(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cameron11598 (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 12 February 2019 (→‎Motion: Alex Shih: Enacting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Alex Shih Motions 9 February 2019 8/1/0
Fæ   10 February 2019 0/8/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox Motion none 10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings none none 12 July 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Alex Shih

Initiated by GoldenRing (talk) at 21:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • This is a case which, by its nature, does not have prior steps the parties have taken to resolve a dispute.

Statement by GoldenRing

The arbitration committee have recently disclosed that the resignation of Alex Shih from the committee and from his CU and OS permissions was a direct consequence of inappropriate discloses of private information in breach of the WMF's privacy policy, and therefore considered to be "under a cloud" (diff). Members of the committee have stated that the situation doesn't fit the cases where the committee may desysop sua sponte (diff), but owing to the nature of the violations the community lacks the information to determinate whether Alex should retain the trust of the community. Alex is now known to have lied about his reasons for resignation, both at the time (diff) and during his recent self-nomination in the Stewards' elections (diff). We consider this evidence of untrustworthiness, but each have our own view on the significance of this breach of trust.

In responding to this resignation, editors have argued both that the nature of the violations necessarily imply a loss of trustworthiness that is incompatible with access to the tools, and that the violations were related specifically to permissions that Alex has already resigned and that the administrator tools had not been abused.

We therefore request that the committee review the information available to it, both public and private, in relation to Alex's resignation and consider whether his actions, both as a Checkuser and during his resignation, were compatible with the expectations to which administrators are held, specifically as at WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND. We make this request without the assumption that Alex Shih must be desysopped. If the expectations of administrator conduct have been violated to the extent that a desysop is necessary, only ARBCOM is able to evaluate and act upon this; if those expectations have not been violated to that extent, then only a finding to that effect from ARBCOM will enable Alex to resume his normal activities as an administrator.

The above request has been prepared, and is submitted jointly, by GoldenRing, Vanamonde93 and Boing! said Zebedee. I (GoldenRing) will notify all those I have listed as parties, but will allow Vanamonde93 and Boing! said Zebedee to co-sign this request in place of the usual diff of notification (which they have agreed privately to do). I will say personally that I am sad to have to file this request, as I have always previously held Alex in high regard, but that I do feel there are issues of trust that need to be explored and resolved here. My co-signers have their own space below to add their own personal notes.

Statement by Alex Shih

The breaches of CheckUser policies is becoming a red herring in this case, as these breaches have already been reviewed by ArbCom and a conclusion was made back in September 2018 where I offered full explanation for the allegations and I am perfectly fine with these allegations and my full explanation to be made public because I don’t believe anything sensitive was involved. Moving forward, in short summary I interpreted the conclusion at the time as repeated mistakes, regardless of whether or not made in good faith, coupled with mishandling of several mailing list discussion content, that the committee thought I was being indiscreet, an admonishment that I freely accept as I had the mistaken belief over what is confidential information and what is not, and resigned right after.

The focal point here (for the merit of this case) should be based on whether or not I have breached basic policies in the context of Wikipedia, and I firmly believe that was never the case and trust that same conclusion can be made when evaluating the evidence. I do hope ArbCom can make the clear distinguishment here on whether or not I “violated privacy policy”, because that is a very serious accusation, or simply I have made several repeated mistakes in my role as a functionary and arbitrator, as I have described above. The second point seems to be on whether or not “community trust” is retained based on the fact I did not disclose the complete nature in which I resigned ArbCom. I do apologise for those who have been offended by the apparent lack of transparency, but I ask these folks to understand that had I done a full disclosure, I believed at the time it would have been equivalent to the same breach that I have been accused of doing by ArbCom, which is to reveal that a discussion is or has been taking place (despite of not revealing the content of the discussion) without the consensus of the committee.

I have no desire to edit nor participate in this any further. All of my actions were done in the best interest of the encyclopedia and I am not afraid to talk about them (which is why I openly edit under my real name), and I believe my work as an editor and administrator have reflected this. I have long disagreed that arbitrary titles on a website should be taken as seriously as it currently is, so do what you think is in the best interest of the encyclopedia, because I believe that is the only thing we should be considering. Alex Shih (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I endorse the above request, obviously, as co-drafter. Filing this saddens me, but I think this is the only way for this incident to be given some closure. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

I endorse the case request and the statement above as a co-signatory, and will add some more thoughts here tomorrow morning (UK time). I also echo Vanamonde's sadness. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of this case is AlexShih's resignation from ArbCom under a cloud, coupled with subsequent events. I accept that ArbCom has the full details while the rest of us do not, and that only ArbCom can judge the extent and nature of the CU violations at the time together with Alex's response.

ArbCom, apparently, considered desysop at the time, but part of the reason for not going ahead with it was due to the committee's inability to bring cases of its own (if I'm understanding the recent discussion). So we had a situation where only ArbCom knew about the CU breaches, but only the community could bring a case - but ArbCom were not going to tell the community about it. I think there's something wrong there, and I hope the committee will consider that when they ponder this case. Does there need to be a process for when the knowledge of a policy breach is confidential, but those in the know can't consider a desysop case for technical reasons?

The main point I wish to make (which several responding Arbs have already covered below) is Alex's behaviour since his ArbCom resignation. His explanation of his resignation shortly afterwards was false, and I'd say that's a breach of WP:ADMINACCT - which says "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed" (my emphasis), so it's not only about tool use. (Incidentally, I'm disappointed that ArbCom, knowing that Alex's claim was not true, stood by and said nothing at the time.) But, far worse, Alex was dishonest in his run for Steward, again giving a false reason for his ArbCom resignation and failing to disclose that it was due to breaches of CU policy - a power that he would have been handed back had he succeeded in that endeavour. That was deliberate deceit and a serious breach of trust, and someone who is prepared to deceive the community in order to gain advanced tools has no place being an admin.

So has Alex actually lost the trust of the community? I think the comments from en.wiki voters in the Stewards election (which would have risen by at least one had he not withdrawn before I was able to offer mine) make that clear.

I'll add that until this affair came out, I have had no complaints about Alex as an admin (though I have seen what I think is a deteriorating attitude towards the Wikipedia community, so maybe there's a bit of burnout here?) I also want to put on record my opinion that ArbCom performed poorly in this case last year. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just one extra comment (agreeing with others here) that whether dealt with by motion, a shortened case or whatever, there's surely no evidence phase needed. ArbCom obviously already has the evidence of the CU violations, and the only other apparent issue (the dishonest explanations for the ArbCom resignation) is out in the open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul August

Please accept. Paul August ☎ 22:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: "but in a role that lends itself to them." Really? This needs an explanation. Paul August ☎ 00:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I want to thank the three editors who filed this case request for having done so. It seems to me that it would be a difficult proposition for there to be a full case, because (1) the most pertinent evidence cannot be posted publicly on a case page, and (2) ArbCom are, almost by definition, already familiar with the most pertinent evidence. But now, with the formal filing of a case, the Committee is no longer restricted by the rules that would apply to desysopping without a case request. You are free to resolve the situation via a motion, and doing it via motion is the way that you should go. There appears to be more than enough evidence for you to determine that Alex is desysopped under a cloud and, should he return, can only regain the permissions via a new RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two points in follow-up:
  • After seeing Alex's statement here, I increasingly feel that a very significant problem is how he has been misleading the community as to what actually happened. I'm very sympathetic to allowing a graceful exit from ArbCom, so if it had stopped there, I would not object to his attempt at face-saving. And he could have gone on doing other things as an admin. But he continues to insist that he did not really do anything that would have required his stepping down from ArbCom and that it was more like he simply came to feel that he didn't fit in with the Committee anymore. And that makes me doubt that he would refrain from, for example, misusing rev-deled information in the future.
  • AGK should consider whether, if a CU uses the tool to obtain personal information without a strong need, and is then careless about handling that personal information, we should just regard that as something that comes with the position. If that's OK, then don't anybody run a CU on me.
--Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of comments about his retirement, I'll remind the Committee of how retirement during a case request was handled in the recent past: [1]. These kinds of things have a tendency to set precedents, so I strongly recommend consistency in how you do it. It's reasonable to accept and then suspend the case, but the recent past example also included a conditional block to make it stick. Here, the corresponding measure would be to require either a resumed case, or a new RfA, to continue as an admin. Failure to include that as part of a suspended case would make retirement a get-out-of-jail-for-free card. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I would urge the committee to accept this case, and to desysop Alex by motion.

