Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:39, 31 January 2012

Is this page properly certified?

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)

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)

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 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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 21:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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/Special:WhatLinksHere/AG_Weinberger indicates no dispute, let alone any attempt to resolve it.

For the nude beach http://en.wikipedia.org/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).

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

Fae=Ash?

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)

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)

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

You may wish to take a look at Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages in April 2010 during an RFC " 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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. Nformation 18:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Fae get special treatment by Arbcom regarding his past accounts because of his position at WP? 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)

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

Harrassment by Delicious Carbuncle

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 23:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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 carrots→ 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, please strike your comments which suggest that this is "homophobic harassment" I regard to the posting of Fæ's home address on Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages activities is absolutely dishonest and outrageous. Y u no be Russavia 00:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 carrots→ 01:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 02:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 03:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Jack Merridew's certification

Of note

WP:PA and other WP:DE complaints against the Fæ admin account: Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

What about the people that voted in the first RFA without knowing the full story? Should we notify them? Nformation 18:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

How about "Hello. A request for comment is currently taking place at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Fæ. Because you voted in Fae's RFA, your input is welcome." Sound good? Nformation 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

Undeleted

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 Misplaced Pages. John Vandenberg 08:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages. However I regret having any involvement with it and I withdraw from further engagement. This may not be an example of the Misplaced Pages'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)

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 09:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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, 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)

Revdeletion of Fæ's talk page

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 . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sequence query

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)

• 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)
  • • 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)
      • 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)
      • User:Ash was clearly reconsidering participation in Misplaced Pages around March 25 . Next day Ash gave up on filing a RfC/U on User:Delicious carbuncle . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • In other words, the Fae account is a sock, not a cleanstart, and he wasn't truthful about the RFC in his RFA Nobody Ent 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • 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 , 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)

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

              • 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)
                • ReverendWayne said "during," but it was actually "before." Nobody Ent 10:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

When a user claims to have left Misplaced Pages 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)

"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)

Interesting coincidence

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)

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

A less malicious explanation is far more plausible: both editors shared views about how to deal with gay porn articles on Misplaced Pages, as one can see from Misplaced Pages: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, 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)

Question for ArbCom

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)

• We're always aware of everything, and in control of it, as well. St John Chrysostom /_my bias, 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!

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 ), 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Review is an independent site many of whose editors have been banned from Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 16:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. Misplaced Pages Review is a forum with contributors from a wide array of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Anyone attacked by the children at Weekly Reader should wear it as a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages. Shrigley (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Shrigley, first of all I sympathize with anyone who's suffered gay bashing. Secondly, I have to disagree with you that on WR -- "antigay 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)

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 carrots→ 23:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 carrots→ 23:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"...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 Misplaced Pages editors participating at Misplaced Pages 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)

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 carrots→ 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Well, let's see... I did some article creation and expansion over at the Simple English Misplaced Pages, during that one-day block that Misplaced Pages 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 carrots→ 05:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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 carrots→ 07:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages" 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)

False accusations of homophobia are against everything that this project stands for, videlicet, collaboration, compromise, and cooperation. A few Misplaced Pages 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)

Connecting User:Ash to User:Fæ by popular request

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)

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

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

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 carrots→ 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

"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)

The male character Ashley Wilkes from Gone With the Wind, for example. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

, , . , , . --JN466 05:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the opposition

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)

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)

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

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 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment would be the proper forum. Nobody Ent 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Um

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)

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)

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)

Recall

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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 carrots→ 01:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 carrots→ 17:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 15:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

In your edit summary you wrote that my statement that he shouldn't have passed his RfA is untenuable. 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 16:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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 17:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 21:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Compassion

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Move to strike "outside" view by IP editor (101.118.25.78)

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 06:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

No. The purpose of the blackout vote was to defend Misplaced Pages against attack. In that vote, SPAs were defending Misplaced Pages against attack. This is OK. But this RfC is also an attack on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages). 31.52.2.164 (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

(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 Misplaced Pages (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)

The IP is being protective of Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

I am agreeing with you. Strike out all views that are a threat to the very existence of Misplaced Pages. Fae is a trustee of WMUK. A resignation or a negative finding affects all of Misplaced Pages, 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)

All editors including IPs are welcome to participate in RFCs - see Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages. We shouldn't be censoring anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question for John Vandenberg about Fæ's request for adminship

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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

Delicious carbuncle you are editing in violation of several Misplaced Pages 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)

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

• - 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)

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 02:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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 02:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

I think that is the best synopsis of my point imaginable ;-)---Balloonman 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 15:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

• Regarding Youreallycan's "muse" comment: it's not impossible for an editor to make positive contributions in general to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• 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)

Who dispatched the bot?

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)

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

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

Brenneman's certification

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)

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)

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)

I think Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested and the note from John Vandenberg 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 are not listed as the appropriate venues for WP:DR concerning edits. Since John Vandenberg claims his effort was successful , 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)

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

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).

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)

I am unable to fathom why some Misplaced Pages 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)

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).

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)

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).

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

Question for Delicious carbuncle

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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: Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)