This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

The link to the previous RfC is a bit weird. Can't the editors sign their name to this one, if they think another RfC on the same (albeit renamed) user is needed? ASCIIn2Bme (talk)

This isn't "another RfC", this is the aborted RfC re-opened. It has already been certified. I would have preferred to simply re-list the original, but the change of name and the time span involved would have made that even more confusing, I think. I should have signed it, though, and I have done so now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I've read the (interesting) AN discussion on the topic of on-hold RfCs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is a re-opening, we're going to need some signatures in that space for the formal assignment of responsibility for the process. MBisanz ^talk 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" and why can't "we" follow the link to the original? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community and because things break over time as pages get shifted around which makes it annoying to try and go back and document stuff in the future. MBisanz ^talk 21:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I do not understand what the issue is. Do you want me to copy the original section over to the new section? If you have a suggestion about how I can do this in a less confusing way, I welcome it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copying probably is fine; it makes things clearer to simpletons like me. But like I say below, people (specifically the person who is the subject of the RFC), will probably complain that since an original certifier was banned, you need a new second certifier as the banned user can't consent to re-opening it. MBisanz ^talk 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because clicking around now I see one of the original certifiers is now banned, which I don't care about because I don't quite know what is going on here, but sounds fishy to me because obviously the banned user isn't around to say he also agrees with its reopening. MBisanz ^talk 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That previous RFC was almost two years ago. Do we even have clear evidence that this user is the same person as that user?   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBisanz, I am reopening a dormant RFC/U. You may find it helpful to read this recent AN discussion on that specific topic. Reading over your comments here, it seems clear that you do not like it, but I am not sure what your objections are. I started the original RFC/U and I am re-opening it. I assume that anyone would be free to do so if they saw the need. The fact that the person who certified the original RFC/U is no longer editing here is not relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, the point of RFC is to permit comment and dialogue with the user violating norms so that they can change their behavior. The reason two certifiers are required is, presumably, to ensure there is an actual violation of norms; not simply a personal gripe and show the accused user that multiple individuals see a problem and desire to help resolve it. Without Jack around to confirm there is still an issue with Fæ's behavior and to discuss that issue with Fæ, a key part of the dispute resolution process is lost. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument might have more weight if the original RFC/U had concluded. It did not. It was closed prematurely because User:Ash claimed to leave Wikipedia, but actually had already begun editing as User:Fæ. The original request for comment was certified. I have provided additional, current evidence that a problem remains, so that this cannot simply be sloughed off as "stale". I suggest you start a discussion on WP:AN or the WT:RFC/U if you have concerns about the process itself so that a wider range of opinions can be heard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, not worth the effort; I just think it's a violation of process how you're doing it. And, I'm now involved anyway. MBisanz ^talk 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a violation of what you assume the spirit of the RFC/U process is, but I have been unable to establish what the actual process is for cases such as this. I had hoped for a wider discussion in the AN thread I started about a similar situation, but it didn't generate much interest. I'm sure this won't be the only such case like this, so if you have thoughts on how best to do this, please consider starting a discussion somewhere (either now or later). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thought in the past and now is that if a discussion has been delisted/closed/suspended and a user returns, whomever certified the first dispute creates a new RFC_2 and re-files, with re-certification and re-endorsement of viewpoints. It ensures finality to the process that once an RFC is delisted, it's gone unless a new one is created. MBisanz ^talk 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This needs to be treated as a fresh RFC, with fresh certifications. The idea that ancient RFCs can be restarted at any time is unsupported by past practice.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never interacted with Fae directly so I don't think I can certify, but I can vouch for the seriousness of the conditions on which Ash left the other year. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These certifications are insufficient. They need to be from two users who show that they attempted to resolve the same dispute.

DC lists a number of items for the first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/AG_Weinberger indicates no dispute, let alone any attempt to resolve it.

For the nude beach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Voidokilia_beach indicates no dispute, or attempt to resolve it. Comments on the talk page were mad as a result of this RFC and seem broadly supportive.

The same applies to the image.

Unless someone can actually find an unresolved dispute, with two parties willing to certify, involving the party subject to the RFC the whole thing is moot.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

For this reason I have delisted the RFC. Rich Farmbrough, 01:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note my removal was reverted by User:Tarc. Tarc is a member of the satirical website Wikipedia Review. Rich Farmbrough, 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I can't find any definitive link connecting the two accounts. If the user has self-identified or if there's been a CU then that would be adequate. Whatever the evidence, it needs to be specified for this RFC to continue.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not time to search for the link but as I remember it was declared by Fae after comments on wiki review and here. Youreallycan 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to track down that edit and post the link.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#User:Fæ = User:Ash (and was previously User:Ashleyvh and User:Teahot). I suggest you contact ArbCom about any questions regarding Fæ's self-identifications on-wiki. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something, but I don't see any evidence on the linked thread that the two users are the same. user:Bali ultimate says, "Well, now I know who the previous account was. It was User:Ash who departed Wikipedia in April 2010 during an RFC [43]" But he never says how he learned this. If an ArbCom member would like to make a statement here or elsewhere that might clarify things. But either way there needs to be clear evidence that the two accounts are the same person for this RFC to proceed.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing something. Again, I suggest that you contact ArbCom about this matter. If they wish to make a statement or shut down this RFC/U, I'm sure they will do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your responsibility as you're the one making the assertion. Evidence that the two accounts are the same person needs to be added before the deadline.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae is Ash, denying that is ridiculous, he doesn't even deny it himself. Youreallycan 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then evidence should be easy to find.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What deadline would that be, Will? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 48 hour deadline.   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no deadline to the reopening of a previously opened RFC user - but - - or however - this is all dramah without benefit and I don't support the reopening. User Fae has moved on in the spirit of fresh beginnings and is editing in a totally beneficial manner - so - lets forget this historic rfc user and go do something worthwhile, yes. Youreallycan 00:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a re-opened RFC if it's the same person. If they are different people then it's without any basis.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with linking the accounts is that the user pages of User:Ash have been deleted (both here and on commons). The fact that Ash's previous account was AshleyVH and that Fae is Ashley Van Haften is significant. Denying the elephant in the room is disingenuous to the process (and people have been banned for much less evidence than what has been presented linking the two accounts. Ya ya, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, {{spa}}, etc. Throw all the rules, guidelines and policies you want at me but it still doesn't change the facts that there are serious concerns about a user who left under a cloud and came back and gained admin status. 65.122.75.14 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Fae is Ash, Ash is AVH and AVH sat on the WP UK board of trustees. Did Fae get special treatment by Arbcom regarding his past accounts because of his position at WP? if this is the case then we have a pretty serious issue on our hands. There is an article about AVH on examiner.com that gives a detailed back story. I would really like to know why, from Arbcom's POV, they felt it was appropriate to allow an RFA while being secretive about past accounts. N^oformation ^Talk 18:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did Fae get special treatment by Arbcom regarding his past accounts because of his position at WP? [Sic] Arbcom has all sorts of powers and for the sake of argument I won't dispute that at the time of Fae's RFA they could have used the WMF time machine to work out that he would subsequently be elected to the board of Wikmedia UK (though I had understood that the time machine was strictly for use by the fundraising department to get advance news of horseracing results). But for your charge to meet the credibility threshold of this RFC you would also need to show why Arbcom would want to do a favour for the UK chapter and the GLAM parts of the movement. More importantly, please refer to the UK chapter as WMUK not WPUK, as the chapter covers the whole of Wikimedia in the United Kingdom not just WP. ϢereSpielChequers 13:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @ section - see #Connecting_User:Ash_to_User:F.C3.A6_by_popular_request Bulwersator (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already.

Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Wikipedia activities is absolute and clear BS. (Whilst the posts in question by DC on WR have conveniently been deleted, this does not mean that a webcitation copy wasn't conversely conveniently made before these posts were deleted by WR, so if DC is going to deny ever having done this, they might want to think very carefully before responding to this).

In relation to:

In a piece of sourcing remarkably similar to those in the original RFC/U, Fæ sourced the statement "The beach is considered friendly for naturists and gay tourists" in Voidokilia beach to a guide in the back of a gay tourist advertising magazine. The complete text of that section is "Situated after Pylos and a a[sic] gulf with a big lagoon of murky water and is suitable for nudists" (in both English and Greek)

His sourcing in this instance is pretty much OK, it is in a section of the magazine which is giving details of gay-friendly resorts, hotels, and beaches in Greece. There are obviously doubts as to whether this is legitimate or part of homophobic harrassment directed towards Fae. It is obvious it is, because they made a point of including a photo which Fae had taken at this beach in their statement; obviously hoping to play in homophobic feelings which some editors may hold. It is absolutely atrocious and disgusting behaviour to be engaging in.

As to anything on Commons, DC should not be importing disputes from Commons to enwp. If there are issues on Commons, Commons is the correct place to raise them; rather than using it as cannon fodder on enwp. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 23:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who's "in the right" on this ongoing debate - maybe all, maybe none, or a bit of both. But I don't see how a 2-year-old comment by a since-banned user has anything to do with a current RFC. I have raised this question at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, please strike your comments which suggest that this is "homophobic harassment" I regard to the posting of Fæ's home address on Wikipedia Review, I suggest that you post the link so that others may see it in context. Otherwise, please strike that portion also, as it is otherwise an unsourced accusatiion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that someone link to a website engaging in outing is really inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat disingenuous for you to suggest that there is any outing going on. Fæ makes no secret of his identity. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about him. If he says that he's Ash and if he posts his home address publicly then that's fine. If he does not post his home address then linking to it would count as outing, regardless of the Fae/Ash issue.   Will Beback  talk  00:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Will. DC must be a few sausages short of a BBQ if he thinks I would link to off-wiki harrassment by himself and fellow WR users. The fact that he confirms that he did indeed do this is enough, and is enough to demonstrate what DC is doing here. It is below the pale of common decency to post someones home address and phone number on a public forum on a thread which is being use to engage in homophobic and harrassing commentary by numerous people. And to come back here to this project and claim that one is only interested in another editors Wikipedia activities is absolutely dishonest and outrageous. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, I would be only too happy to have a frank and open discussion of my actions here to set the record straight, but I am unable to do that with violating WP:OUTING. I have encouraged Fæ to follow some form of dispute resolution so that I may defend myself from these types of unsubstantiated slurs, but he has not done so, preferring instead to simply claim "harassment" in order to discredit anything I may have to say about his actions. I regret that many of the examples I have used involve gay topic areas, but those are the areas in which I have found them. I find your suggestions that I am homophobic, or that this is in any way motivated by homophobia, to be very insulting. Please strike your comments and refrain from future outbursts. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable or unwilling to conduct a standard SPI, and if you have evidence that the two editors are the same but don't want to post it openly, maybe you should go offline with your most trusted admin and clue him in as to what the story is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for me to do that. Contact ArbCom if you have concerns about the identity of the named users. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline is 21:52, 27 January 2012. Please make sure an ArbCom member or CU has posted their evidence before then.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to ensure that they do that and it isn't for me to suggest it. If you have concerns about the connection between the two accounts, contact ArbCom. Setting arbitrary deadlines with the implied threat that you will close this RFC/U does not seem like a wise idea under the circumstances. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no clear evidence that Fae and Ash are the same person by the deadline then I will delete the RFC, since it is based on that premise. You can't just assert that two users are the same and then attack them on that basis. There has to be some proof. If you're unable to provide any you'd still be welcome to start an RFC on FAE alone, on the basis of his editing and without reference to Ash. However, based on many assertions here I'd assume that it would be possible to show that Fae and Ash are the same person. Have you contacted the ArbCom to ask them to make a declaration?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not contacted ArbCom about this, although I know they were contacted when the RFC/U was filed. I thought I had already made it clear that I was not going to contact ArbCom and that if you had concerns about this, you should contact them. I do not feel that it is incumbent on me to offer proof here for what is already well-known to them. This is not a sockpuppetry investigation, it is a request for comment on a user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russavia, I trust you remember me from our days on EEML. I'm floating around this one in my usual manner, no opinion, not taking sides, just doing what I can to keep order. While I don't have the authority of a Arbcom clerk in this discussion, I hope I have enough residual respect from you that you might consider my request that you strike uncivil comments and stay focused on the issues. DC, I don't think I've dealt with you much in the past, but the same request applies (as of course it does to everyone). Regards, Manning (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Manning, but I am not retracting anything I have stated, because it is grounded in seeing what has been happening, and is occurring. DC takes issue with me calling this "homophobic harrassment"; he can take issue all he likes, but DC is the one who has stated:

Fæ added an image to the article, with the caption "Naturism on the south end of the beach". It should be noted that this image File:Voidokilia naturists.jpg is Fæ's own work and upload.

After an irrelevant comment about Commons, DC then goes on to say:

None of these things are the types of actions that we should expect from admins or experienced editors.

So according to DC, posting photos of this beach on the article relating to this beach, is not what the community expects? Excuse me whilst I choke, but that comes across to me as most homophobic in nature, and it is disappoints me that DC has made the posting of these photos to the article an issue; but am somewhat glad. DC has made this photos an issue, not because they are an issue, but because pointing to photos that may indicate that Fae is possibly queer is obviously going to appeal to the lowest common denominator amongst certain editors (and not to mention score him a few bonus points on WR); this is not only harrassment of Fae, but it is also giving any queer editor notice that if you improve specific articles with "queer" photos, you will not only be sidelined, but you will be harrassed in the process. Is this really the message we need to be sending to queer editors? The mere fact that DC has not supplied any reason for making the two photos an issue, other than complain that it is not homophobic harrassment, WP:SPADE is going to apply from where I sit, and I am telling you it will appear that way to most uninvolved queer editors too. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not point out Fæ's image of a naked man on a beach to suggest that he is gay, I pointed it out to illustrate his conflict of interest in labelling this beach as a nude beach using poor sourcing. I did not call them "queer photos" - those were Russavia's words, and words that I would not use. I did not make any suggestion or insinuation regarding gay editors and none should be read into this RFC/U which is about the edits made by a specific editor. This latest rant is way beyond the pale and Russavia should be blocked for it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A conflict of interest? What conflict of interest is there in Fae being at this beach, and taking photos of "naturism on the south end of the beach" and then uploading them and inserting them in the article? There is no conflict of interest. I really do think you are reaching here now. And you also say that this is poor sourcing? As Fae was obviously at this beach, and took a photo, we WP:AGF in that this is true and correct. You have not presented any evidence which indicates that this should not be the case. Additionally, he has not used poor sourcing; he has used a Greek-published queer tourist guide (Annual Gay Travel Guide to Greece) as a source on this beach; given the topic, the source is OK, unless you can present evidence that the source he has used is incorrect? If any admin wants to block me, then feel free, but before doing so, please consider that two other users have endorsed by view that this entire request is a continuation of harrassment of Fae by different characters. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, you appear to have misunderstood my comments about the image and sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Russavia has a rather strong point here. If the beach in question actually had a very different ethos I would be concerned about that photo and its inclusion. Delicious Carbuncle could you spell out what your concern is with the taking of that photo and its placing in that article? In particular, if someone posted a photo of a mixed gender group at another beach would you have the same concern? ϢereSpielChequers 14:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues whatsoever about "the taking of that photo" - so far as I am concerned, Fæ is welcome to take whatever photos he likes while on vacation. I am not at all offended by the photo if that is what you are really asking. The issue here is a simple one and I thought it would be clear from what I wrote in the RFC/U - Fæ used a single extremely weak source to state that the beach "is considered friendly for naturists and gay tourists", which allowed them to add the image of what are presumably naturists and gay tourists. I believe the reference is used to justify the image, instead of the image being used to support what is in the article. That is the conflict of interest. Had another editor used similarly weak sourcing in an effort to add their vacation images of a "mixed gender group" of nude people to an article, I would have the same concerns. In the case of this particular user, there is a history of the gratuitous use of self-made images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What bunk. Also, be very careful still DC. You are treading on very dangerous ground here, especially as there is currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Delicious_Carbuncle_harassment_and_outing:_block_or_ban_proposal to see if you should be community banned for your harassment of Fae. Your mentioning of other images is enough to show me that you are intent on harassing Fae; the sick thing is, is that we as a community are allowing you to do so. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am banned -- and I may well be since I have chosen not to participate in my own defence -- it will be just another failure of process on Wikipedia. I have urged Fæ to follow dispute resolution rather than accuse me of harassment, but they have not. If I am about to be banned for harassment, surely it should be simple enough to show that harassment in an RFC/U? If I am banned, it will be for the hysterical and misleading statements made by you and Prioryman about Wikipedia Review and homophobia. And, admittedly, for my oversight in not redacting address information from a publicly available WHOIS record that is even now visible through a simple Google search. Please do not try to tell me what I may and may not discuss in the context of this RFC/U. I did not include anything about Fæ's history of placing their own images in articles because I did not feel that it was relevant, but if it becomes relevant here then it should be discussed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – - RFC has now been properly certified by other editors, hence this discussion is moot. Manning (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA and other WP:DE complaints against the Fæ admin account: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin conduct review requested. A WP:RFC/U was suggested by several participants in that discussion. Should they be notified of this one? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided the notification goes to the full gamut of commentators and cannot be seen as just picking out those who were hostile to Ash in the first place.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the people that voted in the first RFA without knowing the full story? Should we notify them? N^oformation ^Talk 18:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would appear to be well within the limits of WP:CANVASS if and only if all those !voting there are notified (excepting only those who indicate that they wish no notifications, or are barred from being notified in some way due to topic bans etc.) in a scrupulously neutral manner that the discussion exists. Collect (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Hello. A request for comment is currently taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ. Because you voted in Fae's RFA, your input is welcome." Sound good? N^oformation ^Talk 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is a re-opening of a dormant RFC/U, I think it would be helpful to notify the original participants of that fact. I am wary of being accused of canvassing even for suggesting this, but it seems like an obvious thing to do in a case like this. I am hopeful that if nothing else comes out of this, we can at least learn from this request if similar cases arise in the future (and they will). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have consensus for a broad and neutral notification to (1) participants in the RfA, (2) participants in the 1st RfC/U, and (3) participants in that ANI discussion. Given the large number of editors involved, I have filed a WP:BOTREQ for this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the certification is invalid, so be it. Lets discuss that.

If the evidence underpinning this RFC is invalid, so it it. Lets discuss that. If the evidence underpinning the RFC is so wrong and inappropriate that it should be deleted, so be it.

Arbcom did not endorse Fæ's RFA. I did. Feel free to discuss that.

Neither Arbcom nor myself had anything to do with Fæ's seat on the Wikimedia UK Board of Trustees; the Wikimedia UK members selected him, and that is not an appropriate topic for RFCs on English Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John, you failed to answer when I emailed you, and the entire ArbCom also refused to answer, the simple question: Are user:Ash and user:Fæ the same person? If they are, how do you know that and when did you become aware of it?   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Will Beback, why don't you just ask him? Maybe something like this; "Hey Fæ, are you Ash?". -PumknPi (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A) I'm not the one presenting evidence in this dispute. It's reasonable to ask someone making an assertion to prove it. That's standard across Wikipedia.

B) Fae deleted the question when someone else asked, so he's the wrong one to ask. The issue of whether editors need to deny things is unclear. Does an editor need to identify conflicts of interest and prior/alternate accounts when asked? Do they need to answer questions or make denials if accused?

C) I was instructed by DC to ask the ArbCom, which I did. I thought it'd be a simple matter to resolve with them but perhaps nothing is simple that involves a committee. They were also the wrong ones to ask.

D) There are still two remaining existential issues for this RFC/U: First, someone in authority needs to make the determination that"Ash=Fae" or clear evidence needs to be added. Second, the certifiers should establish their efforts to resolve the dispute.

E) I wish you all luck with this RFC/U and hope that it improves Wikipedia. However I regret having any involvement with it and I withdraw from further engagement. This may not be an example of the Wikipedia's best dispute resolution process.

F) I'd still like to get a better explanation from John V. of why we know that Ash = Fae, and who knew of the connection when. That's directly related to this RFC/U.   Will Beback  talk  09:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, im sorry you didnt get a response from Arbcom that helped you. You didnt email me directly; you did cc me to an email addressed to arbcom-l that was sent way less than a day ago. (I've spent most of today gardening..) This is a good reason to use onwiki communication before using onwiki tools. There is no consensus above that the RFC remains invalid after the new certifications. Unfortunately while Arbcom can be informed of prior accounts, and they may reject an editors clean start, Arbcom doesnt disclose the previous identity merely because there is an RFC in its early stages. To be honest, there hasnt been much discussion over the years about if and when Arbcom should disclose details of a clean start that the community has an interest in. Arbcom members look at accounts when they are informed of a clean start; it rejects some, records and advises others, but it neither monitors nor protects the users thereafter. Maybe it should fully investigate and monitor clean starts indefinitely. It would be great if ArbCom had the resources to do this; they don't. It is the users responsibility to conform to the requirements of a cleanstart. I know I looked at user:Fæ's edits and was convinced that they were a valid cleanstart. (I saw a few minor issues, and discussed them with Fæ) If there has been a significant problem with editing by user:Fæ (before RFA or since), this is the time to raise it. If Fæ's editing has been good, then the clean start worked and the RFC is without merit in that regards. However in addition to that aspect, there are views here regarding the clean start, Arbcom and RFA process, and we should consider them, perhaps as a separate RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I envy you. I spent a couple of hours shoveling packed snow. Under the working assumption that Ash = Fae, the claim of clean start is questionable. Whether some people belong on the list of gay bathhouse regulars—a dispute involving User:Ash—is not very far afield BLP-wise from the dispute whether some model's adult video and "superhead" sexually-loaded nickname belong in her Wikipedia biography—a heated dispute involving User:Fæ, in which I have to say both sides behaved subpar if one peruses the talk page archives. So, clean start is very fuzzy concept under these circumstances. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I did use onwiki communications. See #Fae=Ash? on this page, plus other threads. No one, including you in this thread, has provided evidence that Ash=Fae. Excuse me for asking for the basic evidence. RFC/Us have a strict deadline for compliance, which still has not been met. It seems only fair to hold this RFC/U to the usual standards. So, again, how do you know that Ash=Fae?   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the strict 48hrs. requirement is only for people signing on the dotted line that they certify the RfC/U. Disputing other evidence is not a reason to delete the RfC, especially since it was already deleted and restored once, and your deletion may be considered WP:WHEELWAR. You are welcome to add your view to the RfC that the identity of the editor operating the two accounts has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, or whatever standard you think should be used. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelwar refers to undoing administrative actions. That would apply to the second or third action, not the first.