The abuse of functionary level permissions which are only granted to sysops (either due to technical limitations or customary practice) constitutes, in my opinion, both abuse of the functionary position but also the lower level sysop permission, without which the user in question would never have been given access to the higher level permissions. I cannot see how it can be appropriate for someone who has breached the non-public information policy and who has misused permissions granting access to highly sensitive user data (checkuser and/or oversight permissions) to retain access to sensitive deleted material (via the sysop permission). I don't like the outcome of the whole resignation event - it means that a user will have to abuse their permissions twice or more - firstly to lose access to checkuser/oversight, and then secondly, to lose sysop, despite evidence existing of their risk in retaining access to sensitive information through continued sysop access.

I will also add - the community has clearly lost confidence in Alex, looking at the comments from English Wikipedia users at the Meta Steward voting page, if we were looking at a desysop discussion on our sister projects (where permitted) it would likely be the case that Alex would be desysopped. I do recognise, however, people may choose to vote differently when voting for a steward versus voting for a user to be desysopped, and the Meta vote can only be used as a barometer for how the community is feeling.

-- Nick (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gravely concerned by AGK's statement which says A series of serious errors were committed by Alex Shih, but in a role that lends itself to them. I would like to ask AGK, the Arbitration Committee and Ombudsman Commission to reassure the committee that Anthony and other arbitrators haven't, in so far as they're all aware, also made a series of "serious errors" with the checkuser tool. Nick (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amorymeltzer

There are five user rights at Special:ListGroupRights that are associated with both Checkuser and Sysop user groups, four of which may be abused: browsearchive, deletedhistory, deletedtext, and abusefilter-view-private (the fifth, oathauth-enable, is hardly relevant here). If in the course of committing any of the multiple Checkuser policy violations noted in ArbCom's Statement (or any other alleged/uninvestigated actions) any of those permissions were used (such as viewing a deleted page), then they are also misuses of the sysop user rights. I imagine something will be initiated here regardless of this fact, but nevertheless it should be considered whether, in addition to the points made by the three filers, administrator tools were indeed misused in the course of misusing Checkuser. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pythoncoder

The length of WT:ACN alone (118 KB as of Feb 9, 22:54 UTC / 17:54 EST) shows why a case is necessary. The community has clearly expressed a desire for ArbCom to decide whether this user should retain their admin tools. I will not at this time use this section to make a judgment on whether this user should be desysopped. Thanks to the proposers for stepping up. Please accept this case. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 23:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

I'm not really following this train at all. The community is motioning for the dismissal of Alex Shih from the admin role on the basis of evidence that is known to exist, but cannot be submitted to the community for review. That evidence has been reviewed by ARBCOM, because they are capable of reviewing it, and subsequent to that review they removed the CUOS tools from Alex Shih – I'm not interested in distinguishing "resigned under a cloud" from "had the tools removed" – for misuse/gross misuse. That should be it, shouldn't it?

ARBCOM can review the evidence, the community cannot. ARBCOM has reviewed the evidence, the community will not. Yet the community is requesting a case for review; where ARBCOM has already conducted the review. If the breaches rise to the level of desysop why hasn't ARBCOM already desysopped? what function do you serve if you aren't fulfilling the purpose you exist for? If the breaches do not rise to the level of desysop... why are we here? for a pound of flesh? shits and giggles? the communal shower? Perhaps the above can be summarized in a single question: why are two cases of review needed for ARBCOM to perform its core duties?

I'd hate to be Alex Shih right now, having already had ARBCOM breathing down my neck and with the community now coming in and saying breathe harder and longer. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13: Alex was and remains, by all accounts, a fine administrator when he does not have access to nonpublic information doesn't really jive with Alex's conduct since then, which has evaded accountability and thwarted attempts by the community to evaluate whether he continues to hold their trust does it? How can a fine administrator seek to evade accountability? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am dismayed that such a statement would be made by an arbitrator, since it gives the impression that the Arbitration Committee would not treat violations of the access to nonpublic information policy with the appropriate severity - I wonder if that's why we're here for round 2. Has ARBCOM failed to treat the issue with appropriate severity? if so, why? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man

This is a no-brainer, and while I am Alex's biggest fan (when he was the only realistic and rational link within the Arbcom nominees to the community), this should just be dismissed and Alex de-sysopped. I think that to actually vote in favour of months of mud-slinging, accusation, name-calling, etc is completely unjustified at this point and would demonstrate a clear detachment from Wikipedia's best interests. Alex is a great Wikipedian and, having been through the horrors of this committee's casual inability to function anywhere near correctly or quickly, he doesn't deserve yet another post-mortem. De-sysop per AGK's statement, and move on. We don't need a three-month drama festival to see the already pre-determined outcome. Nothing more useful will come from Arbcom, that is _for sure_. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RhinosF1

Given that CheckUser and Oversight privileges are only (even if just by consensus) handed to syspos and sysops are expected to have support of the community, I believe arbcom should hear this case and remove Alex's admin rights by motion. I would also recommend that he is not allowed to start an RfA without another user agreeing to co-nomimate him rather than just starting one himself. It seems clear that Alex has breached the trust of the community and therefore should retain adminship. Again, I ask arbcom to accept this case and as the only ones who can desysop Alex by motion allowing him with the supply of others in his own time to launch a new RfA. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support imposing the injunction below requested by User:AGK RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 23:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Majora

I urge the committee to accept this request or, at the very least, deal with it by motion. As I was reading this I was compelled to make a statement due to AGK's incredible decline rationale. A series of serious errors were committed by Alex Shih, but in a role that lends itself to them. makes it seem like functionaries breech trust all the time and we should all be ok with that, nay, we should expect it since the role lends itself to such abuses. This is an incredible abdication of the role the community put arbitrators in and to decline this request after sweeping it under the rug to begin with would be nothing short of telling the community that oversight of some of the most sensitive tools made available to editors is a pipe dream that should just be ignored completely. --Majora (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

"Failed to disclose their many mistakes" but "pointedly brief and technically accurate" also describes the statements "I am not a crook" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". These are misleading statements, and for an admin to make a misleading statement about the loss of their user rights while applying for new user rights should, at the very least, be formally reviewed. Levivich 01:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes

I am surprised at Alex's lack of judgement. His proceeding ahead with the steward election, despite fully realizing the complicated scenario it might lead to, looks either immature or an attempt to game the system to gain a moral upper hand. I am thankful to the Committee for bringing this up to the community. Thankful also to the filing editors. Given this kind of scrutiny and the circumstances involved in this case, I can't imagine how Alex would be able to continue here on Wikipedia even as a normal editor. Sorry to see such a fall in grace. The Committee should act with discretion and speed in such cases.

Statement by Kurtis

I think it's fair to say that virtually everyone (myself included) saw this case request coming from several light years away. I'd even played with the idea of submitting it myself (and I never submit anything to ArbCom beyond statements like this, and the occasional bit of evidence), but I was going to settle for just posting on his talk page and politely suggesting that he resign as an administrator. My hope was that he'd spend a year or two away from the tools, use that time to reflect on why the community has lost confidence in his judgement, and work to gradually rebuild trust. Then after some time has passed, he could maybe look at submitting a new RfA where he owns up to everything, apologizes for his mistakes, pledges to take greater care with sensitive information going forward, and perhaps people would be amenable to giving him another chance.

At this moment, I'm sad to say that I do not consider Alex Shih's position as an administrator to be tenable. Having the sysop flag grants an editor the ability to view deleted pages and revisions, thereby giving them access to potentially sensitive information. We know of at least five or six instances in which Alex used his checkuser permissions against their intended purpose, in breach of most any applicable privacy policies. This is a basic expectation to which we hold not only checkusers and arbitrators, but anyone entrusted with advanced permissions. Given everything that's come to light over the past few weeks, it is simply not possible to grant Alex clemency and allow him to continue on as an administrator.

