn't been started, and if one is I'll try to make some good arguments - but really, honestly, if I have any compassion for Fae, probably I should not wish such further grief upon him. I should acknowledge that recently DC and the other Wikipedia Review people actually did manage to catch a distinctly possible witch on one of their witch-hunts over on Commons, which is more than I thought would ever come out of all their efforts ... still, I think they'll continue getting into unpleasantness until they end up in serious trouble, and if that happens we may get the action you desire without having to put Fae through this all over again. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for Violation of your previous interaction ban and disruptive editing in the WP:ARBEE topic area per this AE Report. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. WGFinley (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."