Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

Desired outcome

From April 2010: "The desired outcome of this RFC/U is a voluntary agreement by Ash to cease editing BLPs (biographies of living people), which require "particular care" in the sourcing and verification of facts as per WP:BLP. Further investigation into the extent of the misuse of citations may also be warranted."

In addition to the above, I would like to ask that Fæ resign their adminship and, if they desire, go through a new RfA. Their RfA was tainted by what I view as deliberately misleading comments about past accounts. I am certain they would not have been given admin rights if their past account name(s) were known.

Description

In a recent ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Fraudulent referencing), Ash's use of a particular gay porn website as a reference was called into question. In the course of that ANI discussion, I requested that Ash respond to a BLPN discussion from December 2009 in which I had explicitly identified misuse of sources. After multiple requests (, , , , , & ), Ash did so, but denied any wrongdoing.

Believing that the subject matter (gay pornography performers) and sources (including gay pornography sites) were discouraging other editors from reviewing the evidence, I went through the articles recently created by Ash to find two that were not related to gay pornography (Pleasuredrome & Chariots Shoreditch). These articles had been edited almost exclusively by Ash, so that Ash was only sourcing their own additions. I found several instances of citations being added to support facts that were not present in the sources. I provided diffs and links to the original sources in a new section of the aforementioned AfD discussion. Despite the agreement of four other editors expressing concern about the citations (, , , & ), Ash continued to deny any wrongdoing or take responsibility for their actions. It is not clear to me why this wasn't swiftly dealt with at ANI.

More recent examples of the same type of sourcing are offered below to show that the problem still exists (and presumably has continued to exist throughout the time this user has edited as Fæ).

Evidence of disputed behavior

In November 2011, User:Agw65 created AG Weinberger, which was apparently an autobiography. It was deleted as a copyright violation. For unknown reasons, Fæ recreated the article, complete with "citation needed" tags on unsourced personal information. The sole reference in this BLP is attached to the sentence "Standard Weinberger 1997, this album earned the recognition of the Romanian Composers’ Union, which has never formally recognized the Blues genre, awarding it “Best Jazz Album of the Year” in 1997". The reference contains no such information and in fact is a very short Billboard capsule summary of albums from Romania. Remember that Fæ was already an admin at this point.

In a piece of sourcing remarkably similar to those in the original RFC/U, Fæ sourced the statement "The beach is considered friendly for naturists and gay tourists" in Voidokilia beach to a guide in the back of a gay tourist advertising magazine. The complete text of that section is "Situated after Pylos and a a[sic] gulf with a big lagoon of murky water and is suitable for nudists" (in both English and Greek). 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. It should likely also be noted that a map created by Fæ and added to the article by Fæ was deleted on Commons as plagarism. None of these things are the types of actions that we should expect from admins or experienced editors.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability
3. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Jack Merridew 17:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — I tried to fix List of male performers in gay porn films and engaged with Ash and others on the list's talk page, circa December. I advocated the removal of redlinks from the list, not using unreliable sources (imdb, specifically), and disentangled several non-porn BLPs from this list (Ben Andrews vs. Ben Andrews (pornographic actor)). Ash seems intent on undoing much of this, specifically creating a huge number of improperly sourced BLPs to flesh-out that list. My impression is that his focus is on inclusion of non-notable persons wo/regard to BLP and reliable sourcing concerns.

• The validity of the above endorsement by Jack Merridew was subjected to review (see the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ#Jack_Merridew.27s_certification). As this RFC was subsequently properly certified by other editors, this review is moot. It has been struck solely because its validity is now irrelevant, not because it has been confirmed or refuted. Manning (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

From January 2012:

1. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC) - I'll interpret "this dispute" to be BLP sourcing, and add further justification shortly.

