The case concerns alleged misconduct with regards to aggressive responses and harassment by Fæ toward users who question his actions. The case was brought before the committee by MBisanz. The other parties are Michaeldsuarez and Delicious carbuncle. A decision was expected on 6 July.
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; he has declared he will not pursue RfA until June 2013, and that should another user nominate him and he feels confident to run, he will launch a reconfirmation RfA rather than requesting the tools back without community process.
In the proposed principles, drafting arbitrator Hersfold reaffirms that Wikipedia is a reference work built through consensus and written neutrally, that it is not a battleground, nor a soapbox for propaganda, that editors are expected to act civilly and respectfully and pending further cases where long-term disputes cannot be resolved, the committee may "adopt draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia."
In view of the dispute, the committee has observed that certain involved parties have pushed their own points of view; in particular Homunculus has edited to enhance the Falun Gong movement and discredit the Communist Party of China, whereas Ohconfucius and Colipon have been found editing in a manner which enhances the party and discredits the movement. The former was found engaging in uncivil conduct and the latter failing to assume good faith. Further, Ohconfucius and Homunculus have engaged in edit-warring on topics related to the movement.
Given these findings it has been proposed that Colipon, Homunculus and Ohconfucius be topic-banned from articles related to the movement and "prosecution thereof". Mandated external review by uninvolved administrators was also proposed; editors placed on review would be subject to the following restrictions:
Major edits (beyond grammatical and aesthetic edits) must be proposed on the article's talk page and discussed by interested editors until a consensus to make the edit is formed.
Once consensus in support of the edit has been reached, the proposal must be reviewed by an uninvolved editor to ensure the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented.
When approval is received from the uninvolved editor, the editor subject to mandated external 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 JHunterJ. The close was a matter of much contention, with allegations that the move was not supported by consensus. After a series of reverts by Deacon of Pndapetzim, Kwamikagami and Gnangarra, the partiality of JHunterJ's decision was discussed, as was the intensity of Deacon of Pndapetzim's academic interests in the topic. Questions were also raised about the suitability of the new move review forum.
In a workshop proposal, uninvolved user Ncmvocalist outlined in proposed principles the need for administrators to lead by example, behave respectfully and civilly in their interactions with other users, learn from experience, and avoid wheel-warring irrespective of the circumstances or nature of the dispute; and that WikiProjects are not platforms for point-of-view pushing or the pushing of one's own agenda and where consensus cannot be reached other venues of discussion should be sought out. Proposed decisions are due on 12 July.
Carnildo's administrative tools revoked
The committee resolved unanimously to revoke Carnildo's administrative tools for "long-term poor judgement" in his use of the tools, particularly in view of the recent block he issued to Itsmejudith. Carnildo may regain the tools via a successful request for adminship.
The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!