@ASCIIn2Bme: Do you have clear evidence that Ash=Fae? If so, could you post it please?   Will Beback  talk  10:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has already been posted multiple times. I believe there can be no doubts that Fae and Ash are the very same person. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, Will has already stated that that ANI thread does not meet his lofty standards, though it is more than enough for the rest of us. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanstart is an opportunity, not a free pass. Per policy the onus is on the editor to make it work , not on the community to put on blinders. Nobody Ent 11:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It depends on the level of proof someone thinks necessary. I think WP:DUCK is often involved in deciding WP:SPI cases where the CheckUser info is unavailable. User:Fæ has explicitly denied being another named user, [2] but insofar has refused to either confirm or deny that they were Ash, despite being asked on-wiki repeatedly. Is there any exculpatory/counterbalancing evidence that this is just a coincidence given the overlapping interests and the statement on "moving my spheres of interest to new topics to become a more generalist Wikipedian and avoiding the articles which were the sites of previous disputes without it being a complete self-ban"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was certain that the question Ash=Fæ was asked before this given that the ANI thread is months old. In an interesting use of WP:REVDEL, some questions on the same topic have been deleted using administrative tools. You can have a look at Special:Contributions/Bali ultimate on 28 December for a hint [3]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will someone establish the sequence of events for creation/first edits from the Fae account, last edits of the Ash account, and date of start and ending of the RfC/U on Ash please? I fear my timeline that I found would not appear to conform with the wishes and claims of some concerning the sequence. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This was Ash's last edit to the RfC on 9 April 2010. The RfC was closed on 30 May 2010 due to 'inactivity'. Fae's first edit was on 28 March 2010, during the RfC. 109.145.231.249 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • In short - Fae was an "alternate persona" actively editing during the entire RFC/U? Not a usage "after" the RFC/U as claimed in the RfA? Collect (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the RfC/U on Ash started on 5 April 2010‎, it's apparent that the Fæ account made its first edit before that event, namely on 28 March 2010. Now it's possible that there were other discussions on the topic somewhere else besides the RfC/U which may have convinced Ash to start a new account before the RfC/U even started. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Ash was clearly reconsidering participation in Wikipedia around March 25 [4]. Next day Ash gave up on filing a RfC/U on User:Delicious carbuncle [5]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In other words, the Fae account is a sock, not a cleanstart, and he wasn't truthful about the RFC in his RFA [6] Nobody Ent 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's well known by now that the two accounts were operated simultaneously for a period of time (roughly two weeks in March-April 2010 for few hundred edits, mostly semi-automated, plus one talk page edit in July). This was amply discussed in the November ANI thread. Fæ admitted to the overlap during the RfA [7], after most of the votes were in. So I don't see the lie, except perhaps "adminship is no big deal", but that was uttered by someone else there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • lie ≠ untruthful and before ≠ after. Nobody Ent 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

              • The "after an RFC/U ... I took the option of a clean start" issue has already been covered in ReverendWayne's view, which I endorsed and so have you. Is there anything else? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • ReverendWayne said "during," but it was actually "before." Nobody Ent 10:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The post-Fae edits by Ash were just tying up Ash loose ends. That can't reasonably be construed as socking. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a user claims to have left Wikipedia but has actually been editing at the same time using another account, socking is exactly what it is. Fæ did not simply stop editing and later decide to return with a new account. There's nothing "clean" about Fæ's clean start. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Clean Start" allows a user to abandon an old identity - which could have any number of valid reasons listed at WP:CLEANSTART - and return immediately with another account, editing in a different behaviour and in different areas than the old account. I find it interesting that you believe what Fæ is doing - or, rather, has done - is something other than that. Perhaps the Ash account was needed at one time to finalize some edits in closing down use of that account. Was it used in the encyclopedia after Fæ came to be? CycloneGU (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Benjiboi stopped editing on the same day that the Fæ account was created. Benjiboi was involved in the same dispute with DC as Ash was. Subsequently, Benjiboi was banned for sockpuppeting. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ is not a Benjiboi sockpuppet, if that is what you are suggesting. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A less malicious explanation is far more plausible: both editors shared views about how to deal with gay porn articles on Wikipedia, as one can see from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#Creation of new biographical articles introducing BLP and sourcing issues for instance. And they both intended to start a RfC/U on you, [8] which was mysteriously abandoned when they both mysteriously disappeared practically at the same time. It's true that after that event their wiki-fates diverged enormously. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what date did the Committee first became aware of the existence of a prior account of Fæ? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We're always aware of everything, and in control of it, as well. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias, ^(secret) member of the ROUGE CABAL, 16:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC) On a more serious note, I'd like to know as well. I was not involved in this until the ANI (and still really am not): it kind of reminds me of high school or national politics (whichever you prefer), with documentation![reply]

I've been looking into this off and on since late December. I emailed Arbcom a month ago with a series of questions about what they knew about "Fae's" past accounts (the linkage between this account and "Ash" was made clear when Fae publicly announced his identity [9]), his editing activity on this website, and what they think that might say about his suitability for positions of power. I have not received a response and at this point don't expect one. Though I don't intend to participate in this RFC, the thing that interests me is the level of responsibility he's been given in representing Wikimedia to the government and public in the UK, weighed against his editing behavior over the years, particularly the misuse of sources and a casual attitude towards protecting the privacy and reputation of article subjects. There are related concerns on how very small, self-selected groups of individual wield large amounts of power on wikimedia websites, rather than "the community" that is so often spoken of in public forums.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I am bemused by is that Fae and his advisors persist in fighting a case where damage to Wikimedia will be the inevitable result. A journalist whose main job is as Middle East Correspondent for a brand that typically picks up a Pulitzer Prize about once a decade has announced that he is writing an article about various goings on to do with Wikimedia and its projects with the antics of Fae being a key element of what he is going to submit. The prudent step to take is that Fae resigns from his various positions and then Dan Murphy's article immediately becomes a lot less interesting to potential publishers. Does he show any sign of doing so? No.

Similarly, my letter to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions will largely be neutralised if Fae resigns. I have pointed out that, while he denied that there were BLP and privacy issues on Wikipedia when testifying to the committee, he himself has a continuing history with his past and current accounts here and on Commons of harming other people's privacy. If he were to resign his various Wikimedia/Wikipedia positions, then WMUK will be in a position to disassociate themselves from his evidence and to write to the Committee giving a franker description of the privacy and BLP issues on Wikipedia.

Again, I have mentioned both on the WMUK mailing list and to Jon Davies face to face that there is a real threat to the charity's reputation if someone were to write to Private Eye about some of the earlier accounts' contributions and, indeed, some of Fae's contributions on Commons while he has been a trustee of WMUK. Greg Kohs online articles aren't taken seriously by anyone. Coverage in PE would be hugely more damaging. That potential danger is removed the moment that Fae stops holding a position with them.

Rather than think of what is best for Wikimedia and its projects, Fae and his associates are taking a course that leaves WM at risk. Yes, of course, there have been some unpleasant homophobic posts on WR as well as distinctly nasty stuff appearing here on WP and on Commons. That does not mean that all, or indeed most, people who criticise Fae are homophobes. And the "don't ask, don't tell" approach to questions about whether he is indeed Ash, including deletions and indeed revdels both on Commons and here, is quite ridiculous. WP:CLEANSTART has explicit limitations and Fae's distortion of the policy is just another example of his unfitness for any position of authority connected with Wikipedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading Private Eye long enough to remember when Auberon Waugh had a column there. Wikimedia UK board member is gay and has written Wikipedia articles about gay pornstars might have merited coverage in the early 80s but today you'd need rather more than that. However there is a risk that this RFC could result in press coverage, If the Gay press pick up on this and write a story about Homophobia on the web then we would have a problem, though hopefully they would be clear that Wikipedia Review is an independent site many of whose editors have been banned from Wikipedia. But I would suggest that those who want this RFC to become valid try to fill in the necessary gaps to make it valid, or alternatively get it deleted. At present it omits the essential step of demonstrating that there had been an unsuccessful attempt at dispute resolution with Fae. It doesn't show a current or recent problem that we are asking Fae to address, and it includes legitimate but gay themed edits as evidence of misbehaviour. Not the community's finest hour and not a combination that I'd care to defend. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer the initial question is currently over on Fae's talk page. I will be honest with you, that I find it a little disturbing. During the RfA Fae appealed strongly to John/ArbCOM's review and John was a very vocal voice in Fae's defense. In this discussion, however, it appears as if Fae/John have a different recollection of events and the depth to which ArbCOM/John were involved.

NOTE: While it appears that John/ArbCOM didn't perform the review the community/Fae expected, it does not appear as if Fae intentionally mislead the community. It looks as if he made incorrect statements, which he thought were true, but were not corrected/challenged by John or ArbCOM.

This revelation still doesn't change the fact, the community abrogated its responsibility to vett Fae and shouldn't revisit the issue now.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In their endorsement of a position User:Shrigley wrote:

"DC's style is to say no more than would break the shield of plausible deniability. However, the general environment on WR is, whenever the subject arises, obviously homophobic. The LGBT wikiproject and LGBT pictures on commons are constant grievances; BLP crusades disproportionately serve to minimize the visibility of gay people and to aggrandize antigay politicians; and Fæ is not the first prominent LGBT editor that DC has targeted. This is shameless dog-whistle politics: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are. Who knows? Maybe DC is just out to save the encyclopedia, and it just so happens that the worst editors are gay. We can't read minds. But the effect of his actions is that many gay editors, myself included, feel intimidated and unwelcome on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

While this content probably belongs on the talk page instead of their endorsement, I would like to address it. Wikipedia Review is a forum with contributors from a wide array of Wikipedia editors and non-editors, including several current admins and the former legal counsel of the WMF. It is simply ridiculous to ascribe any single position to such a forum. Nonetheless, what Shrigley states is factually incorrect. LGBT images and the LGBT Wikiproject are not constant grievances - I cannot recall a thread devoted to either of these topics and I suspect even mentions of them are rare. Commons images containing explicit nudity and how those images are handled on Commons seem to be frequent topics of conversation, but I suggest that the vast majority of those images feature either masturbation by a single person or explicit "heterosexual" sex. Having said that, there are comments made on Wikipedia Review that I find to be offensive, but that is the nature of that community. Yes, there are comments there that many people would see as homophobic, but those are comments made by individual contributors and not reflective of the forum as a whole.

If Shrigley would like to provide a list of "prominent LGBT editors" that I have "targeted", perhaps I can address that concern also. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone attacked by the children at Weekly Reader should wear it as a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the forum has a single position on any issue. However, certain opinions on WR - including antigay ones, in my experience - are expressed more often than not. I'm not going to point to any specific threads or posts: As has just been demonstrated following Russavia's statement, embarrassing WR posts have a tendency to disappear once they come under scrutiny from Wikipedians. My point is, WR is a partisan audience that can be expected to treat alleged LGBT evildoers more harshly than it treats other users. If you're not sensitive to this fact, then you're somewhat complicit in it. As for the targeted editors, I am really thinking of two examples: User:Benjiboi and User:Cirt. While the latter is not LGBT-identified to my knowledge, s/he did make extraordinary content contributions to the topic area, as did Benjiboi. I don't need to hear about how they were horrible people who did horrible things and were justly punished in righteous struggle. That may be. But for whatever they did, I do think there's some added satisfaction from their banishment, and from Fæ's expected banishment, in the silencing of LGBT voices and representation on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrigley, first of all I sympathize with anyone who's suffered gay bashing. Secondly, I have to disagree with you that on WR -- "antigay [views] are expressed more often than not" -- that's just not true. It's more often the case that someone gets snickered at for uploading a semi-nude image of themselves all hog-tied, not because they are supposedly gay. --PumknPi (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were true, why should any self-respecting wikipedia editor give a flying freak what the Weekly Reader idiots have to say? Where's the backbone??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, no offense, but cork it. It has been a fun game over the years to malign that place as the proverbial wretched hive of scum and villainy, but the reality is that the population there mirrors the population found in the Wikipedia or that of every other group of people; some good, some bad, and a whole lot that are just ordinary. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way, man. I want that "Vexatious Litigant of the Year" award again. :) Being attacked by Weekly Reader is strong evidence that I'm doing things right. It's a little like being attacked by Newt. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...evidence that I'm doing things right" -- really Baseball Bugs? What significant content have you created recently? What encyclopedic work of quality have you done in recent memory? Truthfully, Baseball Bugs, you're just 'hanging out' and having a good time by drama mongering. You are a net deficit to the project, without a doubt. Furthermore, there are administrators, arbitrators, checkusers and serious Wikipedia editors participating at Wikipedia Review. Please consider that they might be the reason you are ridiculed there, on WR, where people can speak their honest minds. --PumknPi (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You, who have been here a grand total of 5 weeks, don't have a clue about anything. I don't have quarrels with admins, arbs and checkusers. The ones at Weekly Reader, who criticize wikipedians in the most childish ways they can come up with, are primarily former wikipedia editors who got booted and weren't happy about it. Their "honest minds" are a net deficit to themselves. Again I say, no one here should be intimidated by anything those morons say to or about them. That "look what you made me do" (or "not do") argument being used here is really, really offensive. The worst "insult" they could come up towards me is that I'm a defender of wikipedia. That "insult" is an unintended compliment. In this situation on this page, you've got a complainant who doesn't trust any admin well enough to take this offline; and you've got someone who may have weaseled his way into adminship by being dishonest. Put that in your Pi and smoke it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run this buy me again, BBB, What significant content have you created recently? What encyclopedic work of quality have you done in recent memory??? --PumknPi (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see... I did some article creation and expansion over at the Simple English Wikipedia, during that one-day block that Wikipedia imposed on everyone. I also have a significant watch list here, and as always, I fixed things as they came up. Also, today, over at ANI someone complimented me regarding my stance on an SPA making a legal threat. I think the exact quote was "Bugs is right." So there's plenty I do here. You've been here 5 weeks, and if you take your own advice and focus on supporting wikipedia, you'll do well here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, since it's pretty obvious that Punkin is a long-standing editor, maybe he could give us some diffs of articles he worked on, say last summer for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrigley, it is impossible for me to respond to such things as "I do think there's some added satisfaction from their banishment, and from Fæ's expected banishment, in the silencing of LGBT voices and representation on Wikipedia" with any kind of reasonable argument. That is not the case, but if that is what you think, I am unlikely to be able to change your mind. It is beyond farcical to say that my disputes with Cirt had anything to do with LGBT issues - it was very clearly about their anti-Scientology POV-pushing and violations f our policies with regard to biographies of living people. If they have a connection to the LGBT community, it is incidental and, as you point out, unclear. Benjiboi was a self-proclaimed "homo-propagandist", as it used to say in their now-deleted autobiography Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., so it would be difficult to imagine a dispute with that editor that did not involve LGBT culture. Despite that, our disagreements were in regard to sourcing and violations of BLP in biographies of gay porn performers, not in relation to LGBT subjects in any general sense. Note that this is where I encountered User:Ash, who was deeply involved in supporting Benjiboi. Benjiboi has since been exposed as a very prolific sockpuppeteer and troll. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the offensive comments made on Fæ's userpage were made by Benjiboi to stir up exactly this kind of discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False accusations of homophobia are against everything that this project stands for, videlicet, collaboration, compromise, and cooperation. A few Wikipedia editors unfortunately make the mistake of believing that almost any kind of tactic is ok to use when they are losing a debate. Those editors need to understand, however, that such tactics are completely unacceptable, if not clearly beneath contempt. Cla68 (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped it would not be necessary to do this on-wiki simply to confirm what has already been openly discussed in various on-wiki discussions, which is why I requested that concerned parties contact ArbCom about the connection between the two accounts. I can think of no way to establish that the two accounts are/were controlled by the same person without at the same time exposing the real-life identity of that person. Since others have already connected Fæ to their full name on this talk page, although I believe this is likely running afoul of the letter of the WP:OUTING policy, it will not be revealing any new private information, nor does it rely on revdeleted material.

In November of 2006, User:Ash (although it may have been as User:Ashleyvh, later renamed to User:Ash) uploaded an image of Charles Dunstone (log). The description was "Photograph of Charles Dunstone taken by Ashley Van Haeften in 2005". That image was deleted by Fæ on 18 April 2011 (log) with the edit summary "F1: Redundant copy of non-Commons file in the same file format". If one looks at File:Charles_Dunstone.jpg today, one finds that the image does indeed now reside on Commons and is attributed to Fæ as "own work". I think a reasonable person would find this more than enough to conclude that the two accounts are controlled by the same person. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is clarification . Youreallycan 20:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More directly [10] Nobody Ent —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I told DC of a way he could proceed without openly outing, and he ignored it: Communicate with an admin offline. If his conclusion is true about these two users that might be just one, what's to be done? Fae claims to be open to recall. Since he got his adminship through possibly shady means, presumably he should be taken up on that offer. So if DC's facts are correct, what's the next step? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much an "if", but you can see the history of the image page, I believe. It shows who originally uploaded it, and who uploaded the newest version. With that said, since it's been noted that Fae is male in an WP:AN discussion, saying that Fae is Ashley Van Haeften is something I find hard to believe. The possibility there would be that the user wrongly claimed to be male to distance further from the other account. This isn't criminal itself, but does raise eyebrows if this were proven true. CycloneGU (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ashley" is not exclusively a female name, particularly in England and Australia. See Ashley (name)#First name, male Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The male character Ashley Wilkes from Gone With the Wind, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneGU: perhaps you missed Nobody Ent's link directly above. 28bytes (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did see it before making this comment, but took a second look and now see the name attached to the ID. Now it qualifies as a dead giveaway. What is the image that was originally uploaded by User:Ash? Even if they are the same person, I still argue that a desysop discussion is more appropriate than another RfA. CycloneGU (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious Carbuncle:

"I think a reasonable person would find this more than enough to conclude that the two accounts are controlled by the same person."