   Oops. "tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed," emphasis mine. Please forgive me making this ugly situation worse by not reading the instructions. I'll add some further text below soon. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

2. Nobody Ent If the editor is unwilling to state they are not the previous editor ,, the RFC/U should proceed. Fae's first edit 28 March . Start of RFCU 5 April . Ash's last edit 12 April . This is a sock, not a cleanstart. Ash's RFA statement is untruthful. Nobody Ent 00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz If any doubt persists as to the certification of this RFC, I was directly involved in the underlying dispute and find Ash/Fæ's response at that time grossly inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias I'm completely uninvolved in this or the last, and stumbled across it on the ANI. It appears persistent problems with sourcing do indeed exist, as described above. On the evidence available to me, I hereby concur. 13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Themfromspace

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

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ThemFromSpace 20:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
2. MBisanz ^talk 21:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
3. I don't like obfuscation about previous accounts at all. There's no reason for it unless there's something to hide. Deor (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
4. RafikiSykes (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
5. With full disclosure this user would not have passed a WP:RFA at that time. Youreallycan 01:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
6. As far as imputing that if the two are one person, that an RfA might not have succeeded, and that a new RfA would "cure" such a defect in the prior one Collect (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
7. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
8. I agree, this was an ArbCom error, and does not appear to have been the first of its kind. It's also disheartening given how much pro-BLP posturing takes place during the ArbCom elections. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
9. N^oformation ^Talk 03:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
10. It definitely seems that a new RFA is needed. If the community supports Fae as an administrator, then an RFA would essentially be a formality, so there should be little opposition from him in having another one. Silverseren^C 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Bulwersator (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
14. I have noted before that this user would never have seen the light of adminship if this past identity was known at the time, Fae's 1st RfA is fraudulent. Tarc (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
15. !voters were denied information that could've been useful in formulating a complete, informed decision. Imagine a world where politicians could censor past criminal records and embarrassing scandals. That isn't the sort of world we should be embracing. Information wants to be free; that's what Wikipedia is here for. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
16. It would be useful to find more recent issues on this project. When I wrote to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions about problems with Fae's evidence to them which he gave in his capacity as a trustee of WMUK, I was able to link a continuous pattern in his cavalier attitude towards people's privacy in BLPs when using the old accounts on Wikipedia and his Fae account on Commons. There is also a continuing pattern of an overly flexible attitude towards truth as evidenced by the incompleteness in what he told the committee, his misleading replies and evasion of awkward subjects during his Commons RFA, his misapplication of "WP:CLEANSTART during that RFA where Commonists would not know how he was distorting the poilicy, his evasion of questions currently on Wikipedia, and the general problems with the old accounts. --Peter cohen (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
17. VolunteerMarek 19:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
18. I seldom get involved in RFA's. I did run once (3 years ago) and was vetoed due to my past here. My past is an open book. Hiding one's past should automatically disqualify someone who's running for admin. To put it another way, if he is hiding his past, and if I don't qualify to be an admin, neither does he. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
19. This view and Hobit's are not mutually exclusive. I endorse both. I don't think that John Vandenberg was misleading the voters in the RfA; however, I think he erred by giving Fae an ArbCom stamp of approval. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
20. Enough is well and truly enough. Let's not have RfAs (and arbitration committee candidacies ...) without full disclosure of prior accounts. Period. --JN466 07:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
21. It was a very poor decision by Arbcom to not reveal his past account. Every clean-start RfA candidate will now be treated with suspicion, even if their previous account was uncontroversial. It was also a poor decision to let someone who is alleged to be adding false sources to BLP make a clean start, as this person's edits require constant scrutiny. It like letting a serial plagiarist make a clean start. Epbr123 (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
22. Concur. Let him stand for a new RfA. If it is the will of the consensus, it shall again pass, and a cloud of suspicion will be lifted. If not, a problem will have been rectified. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 13:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
23. From now on I will be blanket opposing clean start RfAs except if the person has interacted with me enough that I know them well. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
24. Secret ^account 20:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
25. That's shocking. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
26. Agreed. An RfC with full disclosure would have been very unlikely to succeed, I think. bobrayner (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
27. Agree with Chrysostom and tempted to take the same position as Guerillero. AlexiusHoratius 20:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

    I still endorse the primary comment here, but after thinking about it for a bit I'm not willing to join the crowd calling for a new RfA yet. AlexiusHoratius 01:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

28. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 22:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
29. Agree. Ban him for sock. BigDwiki (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
30. A new RfA needs to occur in which Fae openly discusses his old account and forthrightly answers questions about his editing in the BLP area. Instead of trying to cover it up, be honest and transparent. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
31. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
32. Administrators and public voices of Wikipedia must have the trust of the community to be effective. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
33. Not disclosing the past identity of the user (even with a cleanstart) during RFA can lead into problems; this is a good example for that. Salih (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
34. Wow. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
35. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
36. Well, duh... we were told that a year ago during the RfA...Fae did not want to reveal his identity because he feared that it would torpedo his RfA. Fae knew a year ago that it would have gone a different way if the facts were known. That being said, culpability belongs equally on those who supported the RfA knowing that they might have opposed had they known. Fae was up front with that fact... thus this is not justification for him to step down or demand reconfirmation. (See any one of my posts during the rfa!)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
37. Agreed. WJBscribe (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
38. Yes. That sounds accurate. Begoon ^talk 02:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
39. Agree with this. Kcowolf (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
40. Agree. From [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]] (which the user displays on his user page): "These administrators state they are willing to stand for "re-confirmation" of adminship if a sufficient number of editors in good standing request it". There are enough requests (and implications of requests) above to infer that that criteria has been met. GFHandel ♬  04:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
41. There are parts of this with which I agree. What I agree with the most is the way that the view places the responsibility on ArbCom. Looking back, I think that John Vandenberg acted in good faith in supporting the RfA, but was just plain wrong even so. The Ash RfC/U was such that it was a bad call on John's part to tell the community that there had been a genuine clean start. Given the chronologically overlapping edits of the Ash and Fae accounts, the questions about the Steffans sourcing, and the fact that Lar really wasn't active here any more, John's representation was overly optimistic. That said, I don't think Fae really misrepresented things at the RfA, and I think that the community, assuming good faith on John's part, evaluated the RfA fairly, based upon the information that was available. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
42. ALL accounts should be revealed at the time of RfA elections. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
43. Agreed. Nathan ^T 00:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
44. Absolutely. Per Carrite User:DracoEssentialis
45. Agree. memphisto 13:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
46. Agree. The evidence I have looked at strongly suggests Ash and Fae are the same person and that definitely would have had an impact at the RfA given that account's highly controversial history.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Russavia

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

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

In relation to:

