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 Bradv (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 12 February 2019 (→‎Fæ: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter: count). 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
Fæ   10 February 2019 0/10/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

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: Extended confirmed restriction none none 25 July 2024
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) none none 26 July 2024
Motion name Date posted
Historical elections 21 July 2024

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]
For transparency, note that a procedural issue related to this case is at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Procedure_for_in-camera_cases_and_the_status_of_evidence, though I believe it is tangential to the material matters of this case. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 12 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 - [1] !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 Pldx1

There were several topics to discuss about the now deleted article. But the present "case" has only put the focus on the least important one. Has Fae technically committed the sin of personally canvassing ? Who cares indeed, when this occurred in a context of general canvassing ? The main result of the WomenInRed canvassing is that any bio of a woman here is automatically tampered by the question: do we have an article about a really notable person or do we have only politically correct kerfuffle ? The article under scrutiny was indeed poorly written. (1) In the context, US Navy Officer was a weasel word. There are commanding officers, there are commissioned officers, there are petty officers, and there are civilians that are given an equivalence in a context where anyone has a rank. Why not giving the NATO level ? (2) member of ... Nuclear Materials Processing Group was sourced to the personal page, not to the Nuclear Materials Processing Group itself. In that page, the group has a senior person, and five team leaders. No more is said. (3) Being the program manager for the nickel-63 means nothing without a description of the size of this program (how many people, how many dollars, how many square-meters) ? (4) When looking around the web site, one obtains the name of Group Leader Rose Boll [[2]]. In this video, C.P. is labelled as 'researcher', but it is not clear if she is the next to come Group-Leader or the only less-than-50 who was available when the video was shot. (5) Among the 380*25 people listed at [Oak Ridge], it is not so difficult to find [Michelle Buchanan], [Nancy Dudney] and several others that are looking as bona fide scientists who, maybe, could deserve a seriously written article. Only this could give some usefulness to this "case". Pldx1 (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

I strongly endorse all of Opabinia regalis's comments below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:53, 12 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 <0/10/0>

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 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]
  • Decline. <pack a lunch, sorry, this is a long post> As a woman in science myself, I read this request with interest. I don't know what's been on anybody else's twitter feed today, but mine has been full of posts about (apparently - I don't know who picks these dates) the fact that today is "International Day of Women and Girls in Science". So, uh, that's awkward. My first reaction when I saw Fae's tweets was that they weren't appropriate, but on rethinking I'm closer to 28bytes' view. Fae's post is not an explicit call to participate in a particular way (yes, there was at least one other tweet that did that, but that's been discussed elsewhere). Informing people who are interested in and knowledgeable about the topic of an article at AfD is normal and desirable behavior, and there's no particular reason to be suspicious of that behavior simply because it occurred on another website. But - Fae, you are much too experienced a user to not have anticipated that this would draw concern. In the future it would certainly be far better to keep such posts strictly neutral, and to keep things on-wiki wherever possible - I can appreciate the interest in off-site safer spaces and support channels, but, um, twitter is not exactly a safe space, sort of in the way that a highway median is not exactly safe from getting run over.
    In any case, our consensus-building processes are deliberately robust to the effects of canvassing. To the extent that we all believe the story we tell about decisions being made on the strength of the arguments presented and not on how many times they're repeated, canvassing is usually a venial sin. As a result, it would take some really strong evidence to convince me that canvassing alone, private or otherwise, is worthy of an arbcom case. This doesn't reach that bar. Furthermore, I'm bothered by this juuuuust enough to mention it - Sitush, whether or not being involved in a single, old case of the name Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF (GGTF=Gender Gap Task Force, for the curious) constitutes "generally" getting involved with "gender-focussed stuff" may be in the eye of the beholder, but it really undermines your argument when your posts complaining about other people's lack of neutrality contain dismissive asides like "LBGT-nah-nah (I lose track, sorry)". That's not cool.
    More broadly, this whole incident - this case and the dispute that gave rise to it - suggests a general question of getting our priorities right. For one thing, when discussing the possible deletion of an article about a person of marginal or debatable notability, who may or may not meet our criteria but certainly isn't a public figure, that is exactly when we should all be on our very best BLP behavior. Some of the comments in the AfD (some now refactored, thank you) don't meet that standard. I'd argue that public off-site commentary about BLPs, even positive in tone, is also worth a great deal of thought before posting - your audience may not turn out to be who you were expecting, and you don't want to attract trolls. I also think we need to think carefully about the more subtle ways that systemic bias can play out in our internal processes - not just the bias that we know is in sources, but also in whose articles get more or less scrutiny, which topics get held to the exact letter of the law and which we're more flexible about, what's going unnoticed while we're posting a dozen times or more in a single discussion, why some of us might take up disproportionate amounts of conversational space. (*cough*) Yes, yes, irony noted :)
    As we know, there's been some social media attention to the AfD itself - we're now even deeper into the Wikipedia weeds, but hopefully some of those interested see this page too. One of the most effective things that people who are science journalists and science communicators who write for mainstream, traditional publications, the sort that we consider undisputed "reliable sources", can do for systemic bias on Wikipedia is to feature members of underrepresented groups in their work for mainstream sources. As frustrating as it is to hear people shrug off systemic bias with "well, we only write what the sources say, nothing we can do!", making sure your work is broadly representative gives Wikipedians the material they need to work from. That's much better than frustrated tweets about AfDs. Another important consideration is the one I alluded to above - biographies of relatively obscure people aren't always a blessing. Many people would be happy to have one, but others would be uncomfortable with being featured this way - we get lots of feedback from BLP subjects with concerns about errors, vandalism that went unnoticed, and sometimes harassment. I wouldn't want a BLP, and I might be a little embarrassed to discover an AfD like this one about me. (Lucky for me I'm boringly non-notable.) Let's all be a little more careful around biographies of people right on the notability line. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Rather than adding to the ample commentary already made in this vote, I'll merely say that I share SilkTork's view of this issue. AGK ■ 22:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=883047889"