The committee needs to accept this case, though a resignation on Alex's part could save us the trouble of going through the motions. With that said, I'm sorry to see it come to this. While I admit to being disappointed with how events have transpired, my hope is that we can move on from this unfortunate episode in time. Kurtis (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

I also think that we need to have a case. When Alex resigned and explained his reasons in the way he did, I could understand why but was unhappy that the result of doing it that way left him with the respect and indeed sympathy of the community. I didn't think he deserved this not just because of mistakes but because I thought that some of them showed very poor judgement on his part which would lead to more problems in the future. Of course like others of my colleagues I thought the Ombudsman report would bring these to light fairly soon. Then I started to hear rumours that he would run for steward. That seemed to me to be unlikely as the job requires someone who doesn't make mistakes and the report was going to show that he wasn't suitable for such a role. The rumours turned out to be true and he ran without disclosing the fact that there was a pending report or any hint of the real issues that led to his resignation. In fact his explanation for leaving the Committee was " "It comes down down (sic) to personal reasons and incompatibility with the bureaucratic structure. When I ran for the committee, I did mention that if I cannot initiate some sort of reform, there would be no point to stay." Although I know nothing about his personal reasons, to the rest I can only say that it is incompatible with the Committee's recent statement. When the Committee made that statement he even called the comments "falsehoods" off-wiki. What level of poor judgement leads someone to run for a such a senior position of trust where he will be called upon to use the very tools that he'd been mishandling in the past and when those errors were bound to come to light? Maybe the community should forgive his first misrepresentation. It shouldn't forgive the second. Administrators must be trusted. When they clearly cannot be trusted, they should lose the tools. That should be the core issue in this case. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rschen7754

Unless Alex chooses to resign right away, I think a case would be useful to evaluate the following questions:

  1. Are the CU / private data issues worthy of a desysop?
  2. What about some of Alex's controversial behavior/casting aspersions between his resignation and the start of the steward elections? (example: WP:CUOS2018)
  3. What about his deception of the Wikimedia community in his steward nomination?
    • Technically it happened on Meta - but if successful, while Alex could not have run checks on English Wikipedia (under the homewiki rules) he would have had complete access to the CU logs, all OS content, and all checkuser-l and checkuser wiki content. Is this still within ArbCom scope? I would assume so under the "take notice" part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction
    • What does this mean for other users who might find themselves in a similar situation? If they are sanctioned on enwiki, are they required to disclose this when they run for steward? (At what point does something become serious enough to need to be disclosed)? What about for any CU/OS position on another Wikimedia wiki, since they get access to checkuser-l and the CU wiki? I think that a summary desysop solely based on point #3 with no principles or guidance in this regard would not be a good precedent to set. (Example: there have been unsuccessful candidates at enwiki CU/OS elections who have run on other wikis or for steward that would give them access to some enwiki CU/OS data - including myself. Are any future candidates in this category going to suddenly be risking desysop/other sanctions on enwiki?)
    • Or, is it the loss of trust that is the direct issue? Without a community desysop process, it's always been difficult to desysop solely based on that.
  4. Maybe it's not your place, but the OC really dropped the ball here and it might be appropriate to "take notice" of that as well. --Rschen7754 08:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlohcierekim

While Alex's lapse in judgment in not withdrawing from the steward race is concerning, and though his (apparent) mishandling of sensitive information alarming, I don't think we can stretch these into the shape of something requiring desysop. The remedy for both problems is to deny him access to the CUOS tools, and that has been done. Havng said that, ArbCom needs to look at this and decide what remedy is now warranted, so it is only right that they hear this case. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Alex's unfortunate retirement, I would like ArbCom to continue on with this. Most of the investigative work has been done and the committee should be able to come to a decision. I will AGF that Alex's retirement is heartfelt and not playing dodgeball. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that we could avoid desysop, but that seems to be the way the wind is blowing. I look forward to Alex's return. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KTC

Given Alex's conduct and accountability both before and after, and the committee apparent decision at the time not to give desysop a full consideration due to a lack of an open case, this need to be accepted. The committee can deal with the case by a simple motion, or a shorten case if it decides, and acceptance does not mean sanction must be passed, but desysop or otherwise in this case should be an explicit decision of the committee rather than well we don't have a case so we don't even have to think about it. -- KTC (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb#Temporary_injunction. -- KTC (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: You're probably thinking of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Motion:_Malik_Shabazz but it's not as comparable since the rights had already been removed through L1 in that case. -- KTC (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

I urge the committee to take this case for 2 reasons.

One is that administrative tools give access to deleted content. While theoretically all edits with sufficient problems should be suppressed, this doesn't always happen (it also doesn't happen instantly but that's much less of a concern here since I think if the content has just been recently deleted someone is likely to tread with far more caution). Since it's nearly all private I'm unable to judge, but are arbitrators confident from what they've seen that Alex Shih isn't going to mishandle deleted stuff which should be kept private, due to a brain fade/lack of judgement?

The second reason is a bit weird since it's not directly related to on-enwikipedia conduct but I'm concerned that Alex Shih didn't see the inevitable consequence of them running to be a steward. To my mind, not anticipating what would happen and how the community would react suggests such a serious lack of comprehension of how things work that I'm not particularly confident of their ability to use the tools. There's also the question of whether they should have considered themselves fit for the role, regardless of what happened. (I concentrate on the former mostly because my first thought when I read this mess a few days ago was "how on earth did you not realise this was going to happen?" as to my mind it was such a basic and obvious thing.) Note that personally, I'm not actually so concerned about how they responded after (from the admittedly little I've seen). I can appreciate how difficult it must be to handle all that has happened and am reluctant to significantly fault them for it.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

@GorillaWarfare: given this, I think he means Wikipedia. I’d urge the committee to resolve this by motion. I know cases are normally accepted and suspended pending unretirement, but this is unique in that the committee already knows all the relevant facts, and Alex has responded to them both in public (here) and in private 6 months ago. There would be no point in a full case, and as he’s already made a statement, a motion should be acceptable as the committee will be able to consider it while voting on a motion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Personally I think this should be declined and him desysopped right now but ofcourse that's never going to happen .... so the next best option is to accept this. –Davey2010Talk 16:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SemiHypercube

I think that Alex, unfortunately, should be desysopped, with or without an ArbCom case, as his violations of CU/OS policy do seem to be misuse of admin tools. SemiHypercube 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

We have been told that the undisclosed 2018 case was dealing with five characterized breaches of confidentiality committed by Alex Shih in his role of Checkuser. This case was settled by allowing him a courtesy escape. Nothing more was done than accepting a simple resignation from the positions of Arbitrator and Checkuser (some words were sent to some quite dead body, without resulting into any resurrection). But this was nevertheless a clear case of a resignation under a cloud. By so blatantly lying about the reasons of such resignation, Alex Shih has broken his parole and the former courtesy escape settlement has became mot. As a first result, Alex Shih has by himself reopened the case. As a second result, Alex Shih has proven beyond any doubt that he must be discharged of any position of trust if we want to prevent any further trouble. Pldx1 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the alleged retirement. Due to the recent behavior, another courtesy escape should not be granted. Alex Shih has to be stripped from any position of trust. And this must be implemented clearly as a discharge for cause. Pldx1 (talk) 08:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Given Alex's retirement I think accepting but suspending the case would be the sensible way forward. This has been done before, I can't remember the details ottomh but it was something like a motion suspending the case with provisions that:

  • If Alex returns to editing before his administrator tools are removed (for inactivity or any other reason) then the case will automatically resume at that time. He must not use his admin tools until the earlier of the case closing or the arbitration committee passing a motion otherwise.
  • If Alex does not return to editing before his tools are removed (for inactivity or any other reason) then, the case will be procedurally closed. Alex may not regain the tools without first passing an RFA.

I'd suggest that (if they haven't already) the Committee make notes on the arbwiki so that a future Committee has the information it would need to deal with a resumed case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Given that there is no new evidence to be presented, the main issue is interpreting community desires. As such I believe a motion or case can proceed, and it may be best to deal with this matter expeditiously now. isaacl (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galahad

This case has undoubtedly made a significant precedent. As a member of the Commission, I must indicate that the measures in this regard were suggested and are left to those responsible for executing them. I am concerned about the comments of certain members, so if they consider that there is a possible violation of the policies, feel free to request an investigation (by mail)

On the other hand, due to the statement of the Arbitration Committee and the community request, a public statement was planned on this particular case. However, the retirement of the defendant requires a change about the proposed plans.

Greetings, --Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 23:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I urge the committee to decide this by a motion that desysops per level 2. It should be obvious that there have been serious lapses that have resulted in a complete loss of trust. It's not so much the CU error, though that was a serious lapse in judgement, but the subsequent ones, that have been rehashed and re-rehashed plenty by now. Alex seems to have retired, but given the situation he should not retire with the admin tool in place. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Alex Shih: Clerk notes