Not at all. All this establishes is that editor Ash uploaded a file whose author he nominated as being someone called Ashley van Haeften, and which editor Fæ later claimed to be his. Assuming neither editor was telling fibs, the most you could reasonably conclude from this is that Fæ's real name was Ashley van Haeften—which is already known from his disclosure of it on the Wikimedia UK website—and that Ash knew that van Haeften was the file's author and was willing to publish it under an appropriate licence. However, while he was still editing, Ash performed several uploads in which he did openly reveal his real name—again assuming that he wasn't telling fibs. In these uploads he explicitly identified the author of the uploaded file by name in the upload edit summary, and then claimed these as his own work. Not all of these have yet been revision deleted. Here's one, and here's another.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - the are scenarios in which the two users could have been separate people and both be truthful, but I believe that the deleted image also claimed that it was Ashley Van Haeften's "own work". Anyone who can see the deleted image will have no trouble finding many instances of self-identification by that account. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[11], [12], [13]. [14], [15], [16]. --JN466 05:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that every summary has a list of signatories who support the summary while excluding even a template section where signatories may oppose. I feel this skews results insinuating participants either agree or remain silent. I am initially shocked at the precedent here which seems to endorse speculative outing of an editor. My76Strat (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are blind deaf and dumb - its common knowledge. - I struchk this comment - it came out all wrong, I just meant to say that the details are above and they have been requested by a user who closed the RFC user because he disputed them. Youreallycan 20:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is your idea of helpful discourse. Perhaps I should apply the same reservation. My76Strat (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs have never had an oppose section. The idea is that an opposer to "I believe that X occurred..." will write their own view in the positive sense "I believe that Y occurred..." and others will endorse it and the positive view of "I believe that Y occurred..." will be shown to have more support then the other views. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have merely given my perspective as one who hasn't participated in this format and may never again. I certainly didn't garner a thing welcoming by the initial response. My76Strat (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says clearly near the top of the main page Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. If you look at past RFC/Us, you can see how they're done. When entering a new social situation, it is wise to observe and learn the norms before making critical comments. If you wish to propose change in the process, I believe Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment would be the proper forum. Nobody Ent 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was wise, I said I didn't feel very welcome. And I said I am concerned at the cavalier disregard of wp:outing that jumps out at the most cursory read. My76Strat (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you often walk into a room, tell everyone they are holding their wine glasses incorrectly and then wonder why people won't talk to you? You didn't do your research, you got the cold shoulder. So what? Move on, everyone else has.101.118.48.43 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have at times also wondered things like My76Strat's thoughts about this type of process. What I am thinking is that an observation is made as to how many are participating and a percentage is determined for each section. Remember the whole thing about Pending Changes? One page discussing it - an RfC, I think - had the same format. I think Strat also participated there. But in support of Strat's original comment, I also am curious exactly how a proposal is deemed to "pass" or otherwise have enough support to become the consensus without an "oppose"-type section. Or...do directly conflicting viewpoints serve as the only means of measuring? CycloneGU (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that RFCs have never had oppose sections. I've seen user RFCs that did, just like My765Strat wants. It's just that they were deprecated at some point. But usually one of the views will say "this RFC is overblown and baseless" and you can always compare the supporters on that to the number of endorsers. 169.231.55.236 (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I beleive it was the BLP PROD debates where use of OPPOSES were common place--- I might be mistaken on that, but I do remember we had opposes all over the place and that some people were questioning them because it was atypical to have oppose sections. but that there were too many issues not to have them.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I received a notice about this RfC. I am not 100% sure where I was involved with this user. My guess is it was in a discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard, but I am not certain. Can someone please link me to discussions regarding this user or discussions about things done by this user where I have been involved so I may comment further on those specific scenarios, or support accordingly other views? Without knowing, I cannot appropriately comment. CycloneGU (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You commented in an AN/I thread about Fæ's conduct, in which an RFC/U was proposed, so I assume that's why you were notified. 28bytes (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that helps. I only had the one comment replying to another user in the discussion, but based on my reading the thread previously and again now, I have an understanding of this now. CycloneGU (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been a call for Fae to stand another RfA, this is xe's recall procedure. It seems that xe does not favor reconfirmation RfAs. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ech... "petition were based on edits made since my last RFA." and "Problematic behaviours should represent a current problem and evidence when a petition is raised should be based on issues within the previous 12 months." Bulwersator (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the users RFA was only ten months ago and imo the user failed to declare reasonably relevant information that would have drastically altered the outcome. Youreallycan 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The user did allude to a fresh start. It doesn't matter, and never did matter what the other account was. The community agreed to give him the option of a fresh start, and since we did not know his history, his adminship and successful RfA resulting from it is fully justified. He should not be forced to endure another week-long RfA, but rather, if there is a possible consensus for desysoping, for that procedure to be used. CycloneGU (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with you CycloneGU and if this view failed to gain support I wouldn't be agitated. I offer it as congruent with a loss of confidence I perceive and extenuate that it does not imply I would oppose at RfA/R. My76Strat (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneGU - he did "allude to it" - and that is the correct expression - the details he gave, especially in regard to the RFC user under the user name Ash were not a clear reflection of the facts at all. If he had clearly portrayed them he would have been opposed. As in ...ow yes, there was an RFC user and I learnt a lot from that, when the reality was that he began editing under another identity and the RFC user was closed because the Ash account had stopped editing. Youreallycan 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with a "past" needs to have that past totally transparent. If he hides it, he should automatically be disqualified from consideration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would require a change to wp:CLEANSTART, either a minor change to say that blocks and RFCs have to be disclosed if you ever run for RFA or a major change. I might support some slight tightening of that policy, but I don't think that we should be retrospective about it, either for this case or any others. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A vital part of "clean start" is to stay away from topics they were previously involved in. Is that the case with this Ash and this Fae? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're at liberty to compare the edit histories of those accounts and make your own judgement, but I'd definitely go for "yes". The Land (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of Fae's RFA an Arb who knew the identity of his former account said that "I have looked over the contributions of old and new account names, and can also confirm that Fæ has refocused, in many ways". My own knowledge of Fæ's editing at the time of his RFA was based on our interactions in GLAM - we both took part in the Hoxne Hoard event, plus of course my review of user:Fæ's contributions when I !voted in his RFA. As I understand it User:Ash was mainly known for editing articles on Gay Porn stars. I'm not seeing diffs to indicate that Fae edits articles on Gay porn stars - those filing this RFC have certainly made a clear case that user:Ash and user:Fæ are both gay, and they are asserting that they are the same person. But they haven't made the case that they both edit articles on Gay pornstars, and as I understand it that was the topic where Ash was controversial. ϢereSpielChequers 12:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editing focus seems to be on Gay issues very heavily - there is a fine line being drawn it appears. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

failed to declare reasonably relevant information that would have drastically altered the outcome--- you mean like acknowledging that some of the people who supported him would oppose him if they knew his identity/past? Like acknowledging that if his history/past were known that it would sabotogue his RfA? Those were both known facts during the RfA. The fact that we didn't have particulates doesn't matter, when the candidate admitted those two facts, it should have had everybody jumping to the oppose column. They didn't, instead they rallied around Fae. Fae should have never passed his RfA, but he told the community enough that it should have gone down in flames, but the community chose to ignore it and chose to make a statement that his time since starting a new account was sufficeint to prove that he had reformed. Dumb decision, but that was the overwhelming verdict... fast forward a year, we gave him a free pass a year ago---now it would be Double jeopardy. The prosecution (ME) failed to sway the jury (the supporters) and he was promoted. Now we have to live with it or show that he has misused the tools.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't misused the tools, on the contrary, he's been an asset, so the community made exactly the right decision when it passed his RfA. Exok (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community were not given all the relevant details and yet it trusted in some blind way - many users with a disruptive edit history but experianced, would make useful, non disruptive admins - perhaps we can use the RFA as an example - to loosen the standards of promotion. Youreallycan 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit summary you wrote that my statement that he shouldn't have passed his RfA is untenuable[17]. I think the evidence speaks for itself. There were admissions a year ago that if his identity/actions were known that it would kill his RfA---and it would have. The secrecy around the RfC should have scared people off. The fact that people who supported him a year ago are now crying foul, is further proof that the system failed a year ago. The RfA should not have gone the way it did, but people chose to ignore the warning signs---thus a year later we are in a spot that was easily predictable from a year ago.

That being said, the quality of admin he has (or has not) been since then is a different story. I am not going to call for his mop because the community blew it a year ago when we promoted him despite the warning signs. If he's been a good admin since then, great. That doesn't mean the system worked a year ago, it just means that despite the dysfunctionality of the system, Fae had indeed reformed. RfA failed a year ago, no question about it.

But that is why I am calling for proof that he has abused the tools and should be desysopped since then.

He should never have passed with the undsiclosed history and secrecy surrounding his old account. But we promoted him. We should not, now, remove the bit because a new jury doesn't like the decision the community reached a year ago. A year ago, the community decided it didn't care about Fae's past; we gave up our right to later cry foul because all of the t weren't crossed and the i's weren't dotted to our satisfaction. Do irregularities exist? Yes. But show me a valid reason, based upon his actions since the RfC, to remove the bit based upon his edits as Fae. We (the community) blew it a year ago when we promoted him, but if he has turned out to be a good admin despite the mistakes of a year ago, then I am not going to go on a witch hunt. If he's done everything right since then, I say to those whose feeling got hurt and feel duped... live with it. Show me that he needs to have the bit removed for actions taken since the RfA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wish someone had said that about me. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, Balloonman, but it sounds a lot as if you believe you were right to have been in the "oppose" camp at Fæ's RfA. Any vote is a gamble based on risk, but where we stand now - with the benefit of hindsight - we can say you were wrong to have made the decision you did. If more people had followed your lead we would have lost a hugely useful, hard-working and competent admin. The community judged correctly at Fæ's RfA and you - through no fault of your own - decided wrongly: your mistrust was misplaced. Exok (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was right to be in the oppose camp---my fears and predictions have born fruit in this RfC. He should have never have been promoted without full disclosure. Based upon the facts available to us a year ago, my opposition was absolutely the right call. You can only act based upon the facts at hand. Even if he had turned into the best admin ever, gone onto ArbCOM and became a 'Crat, my opposition based upon the facts available, was absolutely correct. Having this second RfC with his promotion playing a role, should not have occured.

Now, fast forward a year, in hindsight he may have turned out to be a decent admin (I don't know, I haven't been watching him.) His effectiveness since then, is a different issue. Whether he has been a good/bad admin over the past year does not deter from the fact that had people known the full story they would not have promoted him (and that was admitted to during the rfa). He should not have been promoted for the reasons that people are objecting to it today.

I would also speculate that had I come in here, guns ablazing highlighting the errs I saw from a year ago, that this RfC could have a different tone than it does now. It could have turned into a SNOWBALL call for his resignation. People are upset about the "after" vs "during", about John's statements not being as accurate as they had hoped, about things they thought have been determined not to be true, etc. About how if they knew the facts they would have opposed and the first point of the RfC that if we did know the facts he would have failed... and he would have (but that was acknowledged during the RfA.) This RfC could have turned very ugly very fast, but the failure of the community a year ago, does not negate that it was the communities fault. We gave him a free pass.

For those who want to throw stones because they feel that they were deceived, how often do candidates run for RfA hoping that a specific discussion isn't found? Hoping that one edit isn't uncovered? Hoping that their view of a situation holds up? I suspect that if we started revoking past RfA's because a candidate/nominator misrepresented a fact (or we now dispute their interpretation of a fact) then we'd have a lot fewer admins. ArbCOM and the community failed the system a year ago when we didn't challenge his RfA; but that's not because we didn't have enough to oppose, we did, we just chose to ignore the warning signs. If he's been a decent admin since, judge him on his actions over the past 2 years. The community blew it a year ago---fact. To act without thinking today, could be an equally egregious error.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "warning signs" of what? And who ignored them? How do you know they ignored them, rather than took them fully into account when voting? Your "fears and predictions" were groundless. This RfC does not prove the community made the wrong choice, it doesn't and cannot prove anything. The evidence to be considered is Fæ's contributions as an admin and they clearly demonstrate that those who supported his promotion made exactly the right choice, I salute them. Exok (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The warning signs/fears and predictions are valid... I wasn't worried about his being a bad admin, but rather having to revisit the whole entire issue a year or two down the road... that people would be upset because they didn't have th full story... feeling that they were duped... calling for his resignation or a recall election. Guess what, less than a year later we are back discussing Fae. Is it fair to Fae? Not really, but we put this RfC into motion a year ago when he was promoted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel compelled to remind everyone that we are dealing with a human being with feelings, and an editor (now administrator) who has contributed enormously to Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. I think that problems have been identified that warrant this administrator relinquishing those powers, but also, I can barely imagine the pain and humiliation that Fæ must be going through right now. I encourage all of us, even those who feel that Fæ should step down or be removed, to say a kind word if their hearts are warm enough to do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments here. My76Strat (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, me too. Stuff like this is just awful for the person going through it; probably far more emotionally traumatic than any "punishment" that could get meted out. It's known that RL criminals, when they've finally been found guilty and sentenced at the end of RL trials, can often heave a sigh of relief and say "Thank God that's over!" The actual imprisonment phase seems not as bad as sitting through their own trial. Despite everything, granny-type hugz to Fæ, just for some comfort. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I move to strike comments by the IP 101.118.25.78 as noted here. As this RfC is seeing quite a bit of activity on WR and other external sites, it is likely that this editor is someone who has been banned from editing WP. I don't know who it is, nor do I really care, but unless they are willing to own their comments by logging in and signing, I would move to srike their "outside" view entirely. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 06:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:SPA are allowed a vote to close down wikipedia they should be allowed to comment here also. Youreallycan 09:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The purpose of the blackout vote was to defend Wikipedia against attack. In that vote, SPAs were defending Wikipedia against attack. This is OK. But this RfC is also an attack on Wikipedia. SPAs should not be allowed to use this vehicle for this repulsive attack on all the values that Wikipedians hold so dear. (I am an SPA but it is OK as I am defending Wikipedia). 31.52.2.164 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was not under attack, so such a spurious scaremongering position was unwarranted. Anyone has a right to comment on anything in the brave new wikipedia world. Youreallycan 10:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, only positive views of Wikipedia should be allowed. "No one has a right to edit Wikipedia" is often cited. It is a private website. 31.52.2.164 (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if I, an editor of three or four years now, have a negative opinion about Wikipedia or some part of Wikipedia, I am not allowed to discuss it? CycloneGU (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to agree on this point. It is bad enough we condone the existence of IPs and SPAs in deletion discussions, but they should absolutely be barred from RfCs, Arbcoms, and the like. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are IPs permitted to express positions in RFC/Us? Surely it should be easy to find the answer to that question at somewhere like WP:RFC/U? How is this dealt with in other RFC/Us? I don't have a position on this particular question, but it seems strange that IPs and SPAs would be allowed to participate in discussions about shutting down Wikipedia for the SOPA blackout but not otherwise. I can't think of another discussion that was so well covered in the media or one that had such potentially serious results. Just saying... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) I also find myself agreeing with this and was going to ask a similar question yesterday, but decided not to make a scene. I've seen IP votes discounted in deletion discussions in the past (though finding where now would be a chore), and I've seen them not allowed in other sections of Wikipedia (well, they can read, but their comments and votes are discounted). This is a higher-level process that IPs should not be participating in. There is too much potential for an IP sockpuppet with a vendetta to state a view against someone, succeed in passing that view, and never be seen again. I'm not saying this IP is doing this himself, but we can't have that risk. I move to strike the IP's view from the record, though the user is welcome to log into his account and post his personal viewpoint therein. CycloneGU (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is being protective of Wikipedia, as were the IPs in the blackout vote. An important precedent was set there by WMF, if you recall. 31.52.2.164 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major difference. This was a call to action affecting the entire Internet. I think WMF welcomed all views on this discussion, as it did not pertain to a particular user, policy, RfA, etc. CycloneGU (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am agreeing with you. Strike out all views that are a threat to the very existence of Wikipedia. Fae is a trustee of WMUK. A resignation or a negative finding affects all of Wikipedia, not just one user. So strike out the vote of the IP. Here is the WMF decision. 31.52.2.164 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All editors including IPs are welcome to participate in RFCs - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Suggestions_for_responding. In this case it seems the IP may have simply made a mistake. Rereading that RFA the candidate's acceptance and half the opposes relate to the RFC and the former account, the RFC wasn't something teased out late in the RFA. But odd points get made in RFCs, I doubt if many people will endorse that Editor's view. ϢereSpielChequers 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose. The first step is censoring anons; the next step after this is the censoring of all comments by the WR users or anyone critical of Wikipedia. We shouldn't be censoring anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has this come to Godwin's law? Are you seriously comparing us to Nazis? You should retract that comment. Shrigley (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to participate in self-censorship and political correctness simply because facts and honest discussions offend some people. Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_of_Twitter&diff=473626202&oldid=465501034. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...with Shrigley. I find myself offended by Michaeldsuarez's comment as this isn't about censoring. Users can create an account and become involved with the community all they want. Without doing so, they can still edit, but they should not be able to have participation in embarrassment of a user at an RfC. CycloneGU (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassment is sometimes the byproduct of scrutiny, but scrutiny is goal here, not embarrassment. We shouldn't cease scrutinizing simply because scrutiny could lead to embarrassment. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As WereSpielChequers has already pointed out the guideline states: "All editors (including unregistered or IP users) are welcome to provide comment or opinion, and to assist in reaching agreements, by responding to requests for comment". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify my stance. I don't argue so much with their general participation as I do with their ability to create their own viewpoints. For an IP user to create a viewpoint is beyond what I think should be permitted. It's like an IP user referring me or someone else to an RfA. CycloneGU (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an issue to raise re RFCs generally rather than specifically in this one. So I'd suggest that until and unless you get consensus to change the policies that allow IPs to participate in RFCs you refrain from criticising them for participating, by all means rebut their arguments as I and others have with the IP in question. But having one IP in one RFC submit an easily refuted statement doesn't discredit all IP involvement. ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Never did I suggest any and all IP involvement cannot be constructive. And yes, my thoughts are related to general RfC discussion and not really related specifically to this RfC; it just came to mind when I saw the comment. CycloneGU (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During Fæ's RFA, John Vandenberg was asked about Fæ's previous account. He replied:

As I said to Balloonman below, there is no need to trust my judgement on the previous contribs. The only request I have is that you believe me when I say that a participant in the old RfC (the 'prior critic') is aware of the previous account, has looked at the new contribs and reviewed the old history, and has not rocked up here to oppose this RfA. In addition, I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used.

Now that the previous account(s) are known, there seems no reason not to reveal the identity of the editor with whom John Vandenberg consulted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That should be up the the editor in question. 16:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobody Ent (talk • contribs)

It should be noted that John has been alerted to this question. It will be his choice on whether to reveal this information, as Nobody Ent says. CycloneGU (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been more clear - this question is for John Vanderberg. If you are not John Vanderberg or the editor in question, it probably won't be helpful to post here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful to whom? Nobody Ent 16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ent...wait for John, please. CycloneGU (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be user:lar, who was one of the certifiers endorsers on the prior RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I truly wish you hadn't acquiesced the demands of DC in this thread. My76Strat (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lar was not one of the certifiers of the original RFC/U. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle you are editing in violation of several Wikipedia policies. Your conduct is egregious to my understanding of propriety. Thankfully for you, I usually get it wrong. My76Strat (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I've corrected that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - The comment from John was also, with hindsight, a bit misleading imo - at the time of the Fae accounts RFA, user Lar was close to retiring, he only edited on a few days after that - a bit of a dispute with Will be back and a sock issue and he was gone - there was little interest for him to bother commenting about this user - he was not particularly involved with the Ash or Fae accounts in any way as far as I can see - Lar never once posted on Ash or Fæ accounts talkpage and the Ash account never posted on Lar's talkpage. Fæ posted this single post, you have mail on lar's talkpage on the 6th of march 2011 - the fact that Lar didn't object was not the clear support that it was presented as. This piece of the comment from John seems especially opinionated and with hindsight a bit misleading at the time ..... I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, (at the time User:Lar was almost inactive and on the verge of retirement) if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. (they were closing the door behind themselves, their interest in the good of the community and project was in all probability, close to zero) They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used. (Lar could have commented support or delete if he was interested without revealing anything, his not commented could just as easily have been a total lack of interest) and the claimed (the 'prior critic') Lar was a minor player only - I was a bigger critic of the Ash account - nobody that made the edits the Ash account made should ever be an admin here, and they wouldn't ever have been either if they had connected themselves to their previous edit patterns and add to that , the return to a couple of similar issues (the user Ash would have made a better indefinitely blocked disrupting POV pusher than an admin) - that is user Ash (User:Benjiboi's muse) and that is Fae and you all have been kidded if you supported him. Youreallycan 18:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the community accepted the secrecy. I'm sorry. We KNEW this was a possibility/probability when the RfA occured. The community knew the risks and chose to promote him despite the lack of transparency. Idiocity? Yes. But the community decided then that it was ok. Negating said RfA because of issues that we could have forseen is not the proper recourse. I do not think Fae should have ever been promoted, but I do not believe we should negate the overwhelming support from a year ago unless we can show that he has abused the position and/or continued the issue since then...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOte: I am not against actions related to actions taken since the RfA... but IMO we relinquished all rights to object over the process when 88% of the community chose to ignore the glaring warning signs that were present for all to see.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm starting to make sense of what you're saying here. Basically, yes, Fae/old account was up to no good. And if 'teh community', as it manifests itself specifically on the RfA page wasn't completely dysfunctional and moronic, it would have taken that into account. But it is. So two wrongs make a right and here we are now. One part of this is that RfA is insanely dysnfucntional and broken in more than ways than one. But this hasn't been news in like... at least two years. The other part is that you can't blame Fae/old account for gaming this dysfunctionality because it really is there for the taking. Ok. I can sort of see that argument. It's a depressing argument but there's some juice to it.VolunteerMarek 02:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the best synopsis of my point imaginable ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the community was not made aware that it was granting adminship to a user who evaded scrutiny by abandoning his account during an active RFC/U. That is not the same thing as a user with an RFC/U in his past deciding on a cleanstart. The community was misled. I am not speaking of actions taken on an old account, but rather of how on his current account he appears to have misrepresented his past. Do you really think that if he said he took the option of a cleanstart "during" an RFC/U, rather than "after", he would still have passed? ReverendWayne (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he should have passed in the first place... but the community wanted to use Fae as an example of how forgiving it could be and how magnanimous it was. Any questions about the users past were shot down and rebuffed. (See my questions where I wanted some basic information to make an educated decision.) But beyond the refusal to answer, we had enough info that we as a community should have opposed. Fae acknowledged that there were people whom if they knew who he was and what he did would oppose him and that he didn't want his identity to be known because it would sabotogue his RfA. He acknowledged that if his former id had been known that it would have resulted in pile on opposes---but any attempt to get any information out about the RfC, it's timing, results, sanctions, subject matter, etc were all shot down. The RfA community utterly failed in this case by giving him a free pass. By failing to do it's job then, we've relinquished the moral right to question the results today. When I presented the fourth oppose, 96 people had already chimed in with supports without anybody raising any alarms---uttery pathetic. When the alarms were sounded the rate of supports slowed down (33 people supported after my oppose, 1 moved away from support, and 18 others opposed) but it was too little too late. Do I think his RfA would have failed if he revealed his identity a year ago? Of course I do---he told us it would---and despite his admission that it would fail if people knew what he had done and who he was, the community voted to promote by a margin of 5:1. We gave him a free ride. But the basic question for RfA, is do we trust the user not to abuse the tools or break the wiki? In his year since getting the tools, has he abused them? Has he used them in a way that merits removal? Hell, has he used them in a way that he promised he wouldn't in the RfA? (Eg in relationship to the participants involved in the RfCU?) If not, then I say we've given up the moral highroad when we allowed the farce to pass.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I agree with most of your comments Balloonman, and with Marek's synoposis - Youreallycan 15:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The community did make a bad decision, however it was misled in a number of ways. I can't see where Fae admitted his RfA would be sabotaged if his identity was known, however I can see this statement by John Vandenberg: "Had Fæ disclosed their prior account here at RfA, no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history." Fae also stated "I spoke privately with one of the critical contributors ... and we have resolved our concerns", however User:Lar was not one of his main critics. Fae also claimed to have made the clean start after the RFC, rather than during. Epbr123 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding Youreallycan's "muse" comment: it's not impossible for an editor to make positive contributions in general to Wikipedia while making some questionable edits in a specific area. The recently discovered sock of Mantamoreland, User:ScottyBerg, behaved exactly like this. There are still some who think this account was blocked unjustly because only a small fraction of his 12K edits were in the controversial articles. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I got a bit carried away with my too long comment and that muse comment was a bit undue - so I have struck it. - Youreallycan 15:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know who requested user:MadmanBot to deliver such a large volume of notifications and what criteria defined the list? My76Strat (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Of_note and BOTREQ. MBisanz ^talk 19:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all and sundry. I've helped with midwiffery on something ugly, and failed to read the instructions on it to boot. I'd forgotten that request for comments were not typically just discussions about conduct, but something of a struggle session.