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

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

As to anything on Commons, DC should not be importing disputes from Commons to enwp. If there are issues on Commons, Commons is the correct place to raise them; rather than using it as cannon fodder on enwp.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 00:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
2. --В и к и T 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
3. DC's style is to say no more than would break the shield of plausible deniability. However, the general environment on WR is, whenever the subject arises, obviously homophobic. The LGBT wikiproject and LGBT pictures on commons are constant grievances; BLP crusades disproportionately serve to minimize the visibility of gay people and to aggrandize antigay politicians; and Fæ is not the first prominent LGBT editor that DC has targeted. This is shameless dog-whistle politics: where overt gay-bashing is not tolerated on Wikipedia, sustained harassment and outing campaigns against prominent gay editors are. Who knows? Maybe DC is just out to save the encyclopedia, and it just so happens that the worst editors are gay. We can't read minds. But the effect of his actions is that many gay editors, myself included, feel intimidated and unwelcome on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
4. This is nothing more than cyber poofter bashing. --MtD (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I see nothing spectacularly wrong with the sourcing for that beach, or the inclusion of the photo. --JN466 07:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
8. I have not verified everything in this statement, but I verified enough to confirm that Fæ is being harassed for supporting LGBT issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Bidgee (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
10. I agree. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Modernist (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
12. Reading the RFA and this case closer, I agree DC had some kind of agenda in doing that and should be held accountable for his actions. There was better alternatives to this case, such as contacting ArbCom. While I still think Fae should have exposed the account name in the first place and should resign quietly, the reasons behind the RFC is unacceptable and it's bordering on harassment. Secret ^account 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
13. I feel this whole process is distasteful. It is only my high regard for Fae that makes me want to interest myself in this poor advert for our own process which is being exploited by conspiracy hunters. Victuallers (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
14. I haven't verified the WR part, but it doesn't seem to be in dispute ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
15. per User:Secret -- œ^™ 15:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
16. I don't go on WR, and won't comment about that, but I can see nothing wrong with 'the' reference and pic. It's not a reference for establishing notability, and it is a reference to an established publication. (Looks like one, anyway. Not my scene - I'd be up at the cave and the castle rather than sitting on a beach...) Peridon (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Agree with Victuallers. An RFC about Fæ should be based on Fæ's actions as an editor not Ash's (they may be the same person, but after a clean start they are different editors in my book), and I have seen nothing worthy of an RFC in Fæ's conduct. BabelStone (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
18. Endorse summary with additional concurrence in BabelStone's comment above. My76Strat (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
19. Marek.69 ^talk 07:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
20. The stated context for this RfC is disingenuous, the primary motivation is harassment. Exok (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
21. causa sui (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
22. I hate that I'm signing on to this view, but I think I must. The focus on Fæ and his past incarnations does in fact feel a little homophobic. AniMate 09:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
23. I haven't tracked down much of the anti-gay harassment, I think because some of the WR threads have been deleted. But I'm reasonably persuaded that harassment is the beginning of the motive here. The anti-gay tone of WR as opposed to Wikipedia should tell us that WR is not a representative sample of Wikipedia, but rather remains an outside organization with goals that are different from ours. However, I am not convinced that gay-bashing is the ultimate motive here -- rather, as with the Cirt case, I feel that a small group of deletionists is trying to take out an admin they see as opposed to their goals, or perhaps, simply to demonstrate their power and intimidate others. I think that the other admins had better stand up against these people, or eventually they too will have their chance to be voted off the island, and trumped-up allegations against their character plastered all over the internet. Wikipedia is a fundamentally communist cause, which can work, but only with the utmost respect for the rights of the individual participant; otherwise it degenerates into Leninist purges as cynical people seek control over valuable common assets. Wnt (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
24. Nanobear (talk) 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
25. Not 100% sure about the anti-gay motivatation, but whatever the reason, this harrassment against a quality Wikipedian is dispicable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
26. Orderinchaos 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
27. (One of the difficulties of RfC/U is that I find myself agreeing in part, and disagreeing in part, with multiple views, on both "sides" of the debate.) I agree to the extent that any kind of discrimination or intolerance has no place in this project. My own interactions with Fae have found him to be a helpful and reasonable colleague. And the spreading of malice by other websites (read: WR) is appalling. I've looked at the Steffans sourcing discussion, and it's, well, complicated. There's an awful lot of tl;dr sniping and antagonism in both directions, and I'm not seeing Fae making any kind of massive attempt to mal-source in violation of BLP. But, on the other hand, I do see reasonable BLP concerns to which Fae was somewhat unresponsive (and tl;dr), and editors should be able to raise BLP concerns without being accused of homophobia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
28. I have had the pleasure of interacting quite a bit with Fae, and I have found him to be a thoroughly decent individual. The current juvenile and homophobic harassment that he is receiving from WR is a disgrace and everyone involved in perpetuating it needs to have a good hard look at their lives. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC).
29. The original statement in this RfC lost me at the point where 'gay' was repeatedly and unnecessarily added in relation to Fæ's claimed missdeeds (eg "a guide in the back of a gay tourist advertising magazine"). Even if it wasn't intended, this gives the whole statement a nasty edge which makes it difficult to take seriously. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quasi-certifing view by Brenneman

Caveat1: I am almost totally inactive on Wikipedia at this time
Caveat2: The below is somewhat stale, and I have [not yet] seen if the behaviour is ongoing.

My first exposure to User:Fæ was via a post to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). While the post extensive, it did not request administrative action. I said as much on ANI here and here, all prior to looking into the claims. I posted on Fæ's talk here.