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

Alex Shih: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Accept. I'd normally wait for additional statements before deciding whether I think a case should be opened, but given the fact that the ArbCom is currently the only group that consider desysop cases and given all the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard it's quite clear that a case is needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alex Shih: When you say, "I have no desire to edit nor participate in this any further", do you mean you have no desire to edit Wikipedia at all or just specifically with regards to this matter? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Alex Shih has retired, I think we should suspend the case with the understanding that it will be reopened if he returns to editing, and that he should not use his admin tools until the case is resolved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. As our policies stand, Alex Shih can only be desysopped by ArbCom – who will do so either to resolve a dispute or deal with a gross breach of trust. This request falls into the second category. On that basis, I would deny this request and not move to desysop. A series of serious errors were committed by Alex Shih, but in a role that lends itself to them. Checkusers are self-taught, loosely audited, and doing a job where committing errors may not change the result. Alex Shih should have known better, but breached policy in the same way that several checkusers have done since the tool was introduced. The difference here is that we allowed Alex Shih to carry on making the errors, if not make them in the first place. Likewise, Alex Shih failed to disclose their many mistakes when resigning; but the resignation statement was pointedly brief and technically accurate. I am not sure any of us would rush to disgrace ourselves on so public a forum. Much of this sounds like I am excusing the administrator for their breaches of the checkuser policy; I do not. However, I do not consider errors in one of Wikipedia's most difficult, obscure roles to cast doubt, in this particular case, on Alex Shih's fitness to serve as an administrator for reasons of character, judgment, or competence. Although not generally inclined to leniency with administrator misconduct, I feel obliged to disagree with this movement for desysopping. AGK ■ 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition: all that said, if Alex Shih continues to keep radio silence then we may be obliged to desysop on an interim basis. AGK ■ 23:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon, BU Rob13? First, another error was discussed on our very noticeboard; and second, as I said without ambiguity, those errors stretch back to the tool's creation in 2006. Your monologue about a current agenda to tighten up on errors is fine, but don't misrepresent my assessment of this case request. AGK ■ 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paul August: Checkuser lends itself to incorrect use more easily than other tools. Some parts of our Checkuser and Privacy policies appear not to have come naturally to other users, and require rigorous self-discipline from new appointees to the tool. All this is why we carefully appoint new users and are severe with use that is less than perfect. AGK ■ 11:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. If it were just the CU mistakes conducted while a member of ArbCom then AGK's argument would be acceptable. But as Alex applied for a CU role after he had been made aware he had various weaknesses in that area which made applying for the tool inappropriate, and misled people about the reason he had resigned from ArbCom, we are into a gross breach of trust and a serious lack of judgement. I don't see it possible how in the circumstances the community could trust him right now. This can be resolved quickly by motion. SilkTork (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, but perhaps not for the reasons one would expect. I stand by my statement at WT:ACN, and I do not necessarily think that misuse of CheckUser data must lead to desysopping. Alex was and remains, by all accounts, a fine administrator when he does not have access to nonpublic information. At the time I wrote that statement, I expected to vote to decline a case request if one were filed, despite being Alex's harshest critic on the Committee in 2018, easily. Having said that, additional information has come to light that I believe warrants a case. I have been surprised at Alex's lack of response to community concerns on-wiki, including his statements made off-wiki that he does not intend further comment. I have also read MastCell's comments on Alex's talk, and they are persuasive. To the extent there was an attempt to mislead the community while seeking election as a steward, through omission or otherwise, that speaks directly to "gross loss of trust". In that sense, my acceptance of this case is based not on the contents of the Ombudsman Commission report, as bad as they were, because I do not see them as particularly related to his role as an administrator or the community's ability to trust him with administrative tools. My acceptance of this case is based on Alex's conduct since then, which has evaded accountability and thwarted attempts by the community to evaluate whether he continues to hold their trust. I will await Alex's response to this case request. If he does not respond within a few days, I will move to resolve this case by motion. (Striking, as Alex responded in the long interim I was typing my initial comment.) ~ Rob13Talk 01:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also emphatically disagree with my colleague's statement above regarding CheckUser "mistakes". When the last group of CheckUsers was brought on, I organized an internal training to explain the role. One of my goals in that training was to put the "fear of God" into them, and I hope I succeeded. CheckUsers simply can't make mistakes, not when it comes to disclosure of non-public information. The lines are very bright, intentionally so. I am aware of no violations of the access to nonpublic information policy by any enwiki CheckUsers during my tenure on the Arbitration Committee other than Alex Shih. If I were aware of any such violations, I would have advocated immediate removal as a CheckUser, even on a first offense, if the violation involved the release of any private data. I am dismayed that such a statement would be made by an arbitrator, since it gives the impression that the Arbitration Committee would not treat violations of the access to nonpublic information policy with the appropriate severity. ~ Rob13Talk 01:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mr rnddude: All fair questions. I suppose I meant to say that Alex was and remains a fine administrator, completely ignoring his access to nonpublic information from start to finish. I know of no similar cases of lack of accountability disconnected from his role on the Arbitration Committee, including his access to CheckUser data. That is all I was saying. As for the latter questions, I think the Committee did treat the situation with the appropriate severity once it became known. Keep in mind that we cannot disclose internal deliberations related to Alex before his resignation, so I'm not at liberty to say exactly what we were doing at the time. I can say that my own position was that Alex should be removed from the Committee if he did not resign, and I was taking steps toward that. I will also make a personal commitment that auditing of CheckUsers on enwiki will improve. I have already said I will push to restore regular audits conducted by the Arbitration Committee or a subset thereof, but if for whatever reason that does not gain internal support, I will personally audit our local CheckUsers, including sitting arbitrators, and forward any problematic checks to the Ombudsman Commission for review. We have been too lax on auditing of enwiki CheckUsers. I am making a commitment that practice will change, even if it means doing the work entirely myself. ~ Rob13Talk 01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alex Shih: I take it you do not see value in a full case on this matter, in favor of dispatching this one way or the other by motion? ~ Rob13Talk 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AGK: It's unclear to me how you believe I have misrepresented anything you said, mostly because I haven't particularly represented it at all. I did not summarize your statement in any way. I said I disagreed with its content and went on to reassure the community that I personally treat CheckUser mistakes as serious and have not seen any large number of them being made. I have no idea about what happened with Drmies in 2012; indeed, I wasn't even an editor then. But I seriously doubt it could be anything approaching the contents of the Ombudsman Commission report, which detailed repeated instances of bright-line violations of the access to nonpublic information policy, which continued even after they were discussed with Alex. ~ Rob13Talk 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick: Please see my statement above, which I believe answers your point. I am happy to answer any other specific questions you have to the farthest extent I am able to under the access to nonpublic information policy. ~ Rob13Talk 16:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept As I've said in the previous admin cases with which we've been presented, I have a low bar for acceptance. I agree with Rob, though, that Alex has been a competent administrator – hell, I couldn't work the DYK queue like he does, and the closures he makes seem to be just fine. I was annoyed that he resigned from the committee in the manner he did, with such a touching yet completely misleading statement, but fine, whatever. It allowed him to leave with grace, and the OC complaint was in the hands of the commission, and they were going to do what they were going to do. However, I was stunned that he tried to deceive the community by saying he resigned from the committee due to 'bureaucratic differences' (I think that's the phrase he used, if not, sorry). That couldn't stand, and that's why we released the statement we did. Since then, he's essentially called us liars, but I assure you the data is real, the breaches are real and serious, and if I could share it with you all, I would. But I can't, and you all elected me and the rest of us to our positions to do this kind of ugly but necessary work. I don't know if I'll vote to desysop, but the arguments to accept are persuasive and I do not like what I've seen from Alex in the last two weeks. Katietalk 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Alex's entry into the Stewards election raises fresh issues and we'll all benefit from having a line drawn under this. We should aim to resolve this quickly by motion; given that much of the discussion will be private and we already have most of the evidence, a full case would be pantomime. If anyone wants to us to consider additional information, they probably ought to submit it now, either as a statement or by email. – Joe (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Alex volunteered to do a notoriously difficult job and was elected based on his record as an editor and admin. It turned out that there were some aspects of the job that were not a good fit. Well, that's probably true for most of us (oh god, please don't ask me about the fine points of DS procedure) but the particular aspects Alex was unsuccessful with are pretty core elements of the role. When told he was making too many mistakes, he removed himself from the situations where mistakes could be made and went back to doing the things he'd previously been successful at. So far, so good. I was not in favor of any further action at the time of the original discussion in August-September. (I do feel like a bit of a chump now for having said at the time that surely the ombudsmen wouldn't take too long...) I've never been bothered by his descriptions of his departure in on-wiki or off-site conversations - after all, resigning from things "to spend more time with your family" and so on is a well-established tradition of resolving messy situations without too much public fuss. But then going on to run for another position of trust, with access to many of the same types of private information he had access to before, with arguably even more responsibility and less oversight, knowing that there were outstanding concerns about his work in exactly that area - well, that's just really poor judgment. (Alex, if you were concerned that disclosing the background might itself be a privacy violation, you could have asked us first?) We certainly don't need a lengthy process here, but I can see why a re-review is in order in light of recent events. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept This case request comes amid a recent series of events and most likely others soon to come. I cannot think of too many cases where ArbCom was requested to decide on a matter related to ADMINACCT without there being a direct misuse of the sysop tools or sock puppetry. The issue of repeated 'poor judgement' and 'lost the trust of the community' has been regularly discussed within the community and this case will almost certainly test those aspects of the admin policy. The discussion at WT:AC/N and the statements made here sufficiently outlines enough concern for a case. Mkdw talk 17:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick: Not that I am aware. Mkdw talk 17:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Injunction: Alex Shih

(1) Proposed:

Alex Shih (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has retired from Wikipedia. Consequently:

  • this case is suspended for 1 year; and
  • the administrator rights of Alex Shih are removed with immediate effect.