• I commented because I had been involved with a bit of a BLP issue with Fæ, and wanted to make it clear that I didn't see the problem as being an ongoing one.
• I chose to tacitly ignore the "Ash" business because it had no bearing on my experience. (I still don't know anything about that user, and haven't looked.)

Not sure now how to proceed, as it was just coincidence that I saw this RfC. Really, if I'm going to be active again it's going to be doing Medieval technology, not stuff like this.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron, the tricky thing here is whether the RFC is invalid for lack of an attempt at dispute resolution, and at the moment you are one of the three editors who signed that there was one. If you had a problem with Fae, tried to resolve it on his talkpage but feel the problem needs escalation then all we need is for you to give diffs showing the attempt at dispute resolution. If you can't evidence that then I'd suggest you strike out your certification of this RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 12:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he had a dispute with the editor, and engaged in discourse with that editor about the dispute. It is therefore a tad improper to insist he do something to "decertify" what appears to be an active RFC/U which is not tainted by CANVASS or other issues that I can see. And, in fact, it is not necessary that he be concerned about "Ash" unless we maintain a fiction that having a dispute with "fae" is unrelated to any RFC/U on "ash". I would note, moreover, that the current person named in the title is, indeed, "Fae". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested and the note from John Vandenberg [18] do qualify as attempts for dispute resolution of Fæ's behavior. There was a content RfC on the article's talk page as well. It's difficult to separate conduct from content when the dispute is rooted in the use of certain sources anyway. I don't see Fæ engaging much in either case; in the first, xe disputed the venue, so several editors suggested a RfC/U in that ANI discussion. Replies by email [19] are not listed as the appropriate venues for WP:DR concerning edits. Since John Vandenberg claims his effort was successful [20], perhaps Fæ admitted some editing issues, or perhaps not. We can't be sure because of the continuous evasion of on-wiki dispute resolution by Fæ regarding own edits. Again we have to take an Arbitrator's word for something that can be plainly answered on-wiki by the main disputant. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Today, Fæ has made an on-wiki statement about this issue on their own talk page [21]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually needs multiple users to certify that they attempted to resolve the same dispute and failed. As far as I can see, we do not have this, the matters to which DC draws attention pertaining to Fae have not been subject to any attempts to resolve dispute (apart form some tidying by people drawn by this putative RFC). For that reason I have delisted this page from the user list, although Tarc has reverted without notifying me (Edit summary "Not your call to make"?). Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I would say delisting at this time is disruptive and detrimental to community process. Hair splitting over the certification at this late stage when from the discussion here and the amount of commenters, there is clearly an issue to resolve. The issues people have are more likely to get resolved by allowing the RFC to continue, rather than forcing its closure now will. Youreallycan 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to fathom why some Wikipedia editors' first reactions to anything contentious is to try to bury it. As I very clearly stated in the RFC/U itself, I have re-opened a dormant RFC/U, not started a new one. That original RFC/U was certified and remains so. Where were all of these opinions about RFC/Us when I was attempting to gather input on WP:AN? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that misses the point. Some of us see nothing contentious here except an attempt to re-open old wounds. The fact that to do this you are prepared to take the steps for which you have been roundly condemned at AN/I, that you back it up with the exceptionally weak diffs from the Fae account that you use, do speak to this being other than a disinterested attempt at dispute resolution. There is not even a clear statement of what the dispute or disputes are. Since Fae is not defending Ash's sourcing (or other actions) there is no ongoing dispute with Ash - and there seems to be no dispute with Fae. If there is an ongoing dispute that can't be resolved then better tell us what it is. Rich Farmbrough, 19:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, the dispute was defined by the certifiers to be Ash/Fæ's edits to multiple BLPs mostly about porn sourcing. I don't think this is an unreasonable construction of a dispute. Not even John Vandenberg disputed the relationship of the Steffens dispute with those immediately prior to the "clean start". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steffans was not listed explicitly a locus by DC, only by Brennerman, who said that he thought the dispute resolution was successful, John Vandenberg concurs. Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I see that Aaron Brenneman has "uncertified" the RfC/U today [22] That's a new development. I see that on ANI he was even more explicit now supporting the deletion of this page [23]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious carbuncle, as a personal request, could you please clearly explain what you would find an acceptable outcome here to cease creating any more discussions about me off-wiki where people are posting my professional details and that of my civil parter while making allegations that appear to be of adultery, paedophilia, fraud and repeating the details of threats against me made elsewhere? I am sure you have no deliberate intention of harassing me, but these seem to be the facts of what is happening based on my reading of the material. My question is genuine as I find many of the allegations frightening and could do with your help. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, as I said in response to this same question at ANI, I hope you will understand why, after countless accusations of harassment from both Ash and your current account (the latest literally minutes before you posed this question), I doubt the sincerity of your statement "I am sure you have no deliberate intention of harassing me". If you or your partner are being harassed in real life in any way, I suggest you contact the police with the details. If it needs to be said, I do not condone this. As far as Wikipedia Review goes, I do not speak for them in any way, shape, or form and have no control over what happens there, any more than I have over what happens here. If you find specific threads or posts to be threatening, I suggest you contact one of the WR moderators, who have the power to delete threads or remove them from public view. I do not believe that there are any serious allegations of adultery, fraud, or paedophilia to be found there. I would ask you to post links to the specific charges, but I know you will not. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thread you created to discuss my RFC/U includes "But putting pictures up of naked little boys is the glorification of paedophilia and children cannot CONSENT to having photographs taken of them like that...", which was posted yesterday. As my professional details are being analysed and links to my profile and contact details before that, I find comments like these especially frightening on a permanent public forum as they are likely to encourage further threats or attacks in the long term. Regardless of any Wikipedia processes, please do explain what you want me to do in order for you to stop. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have question for "Fae." Why did you think it was appropriate to put the image of a naked, somewhat sexualized, adolescent on your userpage?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about something from 3 years ago when a photograph from the 1890s was used. Even though the photograph has historical interest, being well over 100 years old, I would not encourage anyone to put such images in their userspace unless there were a clear educational rationale. I know much more now about the appropriate use of images in context having been involved in a number of policy discussions since then, and would consider such an action a mistake. I would ask any user promoting such images in a way that might cause offence to other users to re-consider, though there are not yet any clear policies on the matter. Something I tried to rectify when I started a recent Commons discussion on this topic in order to improve the userspace policy there. --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to know how the "mistake" was made. Why do you now think it was inappropriate, when you didn't then? For anyone interested, this is the NSFW image in question: [24]Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake was my understanding of what is acceptable behaviour on Wikimedia projects. I have learned a lot since my clean start, back then I did not know what chapters were and was ignorant of most of our policies. I unreservedly apologise for many mistakes I made only a few years ago but moving on was part of the reason that I thought that a clean start was a good idea. I believe my work since my clean start in improving Wikimedia projects and preserving open knowledge shows that people can move on.

I do not believe that outing me or posting material to ridicule me off-wiki helps to change Wikimedia projects in the way you would like to see. I am not a lackey of the WMF and have challenged many of their approaches. If you take time to examine more carefully the results I am aiming for by spending so much of my unpaid volunteer time with the projects, you would see that I truly do stand for the values of preserving open knowledge in a way that preserves respect for the cultural heritage involved. I do not have any other "secret" agenda. --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct the record, Fæ, here is a link to an archived copy of the User:Ash user page including the adolescent nude image from 17 March 2010, which is just shortly before you stopped using that account, not "3 years ago". Your comments above may lead some to assume that your attitude towards such things changed prior to the creation of User:Fæ. If that were to be the case, surely the image would not have remained on the user page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you are correct, I was going from my mistaken memory rather than checking the page history. I did wipe out most of the page including this image as part of my clean start. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the page was deleted on 25 March 2010, which was three days before you created the Fæ account. At that time, I think you knew my intention to start the original RFC/U. Your change of heart on controversial images was conveniently timed, to say the least. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in my RFA, my clean start included a lot of maintenance edits. I did not have a change of heart on controversial images overnight, moving on was a gradual process as you might expect. Thanks for the clarifications. Fæ (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, as you surely know, I did not make that comment. While I do not read that comment to mean that the person who made is saying that you are a paedophile, I am loathe to provide the context of the comment because it is likely not something you wish to have discussed here. I am not sure what you mean by "explain what you want me to do in order for you to stop". Do you mean to "stop" the "harassment" that you are sure I have "no deliberate intention" of doing? If so, I am not sure how to answer such a question without seeming to admit culpability in something. At the same time, there is an RFC/U in progress in which many editors have participated. I would not wish to influence your actions in regard to that by expressing an opinion of how I think you should respond to that. And again, you have a habit of associating statements made by others with my username - please stop making such associations, I am not responsible for the words or actions of others. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what is needed for you to stop creating discussions about me off-wiki, I believe that creating so many of these discussions has attracted a lot of unwelcome attention and probably resulted in the threat against me and my husband. I do not blame you for using such an outlet if you are frustrated with the Wikimedia projects, but the result has been to frighten me and my partner with the nature of the allegations and threats we have seen, I admit that you may not have been able to predict these results and they may not have been in any way under your control. This RFC/U might close in a way that you remain unhappy with, I would not like to see that as a reason to you to choose to create several more discussions about me and my civil partner which are likely to continue the problems we have seen. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, as I see there are thirty nine editors that includes ten administrators, that object to your RFA and would like you to submit yourself for another one with full openness. - Is that sufficient to activate your recall? Youreallycan 17:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order, the view supported by Themfromspace indicates that there are 39 editors who do not believe that his RfA would have passed if the full story had been known at the time of the RfA. The view does not require or request that he step down or resign or undergo a reconfirm RfA. Some of us said as much a year ago during the RfA.

The RfA was faulty, but the community bought into it and accepted it with 128 people supporting it despite its irregularities. The community accepted John's word that things were as presented and that the issues weren't sufficeint to dig further. The community chose to ignore the holes in his past. The RfA Community and ArbCOM/John failed to excercise due dilligence. Barring evidence that he has abused his position/misused the tools, I see no reason for him to step down. (And I was the most vocal voice of opposition to this RfA.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -as you were a single voice then you are the same now, just you are on different sides of the fence. - this is not about you. - There are currently thirty nine users that object to the users previous RFA, ten of them are Administrators - that is a lot of good faith opposition to his current admin status - Youreallycan 21:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This actually has me chuckling. You mischaracterize the results of what you can deduce from ThemFromSpaces' view. His view does not make any mention of reconfirmation/resignation/etc. The fact that his RfA would have failed if all the facts were known is something some of us argued a year ago. That does not by definition mean a new rfa/resignation is required today. Luckily we do have two views that are explicitly calling for him to resign/stepdown---Secret's view has 4 supporters and MyStrat's view which has 9. Not overwhelming numbers. We also have Hobit's view which is explicitly stating that irregularities in the RfA, are not in and of themselves sufficeint grounds to demand a recall. There are what, 25 !votes supporting that explicit view---hardly sounds like I'm a lone voice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit

There is nothing for you to chuckle about you have been biggin up yourself - as , I was the major opponent and now I am a supporter position - but you are only one person - that is the issue - you are not the focus - Its undeniable that forty users are opposed to what happened at the RFA - ten of them are administrators - and their objexctions are worthwhile and should not be rejected because you have changed your mind. Youreallycan 22:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing the line where the people who endorse Themfromspace's view where the view calls for the resignation/recall of Fae. Let's look at it:

Ash quit under a cloud, with an active user RFC containing serious allegations about reliable sources and BLPs. If Fae really is Ash, ArbCom erred greatly in letting him stand for adminship without disclosing his past account to the community. With full transparency, its very likely the RfA wouldn't have passed.

Nope, I do not see anything about Themfromspace's view calling for a recall. What I do see, is what I endorsed and what I said a year ago---that if the history was known that the RfA would have probably failed. So please, stop claiming that Themfromspace's view is calling for him to step down. It does not.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, I am one of the people who objected to what happened in that RfA. I think it was a complete farce. But not because of what John/Ash/Fae did, but rather because the community abrogated its responsibility to do anything.

It's like a job interview, a job candidate comes in admits that he had a brush with law, but has changed. Rather than discussing the particulars about the brush with the law, the job candidate produces a letter from a respected member of the community saying that the candidate has changed/grown. The interviewer, rather than doing due dilligence accepts the view of the respected member of the community, fails to dig into the candidates past, and hires him.

Fault is not on the job candidate when his crime is discovered; it is on the hiring manager who failed to dig into the case. If you now fire the person for something they disclosed during the interview process, that person now can sue for wrongful termination. Culpability lies with the people who promoted without digging for the whole story. If you want to get rid of Fae now, show that he has abused the tools/position. So far, I haven't seen that. All I've seen is an attempt to negate the past RfA. Was that RfA wrought with problems, yell yeah, but the community chose to ignore them.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At some point editors may start to find the "I told you so"s annoying. 28bytes (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lying on resume/interview Nobody Ent 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lying can, but refusing to say anything? If you reveal a past transgression and the hiring manager fails to follow up, that is the hiring manager's fault. "When did you first learn that the candidate had a run in with the law?" "During the interview." Accepting a candidate after a infraction is known becomes acceptance of the stance.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's bullshit, the lack of due diligence would not magically absolve the person of the crime committed. Yes, we as a community should have pressed him for an identity reveal at the RfA, but the fact remains that a bad editor snuck through with a new face to become an administrator. Regardless of how we, collectively, arrived at that point, it must be rectified. Tarc (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it changes the parameters. If you want to get rid of him as an admin, show how he has abused the tools or his position since being promoted? I am at the front of the line when it comes to saying that RfA/ArbCOM utterly failed in its duty a year ago. The community should not have promoted him, but they chose to ignore/absolve him of his crimes. The community failed in its job. They are upset because the process a year ago was a farce, but that is old news.

Now we've now had a year to review his work as an admin. Has he abused the tools? Has he abused his title? Has he done anything to which removal of the bit is required? If so, let's see the evidence and get him out of the position. The bar to get people to jump is ridiculously low, but so far nobody is attacking him for what he's done over the past year.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't change the parameters, I do not care one whit about what he has done under the name of "Fae" in the project. Coming back under false pretenses is the only bar that needs to be met. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we knew that when we promoted him. When the community voted by a margin of 5:1, we knew that there was an issue that incurred an RfC that we couldn't get any information on. The community turned a blind eye to that (including several of the people who are now bitching about it.) It would be an entirely different story if he had hidden this fact or spun a tale, but he refused to talk about it. But the community knew the issue was there and blindly accepted him none theless.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One interpretation is the community knew of the situation and failed to exercise due diligence. Another (mine) is that Fae was not truthful about the temporal relationship between the so-called restart and the RFC/U, so the information has now is different than it did then. Nobody Ent 02:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily dispute that either... but 1) how often do people run for RfA hoping that somebody doesn't find something that if it were known might torpedo their chances? I suspect it is more common than we might think (3 years ago I used to be the Super Opposer at RfA's and I often found hidden little secrets.) 2) He wasn't truthful... hmmm... it is still the communities fault for not delving into the issue. The community chose to accept his word and John's word on the subject. Even if the RfA was somewhat misleading, the community failed to excercise due diligence. We had the info we needed a year ago to reject him; but we promoted. So the question becomes, has he been trustworthy/responsible with the tools? If the answer is yes, then that basically becomes the reason people should be particular with the bit in the first place---can the person be trusted not to abuse the tools?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to sound unsympathetic, but I have already explained above why I am unwilling to address that question here. I am reminded that shortly before you claimed to leave Wikipedia as User:Ash, you similarly made references to fears for your safety. I was unable to establish the nature or location of the threats at that time. For the sake of clarity, can you confirm that the "threat against me and my husband" is the anonymous comment made on your user page on Commons during your RfA there? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Personal_attacks. --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pushes Rewind - Unfortunately - for better or for worse - I do not think any of this has really helped the matter of this RfC. I agree with one thing Balloonman says: that there are 26 (at the time he wrote, 25) users supporting the views of Hobit. Any view that suggests a reconfirmation RfA has not gained anywhere near that much favour even if the RfA itself is tainted in the first place; the majority of the supporters of that view do not support a reconfirmation RfA. So what else exactly is to be gained from this other than possible changes to RfA rules? There is no strong-enough call for a resignation, and ArbCom surely will not suggest it. CycloneGU (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reopen the original RfA then, don't allow any new votes, just permit those who did participate change theirs if they desire. Or dump it in Arbcom's lap for a straight-up desysop discussion. Simply allowing this person to continue on with a tainted admin bit should not be an option on the table. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not "tainted" though, is it? The voters at RfA knew there was a previous account, and chose to support Fae on the merits of his edits under that account, and nobody has presented a shred of evidence (despite multiple requests for it) to suggest that Fae has abused his position as an administrator. We as a community can't appoint an administrator, knowing full well that they edited under a previous account that was the subject of an RfC/U, and then seek to take the bit back after a year of good admin work, because he edited under a previous account that was the subject of an RfC/U. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What happened shouldn't have happened, but if Fae hasn't abused the admin tools etc. since then, then there's not really any justification for a desysop. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Abusing the tools isn't the only justification for a desysoping an admin. Several admins have been desysoped in the past for other reasons. Epbr123 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• To HJ Mitchell...yes, it is tainted. "Ash" left the project in the midst of an RfC that was heading towards a ban on BLP editing, then returned as "Fae". I think if I voted for Reagan in 1980 but later found out it was really Richard Nixon in disguise, I'd be a tad bit put out. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  But if he told you he was a former president in disguise, I don't see how you could really blame anyone but yourself for your vote... Hobit (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Now you're bending my already-silly analogy to unsustainable lengths. The matter is simple; Ash left the project in disgrace, returned as someone else, told everyone that he was someone else at one time, but not who. That last part is the only part that I am concerned with; if the "who" had been revealed, this person would almost certainly not be an administrator now. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  And any sane reasonable person should have opposed because he didn't reveal his identity. Common sense says that when presented with a "already-silly analogy to unsustainable lengths" that people will act rationally. They didnt'. The community had an opportunity to insist on the "Who" a year ago... 28 of us cried for it, but 128 said, it didn't matter and promoted anyways. They promoted knowing they didn't know who. Was it dumb? Foolish? Yes. But we accepted the fact that we didn't know who and a 'crat promoted (per the perponderance of support.)