The response caused me enough concern that I reminded Fæ at that time that administrators must respond well to criticism, that they were a very new administrator, and that "civility" (in it's wildly distorted WP form) is a frquent cause for failed requests for adminship.

Karrine Steffans was mentioned as a locus of dispute, so I went to look at that article and its talk page. Talk:Karrine Steffans/Archive 2 is where my involvement there begins. At the top of that page, User:Malik Shabazz expresses several clear concerns about sourcing, and Fæ's responses indicate to me that their understanding of reliable sourcing is weak. Malik suggests a request for comment as the next step, but this does not appear to have been done. Further down in that incredible wall of text, Fæ uses YouTube as a source for material. This material (the "Superdeep" nickname) is material that the subject of the article clearly finds distressing, and one of the YouTube sources proposed by Fæ has her terminating a radio interview apparently in tears over harrassment about the name. This is clearly material that is covered by Biographies of Living Persons (BLP).

While referring again to Caveat2 above, Fæ's conduct throughout this was unacceptable with respect to BLP and well below what we expect from administrators. I was concerned enough to directly contact a sitting arbitrator about it.

However I maintained at the time that (given a brief review of Fæ's editting history) this seemed an isolated incident. Having made a second (cursory) review of their contributions, I still maintain that view. While it seems clear to me that Fæ would not pass a request for adminsip at this time, I'm not comfortable with this RfC being a test case for either community Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship or for Wikipedia:Binding RFCs.

1. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
2. I find the discussion in Talk:Karrine_Steffans/Archive_2 highly concerning. The adult film company press releases and gossip columns Fæ suggested as sources for a contentious BLP matter are way beyond the pale. --JN466 07:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Concur as per Jayen466 above. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Aaron alerted me to the Karrine Steffans discussion after the event. I looked at it,warned Fae publicly. Fae removed that warning. If there hasnt been a re-occurance by user:Fae, then I think the prior dispute resolution method was successful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

   In stuffing up and certifying this, I was attempting to say the same thing: "I think the prior dispute resolution method was successful." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Hobit