If Alex Shih returns within 1 year:

  • the case will be unsuspended; and
  • pending a case decision, Alex Shih will not be entitled to resysopping.

If Alex Shih does not return within 1 year:

  • this case will be closed; and
  • Alex Shih would be required to apply to the community in the normal way for restoration of adminship.

For these purposes, the period of 1 year will begin from the date this injunction is enacted.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed. This is an injunction, not a motion, and as a clerical matter the accepted case should still be opened. No need to create anything other than the case's front page. As I recall, the difference here from SchuminWeb is that SW was uncontactable prior to the matter reaching arbitration, rather than retiring after arbitration started. In other words, SW had not been afforded the chance to respond. AGK ■ 23:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I find it interesting that Alex so believes in his position that he immediately retires when the case is opened. Nonetheless, he's entitled to process, and if he returns, he'll get it. Meanwhile, we can move on and at least temporarily close this sorry chapter. Katietalk 23:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Now second choice. Katietalk 02:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice - I prefer the option of only re-opening the case if Alex requests it. SilkTork (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Procedurally, an injunction cannot be issued until a case is opened, and this case is not yet opened. We should instead open and suspend this case by motion. I will propose something in a moment. ~ Rob13Talk 00:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure this needed anything other than removing the word "injunction", but anyway, support the motion version. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not fussed about the bureaucracy around opening and shutting cases, but I prefer the second motion in that it allows Alex to return as soon as he likes without prejudice. This motion requires a case, and since both motions start with a temporary desysop, I don't see the need for a case unless Alex objects. WormTT(talk) 09:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As I prefer the option below as a better overall decision. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments

Motion: Alex Shih

The "Alex Shih" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Alex Shih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a duration not to exceed one year, during which time Alex Shih will be temporarily desysopped.

If Alex Shih should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or at the Clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within one year of the "Alex Shih" case being opened and suspended, this case shall be automatically closed, and Alex Shih shall remain desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted --Cameron11598 (Talk) 04:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. ~ Rob13Talk 00:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice as this gives the option to Alex of re-opening the case, and so allows him to quietly return to Wikipedia without having to face a trial. SilkTork (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Katietalk 02:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mkdw talk 03:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm saddened to see how far and fast this has progressed, when I stopped on Wikipedia on Friday there was a discussion about Alex on the WP:ACN, and this morning there's an accepted case, Alex has retired and we have a motion to suspend and desysop. My concerns have been handled in this motion - it allows Alex to return if and when he wants (and that's something I'd like to see), with or without a case - completely at his choice for the first year. It addresses the community concerns or "loss of trust", by imposing the desysop. Oh, and just so it is on the record, I do believe Alex was truthful in his succinct statements about retiring - notwithstanding the ommissions, checkuser behaviour, and poor judgement running for steward - but he and I discussed and expressed infuriation about the bureaucracy of Arbcom. Further, I have seen no malice in Alex's actions - I hope this motion can be the end of it and Alex can have the option of returning to content editing. WormTT(talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'd have preferred to get this over with now and, judging by the sentiment of our comments above, Alex likely would have avoided a desysop that way. But it would be unfair to proceed in his absence. – Joe (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Comments

Fæ

Initiated by Sitush (talk) at 16:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • None - see my opening statement

Statement by Sitush

Information submitted to ArbCom via their email address today for reasons of privacy. It may well be that I am unable to participate further. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no particular axe to grind with Fæ: despite their concerns, the interaction tool shows little overlap. I also don't generally get involved with specifically gender-focussed stuff, despite their claim, and my knowledge of Fæ mostly comes simply from seeing things around over the years, eg: the report here. For someone who allegedly has a problem with certain types of article, I'm amazed to find that I created things such as Betty Tebbs and Dalit Camera. I don't usually shout about my creations etc, nor seek pats on the back from a special interest group- I just do it. Insofar as much of my biographical stuff relates to men, well, I prefer my subjects to be dead. I also don't have a problem with editors based on gender - that should be self-evident but, if not, then a quick check of my recent stuff at User talk:CaroleHenson would hopefully help.
I got to the AfD in question via this post (and also commented at the other AfD mentioned therein). Not through stalking Fæ or watching the WiR project etc. I got to Fæ's twitter feed via a link in the Phelps AfD and was not previously even aware that they had a feed. But if someone doesn't want their feed to be trawled then surely the best solution is not to use Twitter, and the second-best would be to make it private from the outset. That Fæ has become "freaked out" about it is no-one's fault but their own.
There were three tweets from Fæ just relating to that one AfD (not one, as they suggest) and they were increasingly non-neutral. An example of their past support for private lists is here on a WMF-hosted list that did indeed subsequently become more or less moribund and which I was told by a now-deceased moderator happened because of a move to a private resource.
The reason I opened this case is as stated by Jehochman below. I took the advice of an admin and only reported it after the third tweet, which occurred well after Fæ became aware of concerns about their tweeting. That some admins, other than Jehochman, expressed concern is a matter of record, eg: Bishonen and Vanamonde93. I had also spoken via email with Oshwah when they redacted some stuff - I did it that way per good practice about referring to redactions; Oshwah indicated that the oversighters and possibly ArbCom were already aware. What ArbCom might do is a matter for them but be aware that this was not the first time Fæ had engaged in such practice on their Twitter feed.
I'm perfectly ok with ArbCom posting my original email here. As said before, I'm probably not going to be around very much but I will look in as best I can. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fæ: No, most of what I say above was not in the email to ArbCom; if it had been, I wouldn't have said they could post it. It was instead a refutation of your slurs. You have struck out a bunch of those following the refutation. You should strike out all of the others because you're likely to look a bit silly if you do not. You say you accept what I say above because of AGF but in fact you should accept it because you've been shown to be wrong. I can do it for the remainder if you insist but it will not make you look good. Clerks, feel free to strike this if the word limit is an issue but I really can't let the unfounded accusations pass without comment.
All you have to do right now is say that in future you will not mention on Twitter or elsewhere off-wiki any article that is subject to the deletion processes. And I do mean that strictly, so no channelling people there by asking them to improve it, only for them to find it is up for deletion. We have projects here who are notified for such things and you say on your own user page that the appearance of canvassing can be problematic. I'm really not bothered about sanctions and have no desire to involve myself in invasions of privacy etc. It just a bit common sense and and an acknowledgement that arguably you got it wrong. - Sitush (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ

I have not been sent any statement of what the allegations by Sitush are, so any response here is speculative. As this appears to be the way a user can raise an Arbcom case in secret, without sharing any evidence with other named parties, presumably I am free to strike out the following text if it seems irrelevant should Arbcom wish to share evidence with me.

This case seems bizarre, raised with no attempt at standard dispute resolution, considering that Sitush has in advance extensively discussed canvassing of the Clarice Phelps AfD in the AfD, at User_talk:Bishonen#Twitter_canvassing (which presumably makes User:Bishonen a party to this case) and other places based on comments there. At the AfD several users gave their opinions, with Sitush making entirely unncessarily aggressive ad hominem allegations against myself and others.

It would be nice if Arbcom insisted that diffs were provided to support Sitush's allegation of "You're pushing an agenda, Fæ, and have been doing for years" (diff). The agenda allegation feels like a highly targeted personal attack, considering past experiences with hounding allegations of having a gay agenda. As Sitush has discussed their hostile opposition research about me on Bishonen's talk page, no doubt were familiar with my LGBT+ background when they penned those specific words. Alternatively if Sitush believes I have a secret gender gap "agenda", based on their comments:

  1. "I know for a fact this used to go on at a mailing list related to the gender gap issue, in which said person was also involved, but that changed from being a publicly-hosted WMF listserver thing to something private, apparently related to accusations of trolling although I'm guessing those must have been suppressed..."(diff)
  2. "That there are private Wikipedia-centric mailing lists for people interested in gender gap issues also doesn't bode well, given that at least one of those in its previous public form was sometimes used for canvassing. (You'll know which one I am on about because you were a part of it.)" AfD

then I definitely wish to examine the evidence. It is fictional nonsense, there is no secret gendergap cabal. It is certainly not appropriate for Sitush to use an AfD, or any other talk pages on Wikipedia, to go on a fishing expedition to work out what email lists I or anyone else subscribe to.