  "but but but I didn't realize who it was" or "the rfa was misleading" or "I didn't know that"... guess what, I suspect that a lot of RfA's go through the process hoping somebody doesn't find the one time they were in an edit war, or the one time they were disrespectful, or the one time that... I say that as one of the toughest RfA reviewers from a few years ago. Talk to the old timers and they will tell you that I found dirt on a lot of people that nobody else did. If we reopen this rfa because we feel like we've missed something, then we open the door on a lot more.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I agree on the silly, but I think the analogy holds. Shouldn't one only support a "known-to-be-disguised" candidate if one would support anyone who could be in that disguise? Hobit (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Replying to Balloonman - Going with what was said here, there are many administrators who would not be administrators today for various reasons if their RfAs ran today. Criteria have become pickier and harder to meet, per se, for administrative hopefuls to successfully pass. It's remarkable that Fæ's passed. Can we reverse it now? No. Has reason been given (and proven) to warrant desysoping on the ENGLISH Wikipedia (not Commons or anywhere else)? In my opinion, no. CycloneGU (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  re to Balloonman. RFA has to fit into the context of the rest of our policies, and those policies don't require "Cleanstart" candidates to declare their former accounts when they run at RFA. It recommends they do so, but it doesn't require it, and if someone goes through Cleanstart and is careful not to link their old and new accounts we have no mechanism or policy to prevent their running at RFA with an undisclosed former account. If people blanket oppose anyone who admits to having a former account that they don't wish to publicly disclose, then my assumption is that some good candidates won't run, and other candidates will simply not mention their former accounts. I'd prefer that RFA candidates who've gone through Cleanstart do what Fae did, rather than what Fae didn't do and run without mentioning their former account. But for more people to be comfortable with the situation then I think we need to agree some sort of statute of limitations - how many months or years of editing does a Cleanstart editor need to have before previous issues can be disregarded. At the moment we have a de facto 12 months as per Fae's RFA, and the fact that 12 months is pretty much the minimum experience of successful RFAs inn recent years. Personally I'd like something a bit more sophisticated - there are some things where I'd want more than 12 months and some where I'd rather they never run. But how would we achieve that in a community based on pseudonymous editing? ϢereSpielChequers 09:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  WCS---I've never called for a blanket oppose per clean start, in fact both now and a year ago, I said that clean starts can be valid for a number of reasons. In this case, we had plenty of issues that should have shied people away from voting support. E.g. no clue as to the nature, timing, or outcome of the clean start. Had Fae run today, I don't think his past would be an issue---two years of relatively clean editing. Even had he said I had a negative RfC under an old account, people would have been justified in being forgiving. The problem with Fae's Clean Start, is taht we couldn't check it out to see if he had changed the behaviors that invoked the original RfCU. People who voted support in the first RfC were thus relying solely upon John's word---which is carelessness. Not to besmirch John, but generally we haven't 100% trusted any single reviewer at RfA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Balloonman, I suspect that in future such scenarios we may well find that the RFA community expects at least a two year gap since an incident that they don't know about, as opposed to an incident we can all look at. In my view that would delay the occasional good candidate, but if those who've changed their mind about Fae now that we know the previous account are going to be more cautious in future then we need to be realistic about that. In this particular case though we knew there was a clean blocklog there could have been a string of level 4 warnings for various things. My own rule of thumb has long been that few things are so egregious that I would oppose over them more than 12 months later, not least because people can pass with 12 months edits, and per cleanstart they can run at RFA without telling anyone about the prior account. However there are clearly others who take a very different view, some like you who opposed at the time, others who supported then but are likely to be more cautious in the future. So if we are going to advise editors in future scenarios, what would you think of a rule of thumb that said The community rarely opposes over issues that it can look at and that are over 12 months ago. If you have undergone Cleanstart, declared your prior account to Arbcom but don't want to reveal it in your RFA then the community expects 18 months uncontentious editing since the events of your prior account if your prior account had a clean blocklog. and any blocks that you are not disclosing per cleanstart need to be at least 24 months editing ago. That would give cleanstart candidates an incentive to disclose their prior account, or not undertake Cleanstart in the first place, whilst also giving those who do choose Cleanstart an indication as to how long they hold off before submitting an RFA. I suspect that if Fae had simply not mentioned the former account when he ran for RFA then there would be far more pressure on him to resign the mop. All this rather begs the question, one of these years we will discover an admin who has run at RFA and chosen not to disclose a former account despite being "strongly recommended" to at least inform Arbcom. Doubtless some will ask them to resign despite their having followed policy. What do you think we should do in that scenario? ϢereSpielChequers 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Had Fae not mentioned his previous account, I don't think anybody would be defending him---there would be a strong groundswell to resign or be pushed out the door. That being said, I don't think the above is necessarily accurate. The question becomes, why was there a cleanstart? If the clean start was because the person messed up, had an RfCU, or other isses that might be red flags, then yes, I 100% agree that 2 years would be the minimum to get support. Had Fae waited 2 years before running, I would not have opposed. At the other end of the spectrum, I see no reason to make a qualified candidate wait 18 months to run when they had a clean start due to harrassment, real life outting, etc. IF the user came in and said, "I had a clean start 12 months ago because I didn't want to use my real name" and ArbCOM came in and said, "The user was a user in good standing and as far as we can tell had never had a major issue and did have a clean start because they were using their real life name" then I would be comfortable with simply reviewing the past year. (I rarely object over issues a year or more old... the main reason why I objected with Fae is because we couldn't review his edits to see if the issue which brought about the RfCU was still a concern or not.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The difficulty we have here is that if someone has undergone cleanstart because they were using their real name or indeed they were harassed then it would be a mistake for them to admit that in an RFA as it would greatly narrow down who they might be. Fae was quite careful not to narrow down his previous account further than that it was the subject of an RFC, had a clean blocklog and wasn't one particular former editor. I don't know if that contributed to his being tracked down, but I wonder how many cleanstarts we've had where the previous account was a well behaved real name account? However I suppose a simple rule of "if you've had a cleanstart don't run an RFA if you've edited with the old account in the last two years" would at least mean that any such editors knew where they stood. After this incident I suspect any sensible arb would hesitate before doing the sort of review that JV did, which I think a pity because I would prefer such a system to one where we tell people to wait two years then treat all as absolved. But I feel there is quite a strong disdain for the "vetting by a trusted editor" route. ϢereSpielChequers 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman seems to have taken the position that Fæ passed his RfA despite the red flags of an undisclosed past account and mention of an RFC/U, and it is too late to do anything about that now. He and others here seem to be missing the fact that Fæ avoided likely sanctions in the Ash RFC/U being pretending to leave Wikipedia. I believe that the comments made by Fæ in his RfA were deceptive. I also believe that the community thought that ArbCom had vetted and sanctioned the candidacy when they had not, although it is unclear what Fæ had been told by ArbCom members. Admins are given the trust of the community - are these the actions of someone who inspires your trust? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash#Desired_outcome's proposed sanction was a voluntary agreement that Ash would not edit BLPs. Cleanstart requires a commitment to change editing behaviour. Now I could point out that a beach is not a BLP, but I think we have here an area where people are going to disagree, if you consider that Ash was problematic in his edits of gay pornstars then the RFC did its job, as Fae has stayed clear of that topic. If you consider that his Cleanstart only counts as after the RFC if he fully complied with the "desired outcome" and avoided all BLPs then you are going to be less happy. My view is that in hindsight it was an unusually successful RFC, as the core problem was almost totally solved. Of course this would all have been a lot smoother if Ash had promised A To avoid the topic of Gay porn and B to be clear when he was adding a fact that he wasn't providing a source for. Better still to avoid the topic of pornography and agree only to add BLP facts where he had a reliable inline citation. If 22 months ago Ash had responded to the RFC by saying "BLP is a bit wide, but how about I agree to avoid the topic of gay pornstars?", then much angst would have been avoided.

As for Arbcom's role in that RFA, my understanding now and at the time was that one Arb had vetted the prior account and told us what he told us, the rest of Arbcom were aware of the situation and one of them also chose to Support. But this was vetting by an individual person who happens to be an Arb, not a collective Arbcom decision after all Arbs had examined the issue. People may remember this as an Arbcom endorsed decision, but memory can pay tricks; we've also had people who were convinced that this was the RFA where the candidate said they couldn't disclose their former account because it would cause their RFA to fail. If you reread the FA you will see that it was quite clear - One Arb vetted the account, all Arbs had been informed of the identity of the Account. On that basis 15% opposed, roughly evenly divided between those who were concerned that the candidates CSD tagging implied they would be overly deletionist, and those who weren't prepared to accept the secrecy. Several of the opposers alleged that the candidate's motive for secrecy was that if we knew the former account the RFA would fail. But they didn't convince the other 85% of us - they didn't even convince all those who opposed the RFA.

I was part of the discussions about the Cleanstart policy Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7, and I was one of the editors arguing for disclosure to Arbcom rather than to a Checkuser. Which is one of the reasons why I paid attention to how that worked out in Fae's RFA. I still think that Cleanstart and getting an Arb to verify a hidden account is the least worst solution available to us, but I can appreciate that the next time someone is in Fae's position they may choose simply not to disclose the existence of their former account. ϢereSpielChequers 12:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, you seem to be focusing on the particular issue of BLPs of gay porn performers. I drew attention to it in my second statment in the RFC/U, not to imply that it was the issue, but to remind people of how disruptive the Ash account was. You speculate that if Ash had agreed to avoid BLPs of gay porn performers, the original RFC/U would have been resolved. I do not agree, but it is a moot point since that did not happen. The facts in this case are simple. An RFC/U was started to address concerns about the edits of User:Ash. That RFC/U did not reach its conclusion because User:Ash claimed that they had left Wikipedia. The RFC/U was delisted (not closed) due to the inactivity of User:Ash. Meanwhile, the user had already created a new account and begun editing as User:Fæ. (Editors who believe that this was in accordance with WP:CLEANSTART should read that policy more carefully and perhaps take a closer look at Ash's edits in the overlap period.) User:Fæ made both false and misleading statements in their RfA in reference to the dormant RFC/U and their past accounts. Those are the facts. Your attempt to spin this may well distract editors from the logical conclusion that Fæ created a new account to avoid sanctions in the original RFC/U, but there appears to be enough upset caused by the misleading statements in the RfA that this may not matter. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers, regarding "People may remember this as an Arbcom endorsed decision", I think it's worth nothing that apparently Fæ remembers it this way too: "Arbcom has details of my history before clean start and made a statement in support of my Wikipedia RFA." Note the "Arbcom", not "an arbitrator". 28bytes (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I was Fae I would have put that as "Arbcom has details of my history before clean start and an Arb made a statement in support of my Wikipedia RFA." But what matters here is not how people remembered the details of an RFA several months later, but whether there was a misunderstanding at the time. I've seen several statements in this RFC that don't stack up when you check the RFA. But on my rereading of it it was clear that All Arbs knew the former account name and one Arb checked both Fæ and Ash's contributions. That was the basis on which the RFA succeeded. ϢereSpielChequers 00:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, John Vandenberg actually made an explicit statement in the RfA that he was not speaking for ArbCom and that ArbCom was not endorsing Fæ: "My comment in regards to the disclosure is in a personal capacity only. The fact that ArbCom knows of the prior account is simply that; there is no seal of approval that accompanies this". By this point, there were 70 support votes and the damage of Fæ's misleading statement had already been done. Anyone who wishes to know what Fæ was told at the time should read this recent discussion between him and John Vandenberg. I believe that the community misunderstood ArbCom's involvement in the RfA, but the source of that misunderstanding was Fæ's statement. It is not clear to me whether Fæ themself misunderstood ArbCom's role, but John Vandenberg's recent statements make it quite clear that he told Fæ very plainly that he was not speaking for ArbCom in any capacity. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have zero doubt that the community misunderstood ArbCOM's role---or more exactly John's review either. John may have made that statement, but nobody from ArbCOM spoke up denouncing Fae's understanding. John so put his name and IMO reputation on the line when he vigorously defended Fae saying that we would have to trust him. The conversation on Fae's page, looks somewhat like back pedalling on John's part because the fact remains that people trusted that John had done the review that he indicated in the RfA. The majority of the community accepted John's review without question and chose to promote. It failed in its job. The thing I noted from the Fae/John conversation on Fae's page, is that Fae felt that he presented the facts as he understood it and was not informed otherwise until this week.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman, you said "nobody from ArbCOM spoke up denouncing Fae's understanding", immediately after I quoted John Vandenberg (of ArbCom) making a statement which is directly addressing Fae's insinuation that ArbCom vetted his candidacy. The thing I noted about the recent conversation is Vandenberg's statements that Fae should have been aware of the situation at the time because he was informed by Vandenberg. It may have been a genuine misunderstanding, or just another example of Fae's dissembling. I do not know, but your statements with regard to ArbCom are incorrect. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you misrepresented the quote. John was not denouncing Fae's understanding. John was responding to Pedro who indicated that he didn't trust John and thus had some questions about John providing the "arbcom seal of approval." John responded that he wasn't and that he spoke on his own behalf, but that there was a better reason to trust that Fae had changed---the at the time unidentified participant of the RFCU who hadn't spoken up who (as described by John) was a trusted member, very senior, and outspoken. In other words, John was not saying, "Don't rely on my statement as an Arb" or "my stance has been misrepresented"; he was saying, "Ok, I'm speaking personally, but you should feel comfortable supporting because this unnamed critic of Fae's hasn't opposed." Completely different context.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of it being an Arb is that they have identified to the office, we had a problem in a similar situation in the past where we used a "trusted editor" who turned out to be an unnoticed banned user. It seemed clear to me then and now that JV was speaking as an Arb not speaking for Arbcom. The other Arbs knew the identity of the former account and at least one of them supported, though without saying whether they had reviewed both accounts or just the current one. I took comfort in that at the time, perhaps others did also. If another arb had opposed saying it was too soon since the RFC had been filed then I would have been very likely to oppose or at least go neutral. But they didn't and JV's judgement suited me - Fae has turned out to be a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far I haven't seen any actual allegation that Fae misused his actual admin status. I said as much in a comment, to which Delicious carbuncle responded by citing [25]. But that link is just more about user-level discussions and actions as far as I can tell. I don't see the logic of revoking admin status for someone when there's not even an accusation that the admin blocked someone who shouldn't have been blocked, protected an article in a biased way, etc. If the problems, if they exist at all, are all problems that he would have as not-an-admin, what point can there be in taking away admin powers? Wnt (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are those any that feel that Fae's use or misuse of admin tools is not at all relevant to the problem; the problem is the deception caused by the person behind the administrator account. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. This is about this editor's behaviour, about deception at RfA, and, actually, a test of integrity. Ashley has an opportunity to make things right here, and display a sense of propriety. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holding users to account for their actions from nearly two years ago is not the intended purpose of RfC/U, and users' conduct on other Wikimedia projects is out of the scope of the English Wikipedia's dispute-resolution processes. Given that, and that minimal evidence has been presented that Fae has continued the pattern of behaviour he exhibited as Ash which led to the original RfC/U, I'm not sure what can possibly be achieved here except more drama. Thus, it is my suggestion that this be closed, or at least put on ice until there is evidence of actionable (ie recent) misconduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. So far, the majority of editors have agreed that there is substance to the allegations raised in this RfC. It needs to run the full 30 days. Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why. Is anything likely to change between now and then?
• Support I'm not seeing any benefit. No on-going issues have been identified. It's not even clear that there are any issues with the Fae account worthy of note, and certainly none worthy of an RfCU. The issues with the Ash account are quite old. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Sounds like an attempt to just sweep a problem under the rug and hope it goes away. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then please tell me what you hope this RfC might achieve. I see no pattern of ongoing misconduct by Fae. A lot of people feel he gamed the system at his RfA and are angry, and there were legitimate concerns about his edits from nearly two years ago, which don't seem to be an on-going issue, so what is there to sweep under the rug? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm hoping to achieve a sense of normalcy and put a stop to the antics of the likes of Will "Give Me What I Want or I Shall Delete!" Beback above. There's no reason not to let this run a normal 30 days. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will "Give Me What I Want or I Shall Delete!" Beback, as you call him, asked for the information on what dispute involved Fæ that was not resolved for two people, and thus forms the base of a dispute. Frankly, there is no such dispute. Whether he is right or wrong in his actions is not mine to judge; however, I also do not question what he did. CycloneGU (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will demanded "proof" of Fae==Ash, when everyone involved in this already knows it is true. The dispute is with the person behind the accounts y'know, not with any one editor persona. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I thought it was uncontroversial to say that the two accounts are the same person. The issue, however, is the lack of any recent dispute. People are pissed off that he became an admin after making a "clean start", which is not an unreasonable sentiment, but it's not a dispute. The "locus" of the dispute is from April 2010, so what sort of action are you looking for over that? Without a dispute to resolve, this is just lots of people telling Fae how angry they are. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry to intrude, but I'm pissed off that he became an admin after saying that he'd come out of an RfC/U with no sanctions, when the RfC hadn't finished and if it had, he'd have likely been sanctioned. That is, he got the bit deceptively. I don't have a problem with the clean start. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's a legitimate sentiment. But what do you hope this RfC will do about it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You keep saying things like "The issue...is the lack of any recent dispute", disregarding the fact that several people have said that they don't consider that to be the issue at all. If we're just down to a difference of opinion here, that's fine, but IMO you are not acknowledging that there is another opinion in the room. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • @HJM. The RFC should attempt to "request outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines." and hopefully reach a consensus on the issues which many here feel important. There's plenty of value in the community discussing these things, and when they feel there isn't, I expect they will stop. I don't expect the RFC to "do anything about it" other than that. I think that's what they are for. Begoon ^talk 04:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support - I think we have done enough already. I do not see anything that troubles me in Fae's past, and as I said in my comments on the RFC page, I believe Fae has been a very good admin and the work he had done on the WMUK board is commendable.-- Marek.69 ^talk 02:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Practice is to run any RfC for a normal period of time and not to short-circuit legitimate processes of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - I see a battle brewing here, and this might not be good regardless of how it occurs or the result. However, the fact that select users (I'm looking at one of you in particular) seem to be on a smear campaign to remind people of Fæ's past makes closure less likely; unfortunately, such comments will come to convince other users that something must be done and thus they will insist the RfC must continue. However, the bygone issue is two years old. Maybe in a court of law you can be put on trial for a crime ten years in the past, but is this the same attitude we wish to employ on Wikipedia? I should think not. Fæ took a clean start - even if not very well-executed - and has improved remarkably. Sure, Fæ makes mistakes once in a while; address these on an individual basis on his talk page, don't bring up past transgressions in inspired but pointless RfCs and try to set a new precedent that should never come to pass here. CycloneGU (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Support. It's time. Oppose. Fae should consider handing back the bit. He misled the community when this RfC began, by saying he was quitting, causing the RfC to be put on hold, heading off the inevitable deserved sanctions that were approaching. This device enabled him to tell the community at his RfA that he'd been the subject of an RfC but had never been sanctioned. That—no sanctions after an RfC—is a good look, and would have counted in his favour at the RfA.

This is deception and gaming. Perhaps it just panned out that way, and this wasn't intentional. Nevertheless, it's clear to me the RfA was based on false and misleading information and, if this person is worthy of adminship, he will recognise the impropriety and resign. Immediately. If he doesn't, he'll be saying something very loud and clear to the community about his character.

This RfC should stay open. It is clearly the same editor, and there is clearly something very important to discuss. Nothing more to learn here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Updated 19:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Again after Wikipedia:An#RFC.2FU_closer_needed. 04:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are now 40 editors who have endorsed "Ash quit under a cloud, with an active user RFC containing serious allegations about reliable sources and BLPs. If Fae really is Ash, ArbCom erred greatly in letting him stand for adminship without disclosing his past account to the community. With full transparency, its very likely the RfA wouldn't have passed". Wikipedia's processes have to stand up to outside scrutiny, and cutting this short can only increase the suspicions of that scrutiny. As far as I can tell, no one has called for bans and/or blocks here, so the user is free to continue editing without being admin. Exactly why does the user feel the need to continue in a position of (dubiously-gained) authority at Wikipedia when he could easily relinquish the tools (as he states he is willing to do on his user page), and simply continue being the good Wikipedian everyone hopes he will be? Anyhow, if nothing else, this should certainly runs its course so that other editors (perhaps with other evidence and opinions) have an opportunity to comment. GFHandel ♬  06:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes they have. That's a statement, but it doesn't suggest any desired outcomes which are within the scope of an RfC/U. The process isn't here to tell editors how angry we are that we think they deceived us, but to resolve disputes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per normal RfC policies. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 06:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment merely shows that you haven't read those policies. Please do so, then strike your comment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagreeing with your interpretation of policy is evidence the editor disagrees with your interpretation of policy, not evidence the editor hasn't read them. Nobody Ent 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh Lots of people are indignant about lots of different things, closing the discussion is technically correct if only because of the filing errors and the badsites involvement, and probably the most sensible thing to do in the interests of the project. But it won't get consensus and I can't see that it would avoid the issues festering. I may try to draft up a view that at least tries to narrow our differences rather than widen them. Thanks for trying ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - End this farce already. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As HJ Mitchell said above, "The "locus" of the dispute is from April 2010, so what sort of action are you looking for over that? Without a dispute to resolve, this is just lots of people telling Fae how angry they are." Exok (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per pillars consensus and not a legalistic bureaucracy. Nobody Ent 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it normal to close an RfC on a user conduct issue before the user in question responds? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support RfC/U has no legitimacy, the process needs a redesign to prevent discussions being swamped with would be witchhunters. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There is no actual dispute about Fae's conduct. There is no resolution. The RFC is just a platform for a lot of drama. The Land (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't think any sanction should have come out of the RFC/U. Having someone evade an RFC/U by cleanstart may be gaming the system, but only if they disclose the cleanstart or real name at all; actions like this make that less likely than ever. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, and neither should lesser sanctions be - which means, if someone evades those sanctions and edits appropriately for years afterward, there's no logic in imposing them anyway. We should have a system that is more designed to avoid branding editors with allegations than on branding them so they never recover! That said, those prosecuting an RFC/U or any such process have the responsibility not to be dissuaded by voluntary statements about 'backing off' or even retiring if there is real substance to the allegations; rather they should seek to bring things to a solid conclusion. I just think that conclusion should recognize that a cleanstarted editor who isn't still a problem shouldn't be subject to any sanction. Also, I think that when people like Ash or Cirt run away from the hyenas, they look like prey; it's probably better for people to stand and fight. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RfC/U doesn't doesn't propose punitively blocking Fæ. It doesn't even discuss blocking Fæ. This RfC/U doesn't seek the Fæ ouster. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Desired_outcome proposes a voluntary ban from revising BLP's in order to prevent damage to them (that's acknowledging one's flaws and taking step to prevent further damage; it isn't accepting a punishment) and the voluntary resignation of sysop rights due to a faulty RfA (that's acknowledging and undoing a mistake, not implementing a punishment upon oneself). This RfC/U isn't about punishing Fæ or driving users from Wikipedia, and the people screaming, "OMG, witchhunt!" should stop treating it as if it were. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was "neither should lesser sanctions be". Sorry for any confusion. You may say that Fae losing an adminship is a small penalty for him ... but it's a bigger penalty for Wikipedia, which needs admins whose tool-use decisions people aren't complaining about. Wnt (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since HJMitchell proposed the closure, there has continued to be a significant amount of continuing input into the RfC. This is the purpose of an RfC, to attract community commentary. When an RfC is continuing to attract this much helpful input, a proposal to prematurely close it is extremely unhelpful and counterproductive. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support closure. This RFCU is hopelessly unfocused. I read five distinct questions intertwined.

1. Was there an unacceptable cleanstart?

2. Is there a continuing problem with Fae and BLP sourcing needing resolution?

3. Should Fae's RFA be overturned due to Fae's alleged misleading statements, or due to others alleged misleading statements?

