The case concerns alleged misconduct in aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions. The case was brought before the committee by MBisanz and also involves Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle. In response to a workshop proposal calling for the removal of his adminship, Fæ's administrator rights were removed at his request on 18 June.
Proposed findings of fact include Fæ's violation of clean-start restrictions: his failure to disclose other accounts during his request for adminship (where he claimed to be making a clean start with no imposed sanctions), and neglecting to mention that he left during an active request for comment. Fæ's mischaracterisation of good-faith concerns and harassment were noted, as were personal attacks directed at others, deceiving the community with attempts to withhold key evidence, lack of response to good-faith criticism, use of ad hominem attacks to discredit others, and accusations of copyright infringement. Also noted were harassment from Michaeldsuarez, and Delicious carbuncle's posting of identifying information.
Part of the proposed decision stipulates that, given Fæ's resignation under controversial circumstances, he must start an RfA if he wants to regain adminship, and must publicly declare his past accounts. There are remedies calling for Fæ's file contributions to be reviewed, a limitation to one account, and admonishment for him and Delicious carbuncle. A newly proposed remedy calls for Fæ to be indefinitely banned from the site, following his attempts to solicit intervention from the Foundation, and his claims that publicly listing all his accounts would be too onerous due to "ongoing security risks". In the same remedy, it was noted that at the time of his appeal he was still an official on the Wikimedia UK chapter. He was further criticised for attempting to dodge good-faith concerns. A few arbitrators believe that if Fæ's claims are valid then he must be removed from the community.
Proposed findings of fact include that involved parties edited in a biased fashion—in particular that edits by Homunculus favoured the Falun Gong movement and discredited the Communist Party of China, whereas Ohconfucius and Colipon edited with the reverse bias. It was found that Ohconfucius engaged in uncivil conduct. Ohconfucius and Homunculus have edit-warred on topics related to the movement.
It was proposed that Colipon, Homunculus, and Ohconfucius be topic-banned from articles concerning the movement and related government persecution. Mandated external review by uninvolved administrators was also proposed; editors placed on review would be required to seek consensus for major edits (beyond grammatical and aesthetic changes); and once a consensus has been reached, the discussion must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor, after whose approval the editor under mandated review may proceed.
The case, filed by P.T. Aufrette, concerns wheel-warring on the Perth article after a contentious requested move discussion (initiated by the filer) was closed as successful by admin JHunterJ, and after a series of reversions by the other involved parties (all admins).
Some findings of fact: JHunterJ closed the request and moved the article accordingly, but responded to criticism problematically; Deacon of Pndapetzim was involved in discussion regarding the merits of moving the article, made edits to related topics, and reverted the original decision without discussion; Kwamikagami upheld the original decision without discussion; Gnangarra upheld the reversed decision without discussion; and the page moves on 9 and 10 June required the use of redirect suppression and were therefore covered by the wheel-warring portion of the administrator policy.
It is proposed that Gnangarra, Deacon of Pndapetzim, and Kwamikagami be desysopped; but only the last of these has reached the required threshold for enforcement (subject still to reversals in the voting). Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has voiced his opposition to these remedies, calling them "completely disproportionate and excessive" (due to admissions of poor judgement and subsequent disengagement), noting that both Kwamikagami and Gnangarra have been good contributors to the project and have, for the most part, unblemished records. It has also been proposed that JHunterJ be reminded to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding administrative actions.
The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!