In the light of Sitush already having a gendergap related interaction ban, there seems grounds to consider extending that to ensure they do not engage in gendergap related hounding. The evidence shows that Sitush is actively seeking out gendergap related conflict, even when this is based on ridiculously over inflated conspiracy theories, and fishing with others to speculatively doxx off-wiki identities, as the Bishonen talk page discussion demonstrates, including very clear advice of how to avoid getting caught for stepping over the line.

I have the privilege of establishing several channels for Wikipedia contributors as safe spaces to discuss LGBT+ topics, it is not Wikipedia's problem to police those off-wiki discussions, and they are none of anyone else's business unless their participants set out to break the behavioural guideline of Wikipedia:Canvassing, something that those of us that established the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group were always careful to advise members against. Discussing personal Wikimedia project interests on Twitter or other WikiProject related channels such as IRC's #wikimedia-lgbt, has never been considered "Stealth canvassing". Open posts about your interests, or posts about Wikipedia article improvement by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group or Women In Red Twitter accounts, are not the same as page notifications or emails.

If the water in the area of off-wiki collegiate support channels becomes muddied and maligned, then we would need to warn all Wikipedia contributors that they are not allowed to have safe spaces to discuss their Wikipedia interests, or problems they may experience such as feeling harassed or suffering discrimination, without staying 100% anonymous and unconnected to their Wikimedia accounts. Based on Arbcom members own statements over the years, there is no doubt that Arbcom supports policy improvement to firmly provide provision and encouragement for safe spaces and easy ways to ask for advice and help, not clamp down on, or force the effective closure of the few that successfully persist.

If policies such as the canvassing guidelines need clarification and improvement, that's great. It would be worth asking those of us with practical experience of running external channels to chip in. Cases like this, with doubtful evidence, foundations built on opposition research, personal attacks, and conspiracy theories, do not help.

By the way, could those who comment here, please provide links if they have discussed the case in advance with Sitush. Seems fair and transparent doesn't it?

As for the highly active Wikipedian that commented today on Twitter and I blocked, as it honestly just felt too creepy, maybe you would like to identify yourself?

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I strongly disagree with making the allegations and evidence of this case secret. I fail to understand how any comments by others here have any meaning, as they have not seen what the evidence is, or the allegations. This is not a case where there is any allegation that I have harassed anyone else, made any attempt to out anyone else, nor is it clear that I have broken any Wikipedia policy, as Sitush's allegations in the AfD were debated there and then against existing policy. Consequently there is nothing here where secrecy protects anyone or anything meaningful, it simply makes the case unnecessarily dramatic as if I have done something so terrible it cannot be exposed to daylight.
As the target of the allegations, there is a clear failure of natural justice, if I cannot read the allegations or freely review and challenge the purported evidence. As far as I am aware, there is nothing that can be said about this case that affects anyone else, and cannot be published on this page. --Fæ (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: With regard to "questionable and deceptive behaviour", this seems a highly unfair characterization, simply because I am freaked out by having random people combing through my tweet history trying to find anything they do not like, which includes personal photographs and details of events in my life that could be used maliciously. As the evidence shows, Sitush and others had several days of opposition research to take copies of anything relevant to Wikipedia, and in fact did post external captures on wiki, including something far more extremely worded from another participant in the AfD. Enabling better privacy settings at this time on Twitter is not "deceptive", if you ask me to post the relevant tweet here, I am happy to do so. I have no history of questionable and deceptive behaviour, and have lied or misdirected about nothing in relation to this case, if you have any evidence otherwise, I would very much like to review what that is. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion, note that the pronoun to refer to me on Wikimedia projects is a singular they, as explained at the top of my user talk page. My Wikipedia account has no gender setting. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the effect of off-wiki attention being drawn to the AfD helpfully summarized by @Icewhiz:, I accept this is a perfectly valid concern and hope that Arbcom will include a statement to shine some light on this topic. Our current policies and guidelines do not sufficiently address the use of open public channels like Twitter, IRC or even public email lists. If individuals like myself, or groups like WomenInRed should avoid promoting Wikipedia votes, then that would be best stated in policy, not left to individual judgement. To date, those of us involved with these Wikipedia related channels have considered it simply a good thing to attract more viewpoints to any public Wikipedia discussion, especially where we lack minority views, such as those in this case from black women in STEM. Note that my Twitter account is a personal one with only 320 followers, of which a small fraction will be active Wikipedia contributors, while the accounts related to this case of @WomenInRed has over 5,000 and @JessWade has over 25,000, so any posts from those accounts are more likely to be the underpinning cause of an influx of less experienced voters. Unrelated to this case is @wikilgbt, but this is a managed Wikimedia User Group account that I originally set up and have tweeted from, with over 21,000 followers. These project interest accounts are run in good faith with the aim of increasing the quality of content of Wikipedia, we have every intention of following good practice guidance published by the community. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: The extended statement is confusing, though presumably this was included in their email to Arbcom which has not been shared with me. I recall two posts about the AfD, effectively the same post, and one reply to the twitter account of active Wikipedian previously mentioned; presumably they privately disclosed to Arbcom. The second post was more neutral than the first, cut & paste from the first version, and I then deleted the first post as the second post replaced it. I have no idea why Sitush describes the second post as less neutral, the only reason for me changing the post was to make it more neutral, as a reasonable way of taking on board the AfD allegations of canvassing.
Sitush has stressed they were not stalking me, which I accept in good faith. It is clear that they were engaging in opposition research at User_talk:Bishonen#Twitter_canvassing, which they chose to not notify me, or the linked JessWade, about. Further the speculation about my involvement with GenderGap is conspiracy theory fiction, and fishing to connect Wikipedians with Twitter accounts appears inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, especially for the administrators going along with it. Sorry, discovering that discussion yesterday, along with this personal network of involved parties, and then being approached by a related party on Twitter, did make me respond by increasing the privacy settings. I do not think that protecting privacy in this situation is hard to understand, even though Arbcom members have since criticised me for doing so.
"not the first time Fæ had engaged in such practice on their Twitter feed", as the "practice" is unstated, but presumably canvassing, I would like to see that evidence please, rather than using an Arbcom case to publish allegations with no evidence.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: Strikes above were after I was approached by the clerks about the number of words, it means no more than that.
As for the rest, have a look at Canvassing proposal and my talk page, both good faith and civil discussions. Please post your evidence, requested several times, on my talk page, if you have any. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlohcierekim

As per my email to the committee, there is clear and scary evidence of off-wiki canvassing. (If this is what I think it is.) And Fæ has self outed anyway. I cannot think of any remedy other than for ArbCom to site ban Fæ. Yes, Fæ has done extraordinary work with Women in Red and the project in general, but off-wiki canvassing for an AfD is extra extraordinary and changes Fæ's goals and actions to "nothere" and perhaps Fae should pursue this here nothere agenda somewhere else. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman

Sitush asked me about this problem on wiki and I moved the conversation to email to preserve privacy. My advice to Sitush was to file this case. I recommend ArbCom accept the case in order to clear up the dispute. I think the general description of what’s happening without the specifics of usernames or off wiki links can be disclosed. Those further details should be given as private evidence. Jehochman Talk 19:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, there’s a danger that @faewik tweets, replies and mentions will contain @name‘s of other Wikipedians. As a matter of safety, I recommend not posting any tweets. This is a simple rule to follow and avoids the risk of error. Jehochman Talk 00:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fae has locked down their tweets. Whatever was there is no longer public. Please don’t anybody go reposting whatever you may have saved. Jehochman Talk 00:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the committee is making a big mistake here. I do not want this discussion to proceed on a notice board. It is cruel to Fae and could lead other editors into trouble for harassment and outing. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