4. Did ArbCom fail to meet community expectations?

5. Did John Vandenberg personally mislead the community?

No prejudice against a new, better focused RFCU. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The subject of the RFC hasn't even replied.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly is he supposed to reply to? No one brought up a dispute with the user Fæ; everyone keeps bringing two year old allegations against Ash, which - regardless of whether they are the same person or not - have nothing to do with Fæ. I wouldn't know how to fill in that spot myself if I were the subject. Even the desired outcome refers to Ash, an editor no longer active! CycloneGU (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "which - regardless of whether they are the same person or not - have nothing to do with Fæ." I can see the point you are trying to make, but I'm afraid I can't go as far as saying that edits made by the same person, under a different name "have nothing to do with them". Maybe we are supposed to treat them as past some "statute of limitations", because of the attempted "clean start", I don't personally feel that it is correct to do so in these circumstances.Begoon ^talk 03:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose closure whilst discussion is not complete, although SmokeyJoe's refocussing suggestion is good. Begoon ^talk 03:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose closure. I don't think that the discussion is limited to stale concerns. Continuing the discussion is not equivalent to deciding that any particular sanctions must be the outcome. Rather, continuing the discussion is a way for the community to continue to work out what we think about the complicated issues that have been raised. Clearly, there are two sides to these issues, which is all the more reason not to end things prematurely. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a fair view, as I agree with a good portion of what you are suggesting here. It would be good to continue discussion of some of the issues raised here. However, I do not think a RFC/U on a specific user is the proper forum for it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The way I see it, closing it early will only result in it becoming a request for arbitration. And Johnbod, directly below, you said that just at the point where I offered my own opinions (ahem!).Point taken. You cannot really know what other users might think to contribute in the future. If you are right, then no harm. If you are wrong, then we lose out in the long run. In fact, I think that one of the many dysfunctions of RfC/U is that it is skewed against thoughtful input from users who take their time to weigh the facts and come up with opinions that aren't just preconceptions or shooting from the hip. The earliest views posted tend to be those that get the most endorsements, which are often just counted, and later views keep getting preempted by motions to close. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I said that 7 hours after your last comment, and 12 hours ago. No one else has edited the page since, despite it being the weekend. Obviously you can keep it open for ever & the occasional comment will be made, but that's not how we work. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - it's been going since January 25, & has slowed right down. Nothing important will be added now. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As WereSpielChequers said, closing it early just means that things will fester. If it peters out, that is one thing; if it's closed early, that's another. --JN466 09:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Tryptofish below, and my own comment earlier, I do agree it's good to hash out some of the material brought up here. With that said, Fæ has had an excellent record as an admin. Sure, mistakes can be made; he's human, after all. But an RFC/U based on something from an account abandoned via a WP:CLEANSTART two years ago? Let's find a better forum. CycloneGU (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me state this again; ACCOUNTS do not get sanctioned, PEOPLE do. We freely acknowledge and accept here that the same person who was once "Ash" now edits as "Fae", I hope that little nitpick is finally over and done with. The PERSON was in the process of being reprimanded when he disappeared, only to reappear under a new account. Being "good" with a new account does not make what they did under another guide magically go away. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So because someone went to the trouble to identify this editor, thus linking him permanently to the old account from which he took a WP:CLEANSTART, and despite having reformed himself completely since then, you still want to press issues from two years ago? In other words, you are not a believer in the WP:CLEANSTART policy? CycloneGU (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Not when one cleanstsarts to avoid sanctions, no. Tarc (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support I hadn't weighed in on this because I felt it was premature. It is clear that the RfC isn't going to result in any sanctions against Fae and this page is degenerating into nothing but a bunch of whining and personal attacks unrelated to the Fae RfC.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - a discussion with Baloonman has clarified by thoughts - this is not going anywhere new now - I support an experienced closer taking the time to read through all this and letting us all know what advice for the user:fae and indeed for any other user has come out of it. Youreallycan 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose. I thinks some of the talk-page discussion has been too vehement, but there have been a significant number of views added just in the past few days to the project page that are entirely in line with a RfC/U's purpose. Claiming that no sanctions are likely to result is a silly reason to close a RfC/U, whose primary purpose is not impose sanctions (WP:AN is the venue for requesting WP:CBANs), but rather a RfC/U is primarily aimed at reaching a voluntary agreement or compromise, and perhaps gather the community consensus on principles that may help defuse similar future disputes before they become ticking drama bombs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me offer a friendly suggestion to, in particular, any editors who are eager to close the RfC, but also to everyone who may be interested in it. It would be a good idea, by way of preparing for a useful closure (one that is less likely to lead simply to a request for arbitration or some other lack of resolution), to start preparing a summary statement here in this talk. Ideally, it would identify areas of consensus. Failing that, it would be of the form "some editors felt that ABC, whereas other editors felt that XYZ". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not supporting closure to "let things fester" or pave the way for arbitration, but as a statement by the Wikipedia community that there's nothing to these allegations and Ash should go on his way with our compliments. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, the desired outcome of this RfC/U is

a voluntary agreement by Ash to cease editing BLPs (biographies of living people), which require "particular care" in the sourcing and verification of facts as per WP:BLP. Further investigation into the extent of the misuse of citations may also be warranted.

It's clear from the evidence presented here that this editor (still) cannot be trusted to edit BLP's. It also seems that the editor is not going to voluntarily agree to cease editing them. I'm not familiar enough with how these things work. Can someone propose on the RfC that Fae be involuntarily banned from editing BLPs? Can the RfC process enforce such a resolution? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Voluntary agreement" implies some sort of negotiation between Fæ and the community or Fæ coming to terms with what the RfC/U has to say. I don't see any negotiation, and I don't see Fæ. I don't believe that this RfC will end in the "desired outcome". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, don't support involuntarily banning Fæ from editing BLP's. I haven't endorsed any view or comment on the RfC/U about the alleged BLP violations. My main concern, unlike Delicious carbuncle's main concern, is the lack of transparency, honesty, and information at Fæ's RfC. I'm simply making a statement about the predicament of a "voluntary agreement" being impossible due to Fæ's lack of participation on the main page of this RfC/U. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All this RfC/U seems to provide is yet further evidence that some accounts are happy to support a witchhunt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I has better evidence: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Propose_community_ban_for_User:Rlevse_.2F_User:Vanished_6551232. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/Us cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" (although those are often enacted following RFC/Us). Note that in re-opening this request, I also suggested that Fæ resign their adminship due to the circumstances of their RfA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if that is going to happen because he acknowledged having an old account before running and the community chose overwhelmingly to promote despite a dearth of factual knowledge surrounding the old account. Since being promoted, we've yet to see ongoing issues. Yeah, you've provided a few that you contend are controversial, but 2 or 3 edits over a 2 year period isn't enough to desysop.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "clear from the evidence" DC brings up a number of issues with Fae's editing. These are

1. Providing a supporting reference to X being given Y award by Z, that only states X was given an award by Z, and does not name it. This is an improvement on no referencing at all, and provides more information that DC says (this also happened with one of the refs DC brought up against Ash).
2. Sourcing whether somewhere was a good place for gay travellers to a gay travel guide. (Could there be a better source?)
3. Using a photo he took.
4. Some occurrence on Commons, which should be irrelevant.

This is just so slight, that I have trouble believing anyone could think it was a basis for an RFC/U. I prefer to AGF that DC thought this was worth citing, but I'm sure many people would think me foolish for doing so. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich Farmbrough, I was referring to his insistence on including an embarrassing nickname in a young woman's biography, which she clearly found very distressing. It displays no idea of decency, or what is appropriate for a BLP.

Balloonman, you say the community had a dearth of factual knowledge surrounding the old account when it promoted him. That's not true. The community had been told enough to satisfy their concerns: among other things they were told he had passed through an RfC without sanctions (essentially a community endorsement), and that ArbCom considered the community already knew everything relevant for an RfA.

...you already know everything that Arbcom consider relevant for RFA. (Fæ)

Only, these "facts" weren't true. Had these been true, in my opinion, the community would have been justified in promoting Fæ. That misleading statements by Fæ were allowed to stand in that RfA, is not the community's fault; they should have been directly challenged by John Vandenberg who knew the history, and struck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we had a dearth of knowledge and still chose to promote. A dearth of knowledge = lack of actual knowledge. We chose to accept Fae's position and accepted John's stance as gospel. John/ArbCOM did not correct Fae's position and essentially put a seal of approval on it. But in no other case would the stance of a single person be sufficeint to overcome concerns. We had one person testify on his behalf---and accepted that testimony as foolproof. That is a dearth of information---yet, despite a lack of info, some decided they had all the facts they needed and promoted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to recognise that Fae made misleading statements during his RFA which vitiated the !voters' consent to support him. I'm strongly convinced that Fae acted in good faith and that such misrepresentation was only due to negligence, but this does not change the fact that the community was misled and that, therefore, in my opinion, a reconfirmation RFA is warranted. You cannot just say the community supported Fae's RFA and, so, what's done is done and we now can do nothing about it, because, as I've already stated, the consensus which led to Fae's promotion was not freely formed, due to a defect of consent. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman, John Vandenberg did correct Fæ's position. Please stop saying otherwise. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John did say "The fact that ArbCom knows of the prior account is simply that; there is no seal of approval that accompanies this." But that was half-way down the page in a response to a !vote. Fæ's comment, "you already know everything that Arbcom consider relevant for RFA," which implies ArbCom has considered the matter and decided there's nothing we need to know, appeared in the Q&A at the top of the page, and should have been struck as soon as it was made. And John did not correct the impression that Fæ had survived an RfC/U without sanctions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Anthony. John did not correct Fae, he also made numerous posts arguing for Fae and numerous people accepted John's word. Take a look at the RfA. About 5 hours after the RfA went live, John (an Arb) makes a public declaration in the nomination section:

• I can confirm that Fæ took the time to talk with one of his prior critics (not me,fwiw), letting them know both old and new account names. Fæ has also informed Arbcom of the prior account name. I have looked over the contributions of old and new account names, and can also confirm that Fæ has refocused, in many ways.03:54, 15 March 2011

That declaration clearly implies that ArbCOM knew about the issue and that John as a member of ArbCOM had vetted the candidate and that no issues remained. John then declares,

• However, I can answer "Are they [Issues from the RfC] ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here?", but this will end up being something you'll need to trust me on, and I don't think you will, but answers should be given anyway. A reasonable !voter here would not be concerned about the focus of the old account.09:12, 19 March 2011

Again, he placed himself in a position of authority declaring that we would need to trust him on his judgment that the issues would not concern the community. About halfway down the page, Pedro indicates that he doesn't trust John but that John gave Fae the "ArbCOM seal of Approval." John responds to Pedro by saying, My comment in regards to the disclosure is in a personal capacity only. The fact that ArbCom knows of the prior account is simply that; there is no seal of approval that accompanies this. He then goes on to argue that there is yet a better reason to trust that Fae has changed, This is the reason why it is more important that one of the prior critics (an extremely long term and trusted community member) has also been informed of the prior account - that way there is no dependence on ArbCom to continually monitor Fae to ensure compliance to their commitment (above) to recuse in regards to the other prior critics. Note, he is not correcting Fae, but rather trying to convince Pedro that even if Pedro doesn't trust John/ArbCOM, that there is a better reason to support Fae. The context of the quote about him speaking personally and not as an Arb, thus has a completely different context than it might had John been rebutting something Fae said.

Besides this half hearted comment to Pedro (after 70 supports), John never tells Fae nor the community that we are putting too much value into the appeals to ArbCOM. In fact, John continues to support the view that:

• As you can imagine, I see a lot of bullshit "clean start"s. This clean start is one of the rare occasions when the contributor really has refocused. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

Well, the community can imagine that John sees a lot of bullshit clean starts because he's on ArbCOM and sees more BS than most of us. So again, he appealed subtly to his Arb status.

A lot is made of Fae's comment, you already know everything that Arbcom consider relevant for RFA (and other places where he referenced ArbCOM). Again, that was challenged in the RfA---by Pedro. Fae responded in part with, I am not party to other Arbcom discussions or other confirmations they might have made in the intervening time though I have made a statement that I sent directly to the Arbcom mail list. I had previously contacted another Arbcom member for advice in December last year but it was JV who took on the task of looking into my clean start and I first emailed him in January this year.

John did not respond nor did he contradict anything Fae said relative to ArbCOM. Fae's comments at the time are in perfect accord with what he recently wrote in his discussion with John on Fae's page. Both Fae and the community thought more about what John did to vett Fae, than what John has currently revealed. This is not Fae's fault---but rather John's failure to clarify issues and the communities for accepting the stance of one user as Gospel. Fae may have provided bad information, but I have no doubt based upon the comments at the time and in the recent discussion on his page, that Fae believed what he was saying to be accurate and John didn't not refute them.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"was referring to his insistence on including an embarrassing nickname in a young woman's biography" I hadn't looked at this prior to today, as it was not listed as a dispute that was not able to be solved, and hence is not relevant to certifying this RFC/U. I do find it somewhat ridiculous that on the one side of this argument we have people who are insisting on attempting to "out" an account that clearly wanted privacy, and edited in an area where socking for that purposes is allowed by policy, and on the other hand they accuse Fæ of lack of decency when someone wishes (possibly) to be revisionist over matters she has included in her own autobiographies - matters of public record. One of these is described as "A no-holds-barred memoir by the star of numerous videos provides a behind-the-scenes exposé of the hip hop industry that takes the glitter off a world of trysts with celebrities, physical abuse, rape, and drugs." according to Wikipedia she is (33 year old) "American author, most notably of the Vixen series of books." Rich Farmbrough, 15:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

None of that is a reason to cite a video-streaming porn site showing the BLP subject having sex, along with press releases by the adult entertainment company in question, as reliable sources in Wikipedia, IMO. Or to make a stink when someone takes crap like that out under BLP policy. It's not the sort of BLP sourcing and behaviour I would expect from an admin (cf. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested). Steffans may be no saint, but she objected to the release of that video, which I understand was filmed a good few years prior, and whose release at that precise time was designed to cash in on a successful book release of hers. Even when writing about people who have made sex videos, there is no need for us to sink below the level of the Daily Sport. --JN466 00:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I apologise for not mentioning the wikilegal misconduct in that case: the use of poor sources to support his argument for inclusion. Frankly, in my mind, that fades into insignificance when compared with the reckless cruelty the editor tried to perpetrate - trying to force an irrelevant, and distressing, humiliating and degrading nickname into a BLP. That act speaks loudly to me of the editor's poor understanding of what is appropriate content for a BLP, and confirms that the original desired outcome is something worth calling for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the sourcing correctly (and, admittedly, it's a bit of a swamp to go through all the discussions of it), it eventually came out in the discussions on the BLP talk page that Steffans herself wrote about the nickname in a book of memoirs. Even though she also objected to the video, it would be entirely appropriate to source the nickname to her own book. I think that fact tends to be overlooked here. On the other hand, I agree with Anthony that Fae seemed, during those discussions, to be pushing too aggressively for inclusion of the nickname based upon the more dubious sourcing – while those who disagreed with Fae dragged their feet in accepting the better sourcing. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for wading through that, and for the clarification. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is such a thing as WP:WELLKNOWN, but if we allow every admin who remembers it exists to be drummed out of Wikipedia, I suppose there won't be anymore. Because nobody's bothered to say which article and nickname it is (let alone diffs) I didn't look into this issue, but this sounds like a reprise of santorum (neologism), and all of us on both sides know where we stand on that. Wnt (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC) --- Wait, no, I riddled it out [26]. I think the list of sources there is indeed persuasive. It's not Wikipedia's job to maintain "privacy" about things that are all over the news. Wnt (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trustees or volunteers carrying out work and activities on behalf of Wikimedia UK do so in that role and deserve the support of the Chapter. Disputes involving their activities as individuals as contributors, editors or admins on the pages of Wikis need to be addressed separately and in the appropriate places. The two should not be muddled. Specifically I have asked Fae ( A trustee of Wikimedia UK) to avoid repeating details of threats made against him or others.

If you have any felt threatened carrying out your roles on behalf of Wikimedia UK, or know of similar threats against members of Wikimedia UK, or have questions please contact me by phone on +44 (0) 20 7065 0990 or by email at jon.davieswikimedia.org.uk.

Similarly if you have concerns about anything to do with the Chapter address them in the first instance directly to me.

Jon Davies, Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, I find your statement confusing. You start out by reinforcing the idea that Fæ's "activities as individuals as contributors, editors or admins" are separate from their activities as a trustee of Wikimedia UK. Fine, this is a request for comment regarding their activities as an editor, not as a WMUK trustee. Then you go on to state that you, as Chief Executive of WMUK, have asked him to "avoid repeating details of threats made against him or others". I am having trouble seeing the connection. Surely threats made against Fæ or his husband are a personal matter in which WMUK has no involvement (although I am sure he appreciates your support). If Fæ wishes to discuss those threats, and I take his statement here to mean that he is willing, what business is that of Wikimedia UK? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this rather deeply persuasive of the position that no meaningful threat has been made. I didn't believe the "hate crimes" claims when he was "Ash" a year ago, either. We now have 2 instances of claims of some kind of threat of real world harm directed at Fae at times of scrutiny (now and during the original RFC that he dodged with the rename) with not one shred of evidence provided. Furthermore, we know that after the first "threat" that caused him to "retire" (which User:Ash continues to imply had some kind of effect on those close to him) he not only immediately returned but soon openly and intentionally disclosed his real world identity -- an odd choice for someone frightened about their safety.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about this, but I don't think you do either. I wish you would show as much skepticism when making statements like "There is no question that [User:Ash, I assume] was caught faking sources in encyclopedia articles",^[27] which so far as I know is based on an extreme and I believe unjustified position from an RFC that was not concluded. Given the level of Wikipedia Review harassment, considering the kind of precedents we've seen from WikiSposure and Encyclopedia Dramatica and probably any other carnivorous Wiki out there, I find such threats very plausible, even commonplace. I am willing to WP:AGF about WMUK and its official statements. Wnt (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, let's admit that none of us know very much about this. Several people, including Fæ, have made reference to "threats" in discussions here, without any indication of what those threats were, who made them, or where they were made. I asked Fæ to clarify what was meant when he said "threats" and provided him with an indication of how I was interpreted his use of that term by reference to a particular comment on Commons. I didn't do this to make him feel more threatened. I did it so that I could understand what was being said. Fæ seems to hold me responsible for a great many things that other people do, so I am likely to be seen as responsible for this as well, or at least connected to it. If Fæ chooses not to talk about it, that is his decision. Having Jon Davies show up to say that Fæ can't talk about it seems to imply that there is some connection between the as yet undisclosed threats and the WMUK. I am now more confused than ever as to the nature of the threats, which would be fine if they weren't an issue here, but clearly they are being seen as related to this case and will continue to be brought up despite the fact that we don't know what we are taking about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy for you to come in and talk to me about this, my door is open. Jon Davies WMUK (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll call and we'll do an interview. I'll try you on Monday.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of interpreting Jon Davies' request not to repeat the threats that does not involve making Bali ultimate's assumption that the threats have been investigated and found to be non-existent? The lack of an explanation for why the request has been made seems very damaging. Exok (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of transparency, I'll disclose that I spoke to Jon to ensure that if hes getting telephone calls from the community he wouldn't just be hearing the anti Fae view. I suggested its always worth checking the contributions of particular accounts before deciding how much weight to place on their views. Some are here to help build an encyclopaedia, while others seem to spend most of their time and energy attacking good contributors and trying to destroy other peoples work. While I tried not to directly accuse anyone of falling into the latter camp, its probably fair to say I implied the description might fit some of those attacking Fae. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. . That an RfC be held on RfA to determine whether "clean start" candidates for admin should be allowed to effectively conceal their past travails entirely.
2. . That such an RfC should also determine whether "clean start" candidates should be allowed to run for the mop at all.
3. . That Fae should openly state the facts about his prior accounts, if any, and not play the "homophobia" card when such has not been the focus of this RfC/U. A person who acts as a "public face" of Wikipedia should expect the news coverage resulting therefrom, including questions about his editing history.
4. . That an RfC be held regarding "clean starts" to determine if that policy needs to be amended in any way to prevent a reoccurrence of the current situation.

Does this reasonably convey some of the concerns expressed on the main page? Collect (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't count these things as desirable. What I find desirable would be:

1. . That we spend more attention on not defaming private citizens who want to help Wikipedia by making trumped-up allegations about them, and less attention on not defaming famous people by saying what international news stories said about them.
2. . That we lower the bar for admins when it comes to requirements for schmoozing, asskissing, and never ticking anyone off by the opinions they hold or the edits they make, and we raise the bar for admins when it comes to using their tools or administrative power inappropriately.
3. . That we alleviate the admin shortage and reconnect admins with the community by allowing veteran editors a high chance of initial acceptance, subject to subsequent evaluation.
4. . That if any editor can work productively without drawing community sanctions for six months after a clean start, all previous infractions and restrictions and processes and sockpuppetry will be forgotten, except maybe permanent bans.

Wnt (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Wnt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction because you got burned. Making policy because of getting burnt doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work on Wikipedia. If we had used common sense a year ago, this would not be an issue today. If we use common sense in the future, none of the proposals above will be necessary. There are legitimate reasons for a clean start. The main time that one needs to be concerned is in the event of a clean start under a cloud---which this was. But making wide spread policy based upon isolated incidents is a formula for over reaction---just ask anybody who has had to deal with Sarbannes Oxley, the Patriot Act, Dodd-Frank, etc.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clean start candidates should be allowed to request any tools here without having to reveal their previous identity. The problem in this case is the editor's "departure" while under scrutiny. ArbCom should have asked him to return and complete the RfC before agreeing to a clean start, so that the editor's problem area could be defined and, as a part of the clean start process, he should have undertaken to avoid that area in his new life. Ashley is still editing BLP's, and seems to need to avoid this area just as much now as he did when this RfC was started.