It was clear during the RfA what exactly was happening. We knew there was an old account. We knew that an RfC/U existed on the user. We knew this was a problem user. Some of us !voted to oppose because we felt that the secret information was unacceptable for an RfA. Some of you !voted to support because you felt you had enough information based on Fæ's edits. If John or Fæ had lied or even actively misled folks during the RfA that would be a problem. I've seen no evidence of that. John seemed perfectly frank. As did Fæ. They clearly told us what they weren't telling us. In no way was anyone misled. I don't see the basis for any complaint about the RfA.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
2. I tend to agree here, he did admit during the Rfa that he had a troubled past account and a few cautious users opposed based on that fact. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
3. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
   • Bulwersator (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC) - also here (moved to "Outside view by ReverendWayne")
4. Shrigley (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
5. I was in the Support column in that RFA, I haven't yet seen anything to challenge the things we were told in that RFA ,clean blocklog exercised Cleanstart etc. ϢereSpielChequers 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
6. The RfA was not misleading in any way. That said, an examination of the history of Ash/Fae makes the user seem like a rather slimy character. I think DC was correct when he said that Fae wouldn't have passed RfA if people knew he was Ash. However, Fae managed to conceal his past, within the limits of policy, from most voters. And as a result, the RfA electorate made a (in my opinion) stupid decision, which is something that we probably have to live with. If there are continuing issues with misrepresentation of sources, that's another matter entirely. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Nothing more to say here Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Supporters in that RfA explicitly or implicitly accepted substituting ArbCom's behind-closed-doors judgement on Fæ's previous account(s) for their own evaluation. On one hand, it is admirable that the elected leadership of Wikipedia was trusted by a large number of editors to make such a decision for them. On the other hand, what you don't know won't hurt you. Real-life candidates for office can only dream of a way to "clean start" themselves away form voters' direct scrutiny. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Sounds right. It can of course be debated whether the RfA would have passed with full disclosure, but apart from the name of the old account the situation was made clear to !voters at the time. Jafeluv (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
10. From the evidence I have seen, I concur. In the very first lines of the RfA this (past questionable account) is mentioned. Full disclosure to be unwilling to make full disclosure was clear. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 15:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Johnbod (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
12. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
13. It was made clear this was a "clean start" situation. The Interior (Talk) 21:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
14. My76Strat (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
15. I opposed Fae at his RfA but he got through that process fair and square as it was made quite clear that he had a past from which he was making a fresh start. The complaints that his editing has been improper since seem quite flimsy. We can reasonably expect that his BLP edits will be scrutinised closely now and so there is no need to forbid their submission. There doesn't seem to be any significant evidence of any improper admin actions and so there doesn't seem to be any need to revisit RfA either. Warden (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
16. I just reread the old RfA. Fæ says he had another account. Everyone knew this. There was no problem with the past process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
17. I agree with Colonel Warden's analysis. I am not sure what Fae is supposed to have done wrong since March 2011 when he became an admin. (Disclosure: I am on the board of Wikimedia UK, as is Fae) The Land (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
18. This does not necessarily mean I support or oppose the user's adminship, just that I do not believe there is anything fraudulent related to the successful RfA. The user clearly indicated he had a fresh start and disclosed a past indiscretion in accepting the nomination. If people think this user should not be an admin. any longer, desysoping is the way to go, not a rehashed RfA. CycloneGU (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
19. No scienter, no reliance, thus no fraud. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
20. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
21. I was a FIRM OPPOSE to this RfA and felt that it should have failed due to the secrecy---I still feel that way, but it didn't. It passed. I was very adamant about my opposition and how I feared this day and that if people knew who his identity were, would be upset that they opposed. I find it interesting that several of the people who are calling for a new RfA above are the very ones with whom I parlayed a year ago. Sorry, the community was fully aware of this users past {or thought they were and insisted we had enough info} when they chose to promote him. They promoted him knowing that the RfCU was ongoing at the time of the new account, that he had started this account before finishing the old one, and that Fae was worried enough about his old identity sabotoguing his RfA that he didn't want to reveal it. We've lost any basis to overturn the old RfA based upon lack of info. We promoted him knowing we didn't have the full picture. And again, I lead the opposition.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
22. ZooPro 12:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
23. I supported at the RfA, but otherwise I agree with Colonel Warden's remarks. Peridon (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
24. per WSC. BabelStone (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
25. Marek.69 ^talk 06:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
26. causa sui (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
27. This disagreement seems to be about Fæ stating his clean start occurred after or during an RfC. All this drama over one word. Unfortunately, Ash wasn't blocked. I think he should have been. Just because the accounts are now linked doesn't mean Fæ deserves the same blocks Ash did. Fæ has done a decent job as an editor and administrator. Some users don't like either accounts editing articles that have to do with homosexuality or sex. Get over it and move on. AniMate 09:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
28. The community let this person become an admin knowing he had a past troublesome account that he did not want to reveal, and which you could only assume had horrible allegations against it. Seems absurd to me, but it passed, so be it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
29. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
30. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
31. Seems like drama for its own sake - something Wikipedia's surprisingly good at. Orderinchaos 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
32. Modernist (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
33. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC).
34. --В и к и T 15:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by ReverendWayne