I have been keeping a tab on the off-wiki-dynamics and pretty much echo Dloh, in entirety.∯WBGconverse 19:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just mentioning Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ FOF 2 (in light of Fae's longstanding issues with understanding our sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/canvassing guidelines) and FOF 9 (in light of his locking down his tweets and stonewalling attempts over here). ∯WBGconverse 04:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As IceWhiz notes, the AfD post the Twittter canvassing was indeed in snow territory and anybody coming across it might have validly closed invoking WP:SNOW, which would have led keeping the article for another good span of time (since, it can't be insta-renominated and all that). It was only after Icewhiz and Sitush posted links to now-redacted tweets of Fae and another person (whom I am not naming intentionally) over ANI and made some valid noise; the AfD began to attract the opinion of folks who are knowledgeable in policies.
  • And, thus began the swing.As Tony's closure notes; the delete !voters came out to be superior in both the metrics of raw-number and quality.
  • As much as I believe that the tweet of the other person was an effort in good-faith (and she has since-understood the concerns) and there's no need to drag her into this; Fae is a longstanding editor who knows our policies very well. I note that he was de-sysoped for abusive sockpuppetry and even site-banned for a span.
  • Fae's claims of Twitter being a public fora is ridiculous (which seems to have been accepted by SilkTork). If I choose to align by that tactic; I can go to any partisan website (which is public-viewable) and post calls to save articles from deletion whilst claiming that I am canvassing openly!
  • Twitter displays the tweets to one's audience (followers) and it's just implausible as well as improbable that they are neutral wiki-knowledge-able species. If I have a Twitter account and don't follow him; it's pretty pretty rare that I will ever have the chance of seeing Fae's tweet. See what Boing says below.
  • In light of a complete inability to understand the concerns and now locking down his tweets in a response (which basically nullifies his own line of defense) in a bid to remove the minimal amounts of transparency; I see Fae's behavior as utterly disruptive and concur with STork about about indulging in questionable and deceptive behaviour. Obviously, Fae is free to lock down his Twitter and I have no qualms but in light of his actions; it ought not go with his current editing privileges. Accordingly, I will request the arbitrators to issue appropriate binding remedies.∯WBGconverse 09:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the long run, it's impossible that anybody will be monitoring Fae's twitter account (or other social-media accounts) to check whatever he is posting and it's a form of stalking, IMO. So, now that he has locked his Twitter, there's nothing restraining him from behaving in a similar manner except that we will never know which of the folks were canvassed.
  • Before someone says that AfDs are a !vote-based-discussion; no closure is ever going to discount a good 10-20 !voters on the basis of policy.
  • Also, I generally skip AfDs which have already incurred much discussion/!votes and so does many, which means that these AfDs will be just snow closed without the excess scrutiny that was generated in Clarice's AfD and helped in swinging to a valid outcome.∯WBGconverse 09:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned:--In AfDs; large numbers of !voters don't mean as much to closing admins (and non-admins) is quite wrong unless a bunch of red-linked SPAs are those !voters (which wasn't the case here).At any case, when SITH asked Fae to explain his tweets and held him to breach canvassing guidelines, he replied that SITH was indulging in an attempt to censor or intimidate free speech off wiki. I also see that he very thereafter accuses Icewhiz of direct intimidation against volunteers discussing their Wikimedia activities on Twitter. It's pretty difficult to even discuss with a hyperbolic user writing Put up or shut up alternately. ∯WBGconverse 10:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lourdes (non-party)

Although I probably have the strictest yardstick to measure what cases should be accepted by the committee, my broad assessment is thoroughly negative for Fæ. This probably will end up in the motion space sooner than required; and probably for similar reasons as the Alex case. The committee should probably wait to see whether Fæ wishes to continue with this case or not. Lourdes 03:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

I would like to stress the effect of the off-wiki communication on the (now closed) AfD itself. This is how the AfD stood at - 14:19, 4 February 2019 - 7 hours after the nomination - 1 AfD nomination for Delete, 6 Keep !votes (the latter !vote would be persuaded to flip later on). For an AfD in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators list this is WP:SNOW territory. Ignoring the notavote notice (which not every nominator would've placed in a timely fashion) and strength of argument, it would've been entirely plausible for the next editor coming along to WP:NAC this as Snow Keep. Many of the !voters were not AfD regulars - in fact, one of them - [2] !voted for the first time in this AfD.

Was "stealth canvassing" involved? Well twitter is (as long as you don't take your feed private - which is not common) a very public medium - equivalent to shouting or broadcasting your 280 characters to the world. (I'll note an account most probably not-Wikipedia related was inspired to tweet about Phelps in a non-AfD/Wikipedia (no wiki link) context - repeating Wikipedia's false assertion that Phelps is a Dr. and overstating her role in discovering 117... Probably prompted due to a Black History Month hashtag)

However, WP:APPNOTE lists other criteria. Namely this could be seen as "mass posting", some of the tweets were far from neutral, and the audience was partisan (as one's followers, the main audience of one's tweets, are a partisan audience).

Looking at recent Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators closes - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Rolfe Kerr(2 !votes in 14 days), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawad Fares (5 !votes/comments in 14 days), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfgang Klietmann (2 !votes in 7 days) - a crowd of 6 !votes (in 7 hours) showing up for an academic is fairly unusual to say the least.

Have other shoddy BLP articles (B.Sc -> PhD, supporting role on the margins of a very large multinational team -> "first African-American woman to identify an element", use of non-independent / primary / self-published sources) - been possibly kept at AfD due to such off-wiki practices?Icewhiz (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - none of the !voters in the AfD shows up as a SPA in the "AfD Vote Counter". I would also point out that the "wikiness" of one's target audience is also a factor - a random follower who never edited Wikipedia is much less likely to create an account/IP-vote, would show up as a SPA, and probably would just WP:ILIKEIT or WP:PERX !vote... A wiki savvy follower is much more likely to click on a link to a Wikipedia discussion and cast a coherent seeming !vote.
WP:CANVASS could use an update for twitter and other similar fora, and Wikipedia:Canvassing#How to respond to canvassing probably needs work.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fae: Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

I only want to respond to the "Twitter is public" thing. Yes, it's public in that anyone can read a public tweet. But in reality, for the vast majority of tweets only the Twitter account's followers will ever see them. In that sense a tweet is very much directed at people already sufficiently interested in the same subject matters to follow the tweeter. Public, yes in a sense, but tweeting to your own sympathetic followers is not neutral. I did see the tweet in question, and it was also not phrased neutrally (I've struck that having seen a reposting of the tweets, which I must have mis-remembered or confused with someone else's). I'm going to offer no opinions on whether there should be a case (and I would hate to lose Fae's contributions - controversial sometimes, but very much *not* WP:NOTHERE), and I also think Wikipedia's canvassing policy is a little naive these days - with there being so many possible channels of communication today, it surely must drive people to use more selective channels and be less open. Anyway, I really just want to make certain that the Arbs properly understand the "very selective public" and non-neutral nature of tweets like these - the unqualified "It's public" claim is disingenuous. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note Fae's point that there are interest groups out there with far greater numbers of followers than Fae's personal Twitter account. We simply have to deal with the way communication works these days, and it again highlights how out of date our canvassing policy is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I get what you mean, thanks for the clarification. As the Twitter account has been linked on-wiki by Fae and so linking to it does not constitute outing, the issue is not ripe for ArbCom and can be discussed in public by the community. But there is still an aspect of how the public/private nature of the tweets relates to canvassing policy, and that's being discussed by others here too. Also, perhaps the removal and rev-deletion from the previous discussions should now be reversed? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with what Jehochman says here (and also with a comment he made elsewhere that "I really hate it when good people are fighting with each other"). I would really hate to see a drama-board rehashing of all of this, possibly providing some folks with the opportunity to resharpen old knives again. And making it more public again carries the risk of the accidental outing of others who might be mentioned in tweets. I think it was a relatively minor misjudgment on Fae's part at worst, and I think the quickest way to put it behind us is a quick motion along the lines of "Fae, that wasn't the best of judgments, please don't tweet about AFDs" and Fae to say "OK". And we could all happily go and do something productive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KTC

Not knowing anything about and not wishing to get involved in any of the underlying matters at hand, I purely want to note that on the subject of "Twitter is public" that Fae's account is and I believe have been for a long time at various time in the past been protected so only approved followers could see any tweets. -- KTC (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

Fæ didn't do anything wrong. If someone feels that Wikipedia is about to do something stupid or harmful (I have no opinion whether deleting the Phelps article falls into that category), they are allowed to say so on Twitter.

WP:CANVASS is not a tool to be used for silencing or punishing people whose opinions we disagree with.

Statement by olive

There are statements made above which indicate problems we have on Wikipedia and which aren't improving. There are multiple places off Wikipedia where comments about Wikipedia and canvassing can occur. We can't police them! I have seen RfAadminships destroyed by lies posted on Wikipediocracy. Nothing was done to help those editors. We can, however, decide when off-Wikipedia behaviour truly damages either the encyclopedia or its editors - in terms of Wikipedia. We can say as an example that an RfA is void. Is that the line we draw? Editors do post personal information off line, they do have blogs and personal accounts, they do email each other. Twitter might be a public platform but it is also personal. Neither gives us the right on Wikipedia to post personal information which would lead other editors to that information. And if that is the case at what point to we decide posts have truly harmed the functioning of Wikipedia's editors or content. And, its just not professional. Can we do it sure, but its just tacky. Are we supposed to be professional at what we do as volunteers or not. Fae had a right to lock their Twitter account; who wants other Wikipedia editors combing through their accounts, and assuming good faith might have been assuming that was why they acted. I would have done the same. As public as internet accounts are; most of us don't expect our Wikipedia colleagues to scour them looking for information. Wikipedia has a nasty underbelly; I'm not sure we can change that but perhaps we can decide where the line must be drawn to protect our editors on Wikipedia while demanding professional conduct, and how to deal with the increasingly expanding off-Wikipedia virtual world. It may be that we have to separate canvassing off-Wikipedia from the actual damage it causes. That may be the only place, the only line we have, the only place, we have the power to control the off-Wikipedia environment.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • While editors aren't sanctioned for drawing others to personal information already posted doing so contradicts our collaborative behavioral guides because doing so can deliberately hurt someone else. We shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't be implying its OK as we often do. We have to protect a collaborative environment; I'm not sure doing so is a perceived or understood priority.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) Just my opinion of course.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

It is true that for non-celebrities, Twitter feeds have a narrow following, and so messages on them have a targeted audience. While I agree this is a problem that can bias discussions on English Wikipedia, if messages on one's Twitter feed is considered to be canvassing, then basically editors cannot tweet about their Wikipedia activities at all, or for that matter the activities of others, which seems unduly restrictive of their off-wiki activities.