ArbCom, and Anyone vouching for a candidate, who knows the editor's prior editing history, must should pay particular attention to claims made by a clean start RfA candidate about that history, and promptly remove or directly refute or clarify any potentially misleading statements. I do believe the community was let down in this case.

The right course in this case seems clear to me, but I don't see any steps being taken in that direction. The editor should undertake to avoid BLPs. A part of me thinks he should hand back the bit, based on the flawed RfA, but I also think that, if he's proven to be a responsible and valuable admin, that step may be wasteful. Perhaps others whom he knows and respects, more familiar with his performance, could advise him on what's appropriate there. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Amended per Risker, below, 04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC). Additions underlined.[reply]

While I sympathise with both parts of your suggestion, I would suggest that to a large extent, Fae doing so under these conditions would be giving way to bullying and harassing tactics which span several years and several websites. Ash edited in areas where even our socking policy allows editors to maintain separate accounts from already pseudonymous "main" accounts, and where we do need some coverage, wherever we choose to set the bar for notability. DC and others have attempted to "out" that account by tying it to a real-world identity. That is what we should be having an RFC/U about, not whether the sourcing for "style of a Roman baths" from "alternating Roman and gents club themes" is "fraudulent sourcing." Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I am struggling to see your argument. The case for the prosecution is not that Fae was editing in 'difficult' areas where he needed greater anonymity (which is perhaps understandable). The case is rather that there were significant BLP problems with the old account. There was an RfC around those problems, and Fae jumped to a new account and so ducked out of the BLP issues. A similar issue has now arisen with the new account. In addition, there was a misleading RfA which would undoubtedly have failed if the BLP issues had been picked up. The community was deceived, grossly. It is not entirely clear who was responsible for the deception, but deception there was. Something has to be done. 86.173.251.202 (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the issues raised in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash are all that significant? We're talking about a few omitted references for minor details, and some people who seem to believe that any reference about pornography is intrinsically unreliable and so it's a BLP violation to write about the topic. Of the little that's there, much isn't even about persons. I don't see one fact there that someone pulled out and called a lie. I think the RfC, if started, should have been decided in Ash's favor, and I think that the responsibility for deciding to abort the RfC, which was dubbed as "inactive", lies mostly with those who were so active in compiling it, not with Ash for ducking out. Any sanction from the RfC would supposedly have been "voluntary" anyway. And the fact that certain editors express that they don't like his editing pattern is anything but a disqualification for RfA as far as I'm concerned. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I for one thing they were highly significant, and more so in the case of someone who represents Wikipedia. That's the first point. As for whether it would have been decided in Ash's favour, the community was not given that opportunity. I suspect the fact he ducked out suggests the obvious.86.173.251.202 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there are a lot of assumptions around here. People assume Ash is lying about the threats, assume that WMUK said for him not to detail them here because that's what they think, assume that Ash ducked out of the lynch mob because he thought he would lose the case on the merits. I think we should assume good faith and stop accepting when people pile on allegations and processes and interpretations and assumptions like something out of The Princess and the Pea. Wnt (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take each case as if it represented a general principle that you wanted to observe in all cases. Are we happy as a general principle that if things get tough during questioning or an RfA, we can duck out and start a new clean start? Yes or no. Are we happy that calling 'harassment' trumps everything, absolutely everything? Are we happy that in any difficult case we trust a single member of the senior administration to vouch for someone? If we are happy that these can be general principles, then fine. That's why this case is interesting. 86.173.251.202 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you mean RFC not RFA. If so, taking your questions one at a time:

1. Are we happy as a general principle that if things get tough during questioning or an RfA, we can duck out and start a new clean start? Not entirely, in act I expect most of us regard it as the least worse of various options. The ducking out bit is inherent to being an unpaid volunteer, if I don't like a real life job I will work for the rest of my contract or work my notice period, we unpaid volunteers are free to quit without any warning. As we are volunteers and this is an open wiki where people edit under pseudonyms or even as IPs, Cleanstart is a pragmatic and not entirely cost free solution. Remember that if Ash had not undergone Cleanstart but had instead agreed to refocus he might well have got through RFA as quickly as he did as few RFA !voters oppose for things done more than a few months earlier. I'm pretty sure that even if he'd failed because of the prior RFC he could have succeeded a few months later.
2. Are we happy that calling 'harassment' trumps everything, absolutely everything? I'm not sure where you get that idea from. Fae didn't mention harassment in his RFA despite the fact that at least a couple of !voters said they'd be !voting differently if the reason for the Cleanstart was harassment. If he had mentioned harassment in his RFA as a reason for the Cleanstart then he would have got much more than 85% support, but he chose not to mention it there. He gave very few clues that would have helped identify his former account, and that was one thing that people would have been very supportive of. As User Ash he had said that harassment was one of the reasons why user:Ash stopped editing, but you don't need anyone's permission to undergo Cleanstart, so I'm not clear what if anything the charge of harassment has trumped. Certainly I don't see anything pertaining to this RFC that has been trumped by it.
3. Are we happy that in any difficult case we trust a single member of the senior administration [sic] to vouch for someone? In the case of Fae we had 50,000 edits over twelve months to judge on, we also had the input of one Arb re the former account, and indirectly of a now retired senior editor who was one of the endorsers of the previous RFC. But we also knew that the rest of the Arbs had been informed of the prior account, one of them supported the RFA and as I remember none opposed. I was and am happy with that, but others appear not to be, and having Arbcom appoint a panel of three for similar incidents in the future may be a better system. Not least because it greatly reduces the risk of the person doing the review retiring before this sort of debate opens up, we were lucky that John Vandenberg is still around almost a year later to answer queries, I know of at least one Arb of that era who is not currently active. ϢereSpielChequers 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on here. You want us to appoint panels to review whether or not someone claiming a cleanstart with no official link to the prior account can run for RFA? Given that it's happened exactly once in the last four years (or possibly longer) where Arbcom even got notified, that's not a good use of Arbcom time. There were at least two other RFAs of people claiming cleanstarts where Arbcom was not involved at all, as far as I can see; there could very well have been more, but I don't usually watch the RFA pages. I'm even less likely to now, if there's an expectation that any support I give will be dependent on my scouring Arbcom-L files before I write my ~~~~. I'm sorry, but I think that's not appropriate. Risker (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Risker, I'm actually happy with the single Arb procedure that we went through with Fae, but many others clearly aren't. Now I could understand you being concerned if this was a monthly event and therefore each Arb was expected to sit on such a panel every 8 months or so. But if this is a once every four years event then the vast majority of Arbs would never need to sit on such a panel. Many of the arbs who only serve one term wouldn't even have the opportunity to volunteer for such a panel as there wouldn't be one convened during their tenure as arbs. So the total burden on the Arbs across those four years should be de minimis.

As for scouring Arbcom files before !voting in RFAs, you could easily resolve that by declaring what you have and have not checked when you !vote. It may only rarely be relevant that Arbs do so, but on the occasional RFA where it is known that Arbs have extra information it would be of interest to the rest of us to know whether those of you who !vote in that RFA have used the extra information that you have. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point, WereSpielChequers, in every way. Vetting candidates for RFA is absolutely not a responsibility of Arbcom; it's a responsibility of the community as a whole. We have a full plate as it is. As to your other point, it's unethical for every arbitrator who wishes to participate in an RFA to go scrolling through all of the Arbcom-L posts just to see what's there about any particular editor. It's also nearly technically impossible to do right now under our current set-up, which was put in place to prevent anyone from downloading the searchable archives; the only way to find an old post in the archives now is to open each individual post. In other words, unless someone on the Committee actually *remembers* a discussion about an editor, and when it was, and on which mailing list (we're currently up to 4 arbcom ones plus functionaries, plus AUSC), the expectation that is being established here is unrealistic. And because you're trying to establish it as "the right thing to do", it effectively disenfranchises Arbitrators (and potentially other functionaries) from participating at RFA. Risker (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, in this case it would be ArbCOM's responsibility to do some due dilligence. If the process is to inform ArbCOM before running, then there is some responsibility to do some vetting. If you are going to make statements like John did, then it is absolutely imperative that he vetts the candidate throughly. When John made his post and provided a vigorous defense, it conveyed the message that John did a detailed vetting. (Recent posts have said this is not the case, but that is not what was conveyed last year.) Furthermore, when the name of ArbCOM is being invoked, then John and any other Arb watching the page should have chimed in clarifying the vetting process that was performed or not performed on Fae.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous editing may seem great for encouraging participation, but it comes at a cost. This includes over 300,000 user and project pages (incl. talk pages) that contain a reference to sockpuppet speculations, allegations or related investigations and discussions. It encourages dishonesty and a lot of immature behaviour, even from people who one might have thought know how to behave in a professional manner (cf. Johann Hari). If we had pending changes for IP edits and each of us were required to identify to the Foundation in order to register an account, most of our BLP problems would disappear overnight. --JN466 11:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is a mess. I don't see much of a way out other than a re-do on the RfA, which will probably result in the de-tooling of what seems to be an excellent and highly professional administrator. What's really needed, it would seem, is a topic ban for Fae off of editing pornography-related pages, loosely defined, and that's that, the end.

Of course, that's the same essential thing that caused ArbCom to needlessly waste Cirt as an administrator — and he was one of the very best closers at AfD in terms of honesty and adherence to policy... "If we can't trust him to edit on this topic or that, we can't trust him as an administrator, blah blah blah" — that was the sort of bogus thinking that ArbCom engaged in in his case... In reality, content creation and administration are very different functions at WP and one can be sketchy when engaging in one and examplary at another...

It's kind of annoying, because this does seem to be a person who's in their element at Wikipedia in an administrative capacity but who maybe shouldn't be editing articles on this or that. The problem is with the content disputes, not the administrative actions... But I think a lot of people are feeling like they were jobbed at the RfA, and the logic of that will end in a worst-of-all-worlds situation, with the guy pulled out of the niche in which he excels, remaining free to edit where he probably shouldn't.... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I both think and fear that you are right. Perhaps there could be a topic ban, or maybe just an advice about editing in that area (I'm not really convinced that the evidence supports a ban), coupled with recommendations about what Arbs and others should or shouldn't tell the community when an RfA is attempted following a clean start. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A voluntary undertaking to stay away – both as Fæ and under any other user account – from editing or adminning adult entertainment-related topics, broadly construed, sounds like an excellent idea. Care to suggest it as an outside view? --JN466 19:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, he shouldn't be using his tools in those areas anyways. IF I remember correctly (and I'd have to double check) he promised not to use the tools in conjunction with the people or issues which brought about the RfCU in the first place.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did indeed promise to avoid the articles where he'd been in conflict and he said he would "recuse myself of admin requests related to editors who gave an opinion in that discussion." That discussion being the RFC. Nobody seems to be alleging that he has broken those commitments, but now that the prior account is known it wouldn't be unreasonable to clarify and maybe even broaden that from the articles where he'd been in conflict to the topic. Adult entertainment is a little euphemistic, but he might prefer that wording to pornography. I wonder if Balloonman would you be willing to negotiate that sort of thing with him? I'm obviously too much of an ally of his for the community to accept me as the go between, whilst you were as you've said the chief opponent in his RFA, but at the same time unconnected to a certain badsite and all that unpleasantness. ϢereSpielChequers 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per BalloonMan's remarks above here, I wonder if it might be worthwhile for an admin. to reclose any RfAs or other such discussions in that topic area that Fæ closed himself, whether for better or worse. No wrongdoing or prejudice is implied from this, but it would help such a promise to have them reclosed neutrally. CycloneGU (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse JN466's suggestion too. Such a clarification seems appropriate and would put an end to this tempest. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite - User:Cirt was a head counter - rarely/never closed any contentious or complicated AFDs - almost never added an explanation of his reasons for closure and often closed as many as 10 AFD in a single minute. - Youreallycan 18:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything close to consensus for a desysop. There are plenty of editors who are angry with one side or the other, but the calls for a desysop though loud are not the best supported views. My condolences though to anyone contemplating an RFA in similar circumstances. ϢereSpielChequers 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "only way out" is to support Fae here. If you "compromise" and leave him under a cloud, you're not ending anything. The exact same Inquisition will be in session tomorrow, with someone else in its sights. Besides, what kind of jury works on the basis that you compromise and say "guilty" on some counts just to get along? Wnt (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt, did you really intend to use the word "inquisition" to describe editors here who are utilizing the dispute resolution process? Are you aware of what took place during the Inquisition? Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the literal sense, "Inquisition" is an exaggeration. But the difference is mostly that Wikipedia has much less power than civil/theocratic authorities. This is of some significance because at times, one thinks that Wikipedia's more anarchistic form of government provides a potential model for real life. (Occupy Wall Street might have such a perspective) But we see that as implemented here, this government is unstable, prone to phenomena one might call purges, witch-hunts, or inquisitions. One must unravel the source of the instability here if it is to be used as a model for a wider society. Wnt (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that editors are using the dispute resolution process. There is no dispute. There is either a rather poor attempt to game the system to get a successful RFC/U against Fae, or a rather good attempt to create much wiki-drama. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, I've reviewed most of the above allegations of "personal attacks" and half of them don't mention a person. Half of them aren't attacks. Yeah some of them are, but if these are being used as examples of personal attacks, then we've got a pretty thin skin. If we are going to start "highlighting" every opinion that differs from our own, then we are indeed in dire straights. If we are going to view the above as acceptable behavior, then I don't know what to say. For the most part it is nothing more than a collection of quotes from people who disagree with DC and/or question the entire validity of this RfCU. I think the entire section should be either boxed or preferably deleted... I see the above as nothing more than a bullying/intimidation tactics.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the intention is intimidatory but as someone who appears on the list I can tell you I regard it as a badge of honour. Exok (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the real badge of honor is when they start bitching about your over on Wikipedia Review.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've asked for an independent admin to come and weigh in on the appropriateness of this section.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the dispute resolution process, I will be posting my concerns on the talk pages of each of those editors listed above. Again, unsupported allegations of homophobia and harassment, and other ad hominem attacks, are, not only dishonest and disingenuous, against Wikipedia policy and are unnacceptable. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Review deleted the threads in question, so how can I or anyone not involved in that conversation at the time evaluate the degree of anti-gay harassment that occurred on them? In any case, focusing on the anti-gay nature of such comments misses the more basic point that people there were apparently being canvassed in a non-neutral way to become involved in this and related discussions. Noting such canvassing and its effect on the discussion is appropriate behavior on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What threads do you think were deleted? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my browser cache I find [redacting per discussion below and WP:HARASS on external links] I came to these from somewhere in the early discussion but I don't remember where. I'm having trouble finding the original reference to this URL here - there are traces of it on Google [redacting] doesn't get me anything. I didn't get anything from the Google cache or the Wayback Machine for the old thread content. Wnt (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That thread is visible to anyone with an account on WR and more than a few posts (it's in the "Tar Pit"). There are no "homophobic attacks" there, though there is rather compelling proof of two accounts being operated by one person. That forum is configured to not allow google indexing, which is why google doesn't exactly give it to you (though google does of course index wikipedia, and therefore indexes the outgoing link you're referring to... it just can't actually see the content). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about other threads relating to Fae? A lot of those threads are clearly visible, and there is homophobic attacks on him, and not to mention homophobic attacks on WMF as a result of those threads (which I will not link to due to them being revdel'd). Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to email the links to posts you believe are homophobic. Hate speech is not permitted on WR, and I will personally delete them if I agree with you, or explain why I disagree with you if I disagree with you. FWIW, the owner of the forum (who is now openly participating on WP) is rather open about her sexual preferences, and she's not exactly the conservative type. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one Cla68, but let me remind you that 27 editors so far agree with Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Outside_view_by_Russavia -- that in essence being that people from WR, including Delicious Carbuncle, have, and are engaging in harassment of Fae. Pointing this out to editors here is not a personal attack, and I will again go on the record as saying that there has been much homophobic bashing of Fae (and other editors) on WR in the past -- I know it, you know it, we all know it. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And no such "bashing" has been evinced on the RfC/U here that I have seen (note the substantial number of editors agreeing with this point). Nice try - but the "homophobia" bit is not relevant here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is relevant; I have seen some of the participants here says some of the most disgustingly homophobic things on WR -- I am not going to single anyone out, but when such things are said on WR, they aren't castigated for saying such things, but they are encouraged. It is a fact, that Fae has been harassed, and DC's part in that is clearly demonstrated.

And I will state again that DC's bringing up of the beach and Fae's photos smacks of homophobia -- it's hard to explain to anyone who isn't queer, but his lax reasoning for introducing those photos as part of this RFC, and defending vehemently his doing so with bunk reasoning, does tend to look somewhat homophobic. So sue me, if it is my belief that there are somewhat homophobic undertones to this entire RFC -- it isn't only being driven (at least on some parts) by other issues. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cla68, if you want to do anything about it, you have two choices. Go and bitch about me on Bitchipedia (Wikipedia Review), or get an admin here to do something about it -- take it ANI or whatever. I really don't care for dishonest miscreants from WR using that site to undermine this project and its editors, and I would say that neither do many other editors here. And I won't stand one iota for harassment of any editor; which is why I have been vocal in this instance. This is my last comment; I am taking this train wreck off my watchlist, I've got better things to be doing that watching shit like this going down. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who went around saying that others who wished to retain depictions of Muhammad in the Muhammad article were, in so many words, a bunch of racist Islamophobes just earned himself a 1-year vacation. Casting other editors' as homophobic with no other support than "that's how it looks to me" is not a wise move here. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, making unsupported accusations of homophobia or bigotry against other editors/people for no other reason than to try to win an argument is beneath contempt and completely unacceptable. The comments by some participants in this RfC reflects extremely poorly on them and is far beneath the level of conduct expected of people who have been given the privilege of editing Wikipedia. Shame on them. I will finish this section soon. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When this is over and tempers have settled, I hope level-headed editors will see Russavia's comments for what they are - character assassination. Until that time, I have already made a statement for the record that should address the charges made here, and I ask that editors read it rather than simply taking Russavia at his word. In different circumstances (i.e., if I were not considered a bad person) Russavia and Prioryman would have been blocked for their demonstrably false statements. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the issue, could you release any comments you've made about Fae on WR that are in non-public (i.e "tar pit") forums?   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback, there are only a couple of non-public areas to which I have access. One is the "tar-pit" and the other is an area for frequent WR contributors in which discussions are usually mundane internal WR matters (i.e., blocking or restricting users). Very little that is said on WR is hidden from public view. Things that end up in the "tar pit" are usually pointless or off-topic squabbles between contributors. I'm sure Russavia would be happy to send you a link to an archive of the discussion which contained the WHOIS info. I think you will find it doesn't live up to its billing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assure the community that there are not any threads in the WR "tar pit" which could be construed as homophobic, harassing, or other personal attacks or canvassing on Fae that have been posted by active Wikipedia editors?   Will Beback  talk  00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about DC, but I'm pretty sure I can. Good enough?

As far as Russavia is concerned, I offered earlier to assuage her concerns (above), and reminded her of my offer on her talk page a few minutes ago. Misunderstandings happen, and outsiders (whether they be "non-LGBT" people, "non-WR" people, etc.) often misunderstand the insiders (LGTB people, WR people, etc.). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we have your assurance that the "tar pit" discussions on Fae haven't mentioned him sexual orientation, they don't make defamatory remarks about him, and they don't mention any ongoing Wikipedia threads?   Will Beback  talk  00:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, and no... but that wasn't what you asked earlier. In any case, that thread is (as far as I know) the only one in the "tar pit" that's about Fae (the tar pit is normally dedicated to internal PvP crap... kinda like many of the WP:AN/I threads, but without any attempt to pretend it's something other than a grudge match and/or dogpile). We usually prefer to keep the threads that embarrass the cabals in public so that inquiring minds can be enlightened. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So then what do the "Tar Pit" forums say about Fae?   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Log in and look for yourself, m'lord. There's nothing there worth fussing about. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account there and I'm not interested in getting one. The question here is whether people on WR, some of whom are active WP editors, have discussed Fae's sexual orientation, etc.   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is the WR posting by DC which published Fae's home address and phone number still accessible in the "tar pit"?   Will Beback  talk  02:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The post is there, but the contact info (as mentioned earlier and elsewhere) is not. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So DC posted a private email someone sent to him, without permission, and he hasn't removed it?   Will Beback  talk  03:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It was moved out of the public area at my request because of concerns about Fæ's privacy unrelated to the already-redacted address info. Those concerns are now moot, so I have no problem with it being moved back into public view, but that decision is not mine to make. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMH... if those are the most egregious examples of NPA we have, then this is by Wikipedia standards an extremely civil discourse. But more are to come, I'm certain that Cla is going to include my name somewhere in that list as well.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia, you say that you are "not going to single anyone out," but that's exactly what you should be doing. If indeed there is homophobic harassment on Wikipedia Review from participants in this RfC, then you are doing a disservice to this discussion by refusing to link to them. Neutral observers' understanding of the discussion would certainly be enhanced if they were able to identify the homophobes participating in the RfC and discount their opinions. You're already tarring a lot of editors in good standing with this brush; why don't you offer some specifics so something can be done about the problem? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that in following that same impulse below, I added to Fae's annoyances and was out of line with WP:Linking to external harassment. While I would oppose that policy in a vote given the chance, I really don't want to be part of Fae's problems either; in any case it doesn't seem like an option right now. Wnt (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting that. I've written a pretty lengthy comment below at #Wikipedia Review 2. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hate speech is not allowed on WR" ... dear me, I though that was supposed to be part of its "chan" style charm. And I don't think they are harassing Fae for homophobic reasons, but simply because they can. I think it fairly well supported that members on WR have made remarks there that would see them at least indef blocked here. Certainly I will endorse Russavia in saying that bringing up the beach smacks of homophobia, it smacks more of an attempt to tap latent homophobia in others - which would I suppose qualify it as hate speech - certainly there is nothing brought up of any merit. But for me the fact that this group have attempted to pursue someone across several websites over a number of years, over nothing, is proof of some kind of personal animus, and quite severe enough to destroy their credibility. I don't really care if they hate Fae for his sexuality or for citing a source which fails to support the particular name of an award. In either case they are detrimental to the project until and unless they stop this behaviour. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

All, or at the very least, most of this homophobia stuff above in your post rich is pure exaggeration - the Ash account was a POV pushing BLP violating account of the worst indefinite ban candidate type, on a par with the two LBGT focused and now banned editors, Benjiboi and Otto4711 - this is the primary reason for all of this - not the fact of his sexual declarations. Youreallycan 00:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youreallycan, your objectivity on LGBT issues has been questioned before, so your opinion on this matter needs to be viewed with that in mind.   Will Beback  talk  00:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyones objectivity gets questioned here - I opposed a dubious BLP cat. Your poisoning here is unwelcome - I thought we were getting on better, sadly not. Youreallycan 00:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing an editor of being "the worst indefinite ban candidate type", and you say that I'm the one "poisoning" the discussion?   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old account, the Ash account - if it had continued on the way it was going, yes. I have on more than one occasion stated that the Fae account is a pretty much totally reformed beneficial contributor. See here for one of my first posts to this talkpage for my primary position. Youreallycan 10:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you document anything about POV-pushing? About "BLP violation" beyond impossibly strained arguments (i.e. that because references about porn are intrinsically unreliable you can't use them in a BLP, or somebody 'should have known' that taking a photo out on a public street is verboten)? About the "worst indefinite ban type" (any ANI complaint that amounted or could amount to anything at all)? Any reason to group Ash with the two editors you mentioned apart from sexual orientation and/or areas of interest? Any diffs or other 'meat' to this at all? Wnt (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite clear - to remind you of the simple historic, without the need to present any diffs - there were issues and multiple complaints about user Ash's contributions to LBGT articles - a UserRFC was opened - User Ash's response was to leave that account and clean start, due to that leaving the RFC was closed - he then refocused his contributions became an admin without declaring the Ash account. Although the clean start account has been greatly improved, there has been one or two minor issues reflective of the past - these are the issues that bring us here, not latent homophobia - as for diffs - the Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ash has been sidestepped. Youreallycan 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said some very specific things, and I don't see evidence for any of those. If you had that kind of evidence, who knows, I might agree with you. Wnt (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The crux is that it is disruptive to bring an RFC/U for "one or two minor issues", especially when they have not been previously discussed on the article talk pages. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

No, you misunderstand the thrust of my argument. As far as this thread goes there are several points I wanted to make (thought I had made):

1. The satirical website Wikipedia Review is a different kind of forum than WP. Making outrageous remarks, is banter in that environment. People may well condemn those who allow that kind of environment to flourish, or they may not, but it is a type of code switching and we shouldn't necessarily read homophobia into it. (Immaturity, stupidity and crassness are another matter.)
2. Secondly given that the choice of diffs for the Fae account were both very poor as examples of problematic editing, and almost all about LGBT subjects, I can quite understand why someone might think they were motivated by homophobia, even more that someone might think they were targeted at bringing others "onside" who the proposer might hope would infer that Fae had a lifestyle they would disapprove of. For this reason, if the problem were endemic, as claimed, the choice of diffs was triply bad.
3. Thirdly that whether this was the motivation or not is irrelevant. The RFC brings no significant unresolved disputes to the table (which is why it is supposed to be certified) - the sources I checked were not even contested on the article talk pages.
4. Fourthly that bringing an RFC/U (let alone the other actions) on such pathetic grounds, speaks badly about the person who brings it, damages their credibility, brings the project into disrepute, and wastes every-ones time.

Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, if you were aware of the situation at the time, you know that there was much discussion about the specific issues in the RFC/U and others, even if that discussion did not occur on article talk pages. You seem to have ignored the comments and endorsements of other editors (including 4 who were admins) who participated before Fæ pretended to leave Wikipedia. At the time, I was confident that Ash end up up with some form of sanctions, and I suspected that this might become a larger ArbCom case involving BLP, gay porn articles, Ash, Benjiboi, paid editing, and sockpuppetry. Our retrospective assessments differ widely and the truth is probably somewhere in between the two. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't more than obliquely aware of any of the issues (that there was controversy over a lot of gay porn actors notability) as far as I can remember. And I haven't read the RFC/U Ash or the archives on Steffans.

For me the critical point here is:

• The locus of the RFC/u Ash was sourcing on gay porn actors. Neither User:Ash nor User:Fae are (as I understand it) editing in that area. This then, is a resolved dispute.

Additional sourcing issues brought up against User:Fae are extremely weak, and would not stand up an RFC/U on their own. The matter of RFA was added later, although you also say "Concerns about Fæ's RfA should likely be addressed elsewhere", so that should probably be retracted from the document.

For the Weinberger and beach articles, not seeing any relevant comment on the talk page I checked "what links here". Of course they may have cited only diffs, but certainly it doesn't look like there were attempt to resolve either of these disputes, successful or otherwise, involving any, let alone two of the certifying editors.

Rich Farmbrough, 16:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Nothing good can come from a thread like this, I think. This is basically an opinion piece. CycloneGU (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Two points. First, expressing an opinion that a person is being harassed is not a personal attack. And second, if all the circumstances were the same except that Fae was heterosexual, had written badly sourced articles about Pokemon characters, and the latest diff was an edit about dog-walking on a beach and not nudism, this page wouldn't exist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right about the first point. I wish you were right about the second. Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    
    • On the contrary, accusing an editor of harassing someone is a personal attack if not backed-up by serious evidence, as harassment is, in many cases, a crime. Cla68 (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no doubt that [{User:Fae]] is being harassed. Absolutely none. And you are certainly correct that some of the behaviour on and off wiki may be at the very least sailing close to illegality in one or more jurisdictions. However determining here who is a harasser, and who is seriously interested in trying to resolve disputes is not without grey areas of its own. It is unfortunate, to say the least, that this RFC/U was brought on such thin grounds, more unfortunate that no attempt was made to follow procedure (which is there to prevent precisely that problem), and worse that other matters have been conflated with the "sourcing issues", worst of all that there were attempts to link a user account to a real world identity, contrary to common decency and WP:SOCK section entitled "privacy". That does not stop us assuming good faith, though the combination is stretched mighty thin. The fact that DC is aware of, and contributed to, attacks on Commons and the satirical site Wikipedia Review takes good faith right to the breaking point. Rich Farmbrough, 12:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        

In the RfC, Tryptofish has stated:

Arbitrators and other users who have special access to confidential information are advised that the community wishes them to use caution in recommending candidates for WP:RfA and similar permissions, when those candidates have previously edited under an account not known to the community as a whole. An endorsement in such circumstances should mean that an overwhelming majority of the community would have no concerns if the information about the previous account were to have been revealed, not simply that the user making the endorsement does not have such concerns.

How far does this apply? I ask only because not long after Fæ became an admin, I worked out the identity of the old account. It didn't require a considerable amount of work. I didn't tell anyone because I respect people's privacy: I edit under my real name, but other people do not and they have work or personal reasons why they don't want to link their real-life identity with their online identity, or to at least have a certain level of distance between them. I didn't want to drag up issues from the past, and I believe in fresh starts and second chances.

So, my question is, how far does this suggestion go? In Fæ's case, the recommendation came from an Arb. But in my own case, I'm both an administrator and an OTRSer, and thus have access to confidential information. Does this mean I must exercise caution in recommending candidates for RfA even when I come across confidential information that might affect an RfA but not as a direct consequence of handling confidential/sensitive information as an admin or OTRSer (or, indeed, checkusers, oversighters, arbs, WMF staff, developers etc.)?

In addition, the requirement that the community would have no concerns about information: that's pretty subjective. The community have been known to have concerns about all sorts of silly things if enough people stir enough drama at ANI. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly, I think the community expects everyone who recommends an editor for RfA to use caution. As I have explained above to WereSpielChequers, it's unethical for an arbitrator to go searching through all the Arbcom-L files to gather information about a particular editor unless they are directly involved in a matter that directly affects the Committee; checking them out over a candidate one might put forward for RfA is not appropriate use of that information. Further, it's also nearly technically impossible to do right now under our current set-up, which was put in place to prevent anyone from downloading the searchable archives; the only way to find an old post in the archives now is to open each individual post. In other words, unless someone on the Committee actually *remembers* a discussion about an editor, and when it was, and on which mailing list (we're currently up to 4 arbcom ones plus functionaries, plus AUSC), the expectation that is being established here is unrealistic. And because you're trying to establish it as "the right thing to do", it effectively disenfranchises Arbitrators (and potentially other functionaries) from nominating or supporting RfA candidates. Risker (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question becomes one of which hat are you wearing. Are you wearing the hat of an Arb/OTRS/Check User or are you posting as an individual. The problem in this specific case is that John was acting in both roles. Had John come in and simply made the opening statement and addressed all questions as an Arb, things might have gone very differently. Instead he goy involved in the RfA on a personal level, this blurred the line and created the controversy. If you are nominating a candidate or !voting as a user, that is one thing. If you are appealing to your Arb status, then that conveys a different set of parameters.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1)Could you show me the diff where John says he is acting on behalf of Arbcom? I see lots where he says he isn't. Perhaps I am missing something.

2) What you're saying isn't what is written in the proposal; it's your interpretation of the OP's expectations. This is exactly where we get breakdowns in communication. Tryptofish has to explain what he means here, whether it's my interpretation (we're supposed to take steps other users are not able to take) or yours, which is something entirely different. Risker (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three places where John appealed to his knowledge as an Arb. First, his very first post wherein he indicated that Fae had contacted ArbCOM---that set the stage for all future posts. He was no longer acting in the role of a typical user, he told the users that he was contacted as a member of ArbCOM. Reviewed the candidate, and could tell us that Fae had changed in many ways since the initial case. Second, when he responds to me that I'm just going to have to trust him. Again, he was appealing to knowledge that he had as a result of his being a member of ArbCOM. Third, when he tells us that he's seen a lot of bullshit clean starts. Again, alluding to his role as a member of ArbCOM. As soon as John made his initial post as a member of ArbCOM he should have supported and remained silent unless there were other issues related directly to ArbCOM. Instead he became one of Fae's biggest supporters and his knowledge of Fae's prior account conveyed more value to his stance than others. John participation in the RfA was not seen as a normal user, but rather as a member of ArbCOM.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for point two. Reread the proposal again:

Arbitrators and other users who have special access to confidential information are advised that the community wishes them to use caution in recommending candidates for WP:RfA and similar permissions, when those candidates have previously edited under an account not known to the community as a whole. An endorsement in such circumstances should mean that an overwhelming majority of the community would have no concerns if the information about the previous account were to have been revealed, not simply that the user making the endorsement does not have such concerns.

The proposal is explicitly dealing with candidates whom the arb/otrs/check user has special knowledge about that the general public doesn't know about---and when "recommending candidates" or providing an "endorsement" that they should be specially aware that they have this priviledged information. It has zero bearing on 99% of RfA nominations and would only have bearing on the Arb if they are providing an endorsement as an arb/OTRS/CU---which John did in this case. IMHO, John failed the community in this instance.

(Note, my comments may sound harsh to John, but I am not saying he is a bad Arb nor am I saying that he is a bad person. I am merely saying that in this specific case, he blew it.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × several) Err, this is off-topic here, but it does seem to me that security is getting in the way of productivity. I'm sure it's possible to have a secure archive search function implemented, which only authorized users can access. For example using this. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work on Mailman, which is what we're currently stuck with until we can work out other arrangements with the help of the WMF. Risker (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should contact this or this guy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a bunch of questions to me here. Please point out if I missed anything.

• Tom Morris asks about how far my proposal goes. Here's how I intended it (your mileage may differ). It's very much a matter of how the user with access to confidential information presents what they say in the RfX. So, for example, if you simply !vote "support" and say something like "good answers to questions", then I think that all you are representing is that you reviewed the questions and answers that are visible to everyone, and my proposal wouldn't apply. Users who infer, "this person is an Arb/admin/OTRS etc., and therefore must have investigated the earlier account, and therefore is representing to the community that the candidate was OK in that earlier account" are inferring something that the !voter actually never said, and that's their fault, not the !voter's. On the other hand, if the user (as John did in this case) says that they have reviewed the previous account and the community should be confident that the previous account would not affect the RfX adversely, then that's where there should be an understanding that the community expects what my proposal suggests. As for Tom's question about having realized that Fae had been Ash, I see nothing wrong with remaining quiet about it on the basis of respecting privacy. The issue would only arise were you to make a representation about what you knew.
• Tom also points out the subjectivity of what the community would or wouldn't think. I agree. I figure that users who are trusted with advanced permissions or positions should be able to make a pretty good estimate, though, and be prepared to stand by what they choose to say. That includes recognizing fringe views within the community for what they are. And please note that I tried to frame my proposal as "advice". It certainly would not lead to any kind of sanction against someone who didn't think of some kind of idiosyncratic complaint.
• As Risker discusses, I certainly don't think that Arbs are suddenly being assigned to review RfX candidates, nor to go on de novo investigations. I think it only comes up when someone contacts ArbCom and asks for a review, as Fae did. In that case, only an Arb who assumes the kind of role that John did should exercise caution in the way that I proposed. The Committee as a whole is obviously not responsible for what a single member says by way of an endorsement, and it's up to that single member to say to what extent they are or are not speaking for the entire Committee.
• Risker also asks me to clarify what I meant with respect to Balloonman's comment. Again, I think it comes down to what the endorser says. (My take is that John was speaking as an Arb, but as an individual Arb, not as a spokesperson for the rest of the Committee.) My opinion is that those with access to confidential information "are supposed to take steps" (per Risker) of a special nature if, and only if, they are making representations to the community about things the community cannot see. If they are just commenting as an individual, they don't necessarily have to, although then they should comment only on what anyone would know as an individual. It would also be prudent to make clear in what capacity they were commenting.

--Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC/U is now an extension of Wikipedia Review to post defamatory speculation about my sex life. This is a misuse of Wikipedia talk pages and itself fails to meet the fundamental principle that Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner. I ask that the speculation about risky sexual practices is removed from the discussion above and deleted from the page history. It is completely irrelevant to an RFC/U created to present a case with regard to my use of citations in articles.

Many unfounded personal, vindictive and inflammatory things about me have been stated on Wikipedia Review in a sustained attempt to smear my character over the last two months and there is no benefit for anyone reposting the details of unsourced allegations and speculations on Wikipedia. The persistent stalking has been particularly damaging as amongst other things I have had to close down my public Linkedin profile, take down my family history website, remove my Facebook page content, advise University College to avoid including my name on joint projects and advise the British Library about the increased risk of harassment for our future work together in my role as a trustee of WMUK. The repeated deliberate use of my full legal name in the context of a variety of sexual allegations, including the promotion of paedophile images and adultery, is causing me professional damage when it comes to any possible future bids for contract work, as a simple Google search now shows this defamatory rubbish on the first page of results. Perhaps the Wikipedians and banned users who have sadistically pursued me on Wikipedia Review and repeated this material in an email campaign, an on-wiki campaign and argue the case for continuing their sport, whether under named accounts or anonymously, gain satisfaction from my distress and that of my husband.

The Karrine Steffans nickname discussion has been used as a justification for making public speculation about my personal life for the purposes of amusement and ridicule. Please keep in mind that Aaron, who raised this BLP complaint, withdrew it early on in the RFC/U and apologised for including it (see User_talk:Fæ/2012#Statement_with_regard_to_Karrine_Steffans_article) as the matter was resolved at the time (last summer). The fact is that Steffans published this material in her autobiography. I have never published my full legal name with claims about my sex life.

I am proud to say that I have been with the same man for 22 years, Simon and I were married in 2005 on the first day that civil partnerships were legally recognized in the UK. My love is far more important to me than my unpaid voluntary work with the WMUK charity or my hobby of contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Had Simon asked me to withdraw from these projects I would have done so without hesitation, he understands why contributing to the preservation of open knowledge is a cause worth supporting and absorbs so much of my time. To reduce my personal life to dirty sexual gossip as part of winning points in an RFC discussion is shameful for everyone involved in making this happen, regardless of which side of any debate you are on. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with such a screed is that this RFC/U has not been used to be defamatory about your sex life. Thus all this seems likely to do is muddy the waters which had not been muddied by others here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See #Wnt_rejoinder above. --Fæ (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And? I fail to see how that post adds to yours in any way here. The issues posed at this RFC/U have had zilch to do with your "sex life". Collect (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fae, I think the only reason it keeps coming up here is that a few of the people supporting you (not you yourself, it should be said) have tried to frame other people's criticisms and concerns as being some sort of anti-LGBT plot. It's nasty, and the obvious answer to the question in the header is no, your sex life is nobody's business but yours and whomever you choose to spend your life with. I strongly suspect that if you asked them to stop, the issue would quickly go "thud". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fæ, while I think that much of what you say above is inaccurate, I wholeheartedly agree that the material is not relevant and has no place here. If you can get the other participants to agree, I would have no objection to removal of the comments made by Wnt, any responses to those comments, and this section. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted selected comments. After further thought, I've now deleted the entire subthread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree that Fae is partially feeding the trolls with this posting. However seen in the broader context of the onslaught across a number of websites (and I am certain that I have seen only part of it, and WR is far from being the worst offender), and in the light of lack of unresolved disputes being cited in the RFC/U I can totally sympathise with his desire to post it. I have no objection to removal of this section. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, going over Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, I have to admit that I was way out of line with the policy there, and so his posting here was very much appropriate. Indeed, so far I have not seen him accused here of doing anything as bad. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. Wnt posted a link to an off-wiki conversation as well as some selected excerpts, in an attempt to support an argument about off-wiki harassment of Fae. A conversation ensued, involving other excerpts. Nothing in the discussion addressed the on-wiki behaviour or any relevant off-wiki behaviour of Fae. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took me a remarkably long time for me to comprehend that Fae was really objecting to my posting, but facing that fact, I'll leave out the link. I don't want to be part of the problem here. But note that Delicious Carbuncle, here, claimed credit for a statement 'carbuncle' made on WR which seems very much to be based on fallacious anti-gay reasoning. The problem is, he naturally disputes my interpretation here, and the more argument, the more pointless speculation is made about Fae's private life. Only the posting itself tells the story, and that I can't link to now. The real problem is the entire section by Cla68, which calls people out to document their statements that harassment is going on. We shouldn't call people out to cite their sources if it's going to create a problem for them to do so. Wnt (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As the broader harassment is clearly causing Fae RL distress, it would be good if a bold admin or someone with staff rights could delete this entire RfC. Cla68 and the WR accounts could then be cautioned to stay away from Fae or face an immediate block. Unless of course Fae wants this left open as evidence of the harassment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting tired of having to defend myself from the outright lies on the part of people like Russavia and Prioryman, and the type of nonsense that Wnt spouts. There was nothing "anti-gay" about comment that Wnt quoted here, except in their obviously confused mind. It is remarkable that people here can be so outraged by off-wiki comments that most of them have not even bothered to read for themselves, yet have no problem allowing serious unsubstantiated allegations to be made on-wiki in clear violation of WP:NPA. Different rules apply to "people we don't like", as usual. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references to WR in this RfC are relevant or appropriate. If there is a case to be made about off-wiki harassment, it can be made elsewhere. I'd favour stripping all such comments and threads out of this discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, the same distraction method was tried to railroad User:Cirt's RFC user. This whole tangential discussion has gone way to far off track and should be closed. Youreallycan 18:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole imbroglio (AN/I RFC/U) appears to have been triggered by Carbuncle seeing User:Fae's RL name on the list of WMUK trustees on WR, and deciding to take some kind of action. This somewhat makes a mockery of the suggestion that this is a normal process triggered by poor referencing. It confirms beyond doubt that DC's actions are targeted at the person, not the editing. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

If you have problems with DC's behaviour, start an RfCU. An RfC was opened on Ashley. He "left" so it was suspended. He's back so it's continued. Please address the issue, Ashley's editing. If that had been done from the beginning this would have been over by now. Comments like yours and statements made by editors listed in the next comment by Cla68 have done nothing to resolve this discussion, and have just compounded Fae's distress and the distress of the editors you accuse. Would you consider striking or redacting your comment, as inappropriate for this forum? It would be very appropriate for you to start an RfC on the inappropriate on- and off-wiki behaviour you and others are highlighting here, but this isn't the place. This is for addressing Ashley's editing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DC and the other certifiers of this RfC have appropriately limited the issues they raised to Fae's on-wiki behavior. The ones to blame for introducing Fae's "sex life" into this discussion are editors like Russavia and Wnt who have made unsupported, ad hominem claims of homophobia. They were wrong to do so and definitely owe Fae an apology. Cla68 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did apologize to Fae - for citing the source on which I based my "unsupported" statement. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]