Regarding how the closing of discussions has matured to weigh strength of arguments above numerical votes: I see little evidence that a strong numerical majority will be ignored by most closers simply because they did not provide arguments that appropriately countered the points raised by others. Decisions on English Wikipedia are generally still closed by taking a straw poll, and if no large majority is apparent, applying some kind of qualitative discounting factor to the votes on one side, based on the arguments made. In essence, strength of support is used as a proxy for strength of argument, allowing the closer to avoid passing their own judgement. It's not altogether unsurprising, since at deletion reviews, this is exactly the argument that is made when a closure goes against the majority vote. If strength of arguments were considered first, then their relative pros and cons would be weighed based on relevance and importance (which can be based at least in part on number of supporters), and then the different options can be scored (even if only qualitatively) on their relative benefits and disadvantages, which basically never happens on English Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

While many editors here think of themselves as being part of some exclusive Wikipedia community, the reality is that Wikipdia is just an island in the vast cyber ocean. Real world issues such as a gender gap will then not only exist here on Wikipedia, but a push to do something about that outside of Wikipedia will then also affect Wikipedia. All we can do here is to make sure that the editing of our articles and the procedures such as AFD will be handled according to our rules. We should not adopt a Wiki-nationalist attitude where we start to complain about "foreign intervention" and editors that solicit for external help with our articles or procedures such as AFD when it looks like the intervention is aimed at a select group of articles (in this case about female scientists). Count Iblis (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Fæ: Clerk notes

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

Fæ: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • We have received the relevant email, and as a preliminary determination, I find that this case request must be private due to its contents. There is no way to discuss the contents of the email or receive community feedback from editors knowledgeable about this situation without potentially publicizing private information. As such, until the Arbitration Committee makes a determination otherwise, please do not post any statements here. Instead, you are welcome to email any comments to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. ~ Rob13Talk " class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • After receiving additional information off-wiki by a clerk, it seems this may be less private than I initially thought, as it involves an off-wiki account that an editor has previously made public on-wiki in at least one location (though not particularly prominently). I stand by my initial action to ask this to be private to prevent the possibility of harm if it would be outing to discuss that off-wiki account, but at the moment, it appears it would not be. Ignore my initial statement, but please be especially careful with any information that may be private. If in doubt, feel free to send it to the Committee privately, and we can let you know if posting it publicly is best or not. ~ Rob13Talk 17:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The @Faewik Twitter account was self-disclosed by Fæ here. Based on that, anything posted at the @Faewik Twitter account can be linked to on-wiki and is not outing. Anything posted by other Twitter accounts that belong to Wikipedians should not be posted on-wiki unless they've similarly self-disclosed the account on-wiki. That can all be sent to ArbCom privately. Hopefully that clears up some confusion on what can/can't be posted publicly under the WP:OUTING policy. ~ Rob13Talk 19:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jehochman: The Twitter account being shut down doesn't mean that content posted there at one point can't be referenced on-wiki, but I agree there are risks associated with linking to Twitter. I will discuss with the Committee a general rule that anything off-wiki in this case should be submitted privately. We did that in the past with Mister Wiki, and while it became a point of aggravation for some who felt the need to "name and shame" publicly, it served well to limit privacy violations. ~ Rob13Talk 00:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fæ: As part of any private case procedure, you definitely will receive an opportunity to respond to private evidence. The big worry is that linking to Twitter accounts other than your own on-wiki could lead to outing other editors. It is their privacy I'm trying to protect. I take due process very seriously, and you will receive it. I've already queried the Committee about whether we should ask Sitush to make the entirety of their evidence public, since I no longer believe any portion of it to be private based on your self-disclosure of your Twitter account. ~ Rob13Talk 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Decline per my colleagues. Now that it is clear the Twitter account was self-disclosed, there's no real privacy issue here. This can be brought to WP:ANI for attempted resolution there. ~ Rob13Talk 15:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm feeling that this is a decline, but will see how others view it. I'm not seeing the privacy issues, as Twitter themselves say: "Twitter is public". And we are all aware that the media commonly use people's Twitter posts. Fae's own argument on the AfD is that the statement he used on Twitter is not stealth as it was "public and clearly open tweeting". Fae has now blocked access to the tweet, which does complicate matters both in terms of privacy but also in terms of Fae's questionable and deceptive behaviour, but the post was seen, and records of it were made and are available in at least one public place on the internet. Now, our privacy rules are arcane and subtle, and open to interpretation, so I am not going to link to anything off-wiki, but the information is there. Absent privacy concerns, this is a matter that the community can handle. I think we just need to establish if this is a privacy matter. SilkTork (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boing! said Zebedee, my thoughts on declining this case are not to do with if I thought Fae was right or wrong in drawing attention to the AfD on his Twitter page, but that such a discussion can and should be held by the community. The only reason it has been brought to ArbCom is because of privacy concerns, as ArbCom can receive private evidence (ie, the Twitter post). If the Twitter post was not private (and it doesn't appear to be) then the community can discuss it and decide if Fae was canvassing inappropriately (my personal view is that Fae was), and what to do about it (my personal view is that Fae should be advised to pay greater attention to our canvassing guidelines, and given a warning not to stray away from them in future or face a 24 hour block or similar sanction). SilkTork (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fae. Regarding "questionable and deceptive behaviour", that is how I see it. You see it differently. That you see it differently is perhaps part of the reason why you are sometimes at odds with the community. A better approach than locking your Twitter account, would have been to post your tweet here on Wikipedia. That would have been open and helpful, and then there would have been no need to lock your account, as nobody would then have a legitimate reason to look at it. To at first defend your tweet and use the public and open nature of the tweet as a rationale for it not being inappropriate, and then when the argument starts going against you to conceal the tweet, is a questionable act. Can you see that, now I've pointed it out? SilkTork (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline SilkTork's thoughts match my own. Indeed, if Fae hadn't suddenly made their twitter account private I would be even more firm in my decline. I'm going to be controversial here and voice a bit of a dissent to a policy. Canvassing has been a very big problem in the past on Wikipedia, largely because it could be so heavily influenced by an influx of voters. But I'm not seeing it as such a problem these days. The community base has matured and can recognise strength of arguments, large numbers of !voters don't mean as much to closing admins (and non-admins) - there are forms of canvassing which are still problematic, but this isn't one of them. Simply, this canvassing attempt could have been completely handled with a simple message on the relevant deletion page, linking to the tweet in question. There is no need for a case.
    That said, there are other factors here, such as the previous Fae case, how the situation has been handled and whether there are any longstanding disputes at play. I'm not seeing anything that the community can't handle here, but I will watch for developments and may change my vote accordingly. WormTT(talk) 09:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I concur that there is no significant privacy issue here. Fæ's twitter account was publicly linked to their wiki activity in several places. With that in mind, the parties need to pursue other means of dispute resolution before bringing it here. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline The tweet was public for some time, making this a non privacy issue. Adding that Fae had their Twitter account publicly linked with their Wikipedia account, this is even more so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline Since there's no private information for us to handle, I'd like to see the community try to handle the canvassing issue first. Katietalk 12:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline as something the community should attempt to deal with before we do. Since we've confirmed that the Twitter account that made the initially-public tweet was linked to the Wikipedia account previously, there's no privacy issue here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Since Fae has apparently linked their Twitter account on-wiki before, I don't see why this couldn't be handled by the community if need be. As for the actual substance of the complaint, I'm not particularly convinced by those claiming that Fae was in the wrong here, although I do recognize that WP:CANVAS is among our more hazy guidelines. Wikipedians are allowed to express opinions on Wikipedia-related matters off-wiki—I know I certainly have in the past. I don't have any interest in trying to prevent people from expressing their dismay (or any other feeling) about an article being put up for deletion, even if the result is that some people who otherwise might not have participated in the AfD do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=882922208"