Fæ said he took the option of a clean start "after an RFC/U". "During an RFC/U" would have been accurate; using the word "after" was misleading, even if unintentionally so.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. --Peter cohen (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. "Before" would be even more accurate given that the Fæ account first edited on March 28 and the RfC/U on Ash was officially started on April 5. However, the dispute had been going on in other venues for some time before that . See the discussion on sequencing on the talk page here for further details. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Nobody Ent 11:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Alas - it certainly appears that "during" would be a far better term than "after," and "before" even more accurate, as his departure ended the RfC/U with "User has stopped editing Wikipedia. Delisted due to inactivity" on 30 May 2010. The User:Fae account was created in March 2010. Before closure of the RfC/U. In fact, before starting of the RfC/U. I suggest that the starting and use of an "alternate persona" was not properly disclosed at the RfA at all. And that a "clean start" anticipates a "new name" not one which was already in use. Collect (talk) 13:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
7. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
8. RafikiSykes (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
9. - the comment was not a fair portrayal of the facts. Youreallycan 20:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Very misleading. (See my comment above) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Bulwersator (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
12. "after" certainly implied (falsely) that the process was over. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
13. The RfC/U didn't reach a conclusion / resolution. Fæ decided to seek an easy way out, followed by an easy way back in. !voters weren't aware that Fæ sought the easy way out of the RfC/U. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Weasel wording! ;-) St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
15. Epbr123 (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
16. I can support this. It was dececptive, but the community also bears culpability for failing to dig further.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
17. Definitely deceptive IMO too, and I share Balloonman's further observations. Begoon ^talk 05:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
18. N^oformation ^Talk 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
19. And support for Balloonman point --SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
20. Cla68 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
21. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested. --JN466 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
22. True indeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
23. Fæ's/Ash's description of the RFC/U was clearly deceptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
24. I don't accept that we were deliberately misled, or that there was a deliberate lack of transparency on Fæ's part, but do accept that a lack of precision may well have affected the outcome. Arbcom is just as culpable though. —WFC— 19:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside views by ASCIIn2Bme

Outside view by Secret

Fae, since his RFA has been a good administrator without much complaint. But if people who voted for Fae knew about his past, he for certain wouldn't have passed RFA. Reminds me of the Sam Blacketer situation, in which an former administrator desysopped by ArbCom created a new account and became an ArbCom member without the community noticing until it was a bit too late. Better to resign and do an new RFA to salvage your reputation. Cases like this hurts the reputation of RFA, and makes it harder to pass it for editors who edit in good faith, but has had a blemish or two in their history.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Secret ^account 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Endorse "Better to resign and do a new RfA" as per my statements above about the RfA. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Endorse all but the call for a reconfirm RfA/resignation. Culpability does not lie on Fae, but rather on those who supported the RfA (which includes Secret) without demanding full disclosure. Fae told us during the RfA that if his identity were known that it would sabotogue his RfA's chances. This was acknowledged by Fae during the RfA. The disfunctionality of the system is not his fault nor is the fact that his promotion demeans the RfA process. The RfA community who chose to promote, despite the secrecy surrounding the RfC---and the claims that it appeared to be a trolling RfC has to be discounted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Agreed. Something that we shouldn't forget in the midst of this RFC is that Fae is a good editor and is an overall plus to the project (by a landslide). The problem here is his unresolved conduct issues, secrecy, and the worst IMO is his lack of response to what I believe is a valid set of questions regarding said conduct and his past. N^oformation ^Talk 01:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Actually, I can endorse this too, except (per BM again) the enforced recall. He is indeed a good editor, and a plus to the project. What would be an even bigger plus would be for side [a] to stop picking and picking, and for side [b] to quit implying that innocent folks with an opinion have a homophobic motive and accept/confirm that we all know where we are and move on to acknowledging and addressing community concern. That should fix it. Begoon ^talk 10:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Sound. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

   Following Tryptofish's lead below, I'd like to update my comment. I'm not knowledgeable enough about this editor's contributions as an admin to judge whether or not he should continue as an admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

8. --JN466 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
9. I endorse this view in part. I actually do not think that Fae did things the wrong way in his RfA. In fact, he went out of his way to do things correctly, by seeking advice from ArbCom first. The problem seems now to be that John Vandenberg, although acting entirely in good faith, gave the community an overly positive seal of approval, when instead, he would have done better to advise Fae to either reveal more information about the RfC/U or to not seek the RfA. But given John's position, I can't blame Fae, or the community. I note that Fae really has not misused the sysop tools. But I also note that (per, for example, the Cirt de-sysopping) admins can be removed without evidence of specific misuse, on the basis of loss of community trust. Is there such a loss here? Well, I think that we are not in a place where Fae must step down, but we are at the point where it would be good advice to chose to do so, in order to, as Secret says, "salvage your reputation". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

   I want to modify my previous opinion, based on more recent discussions. I increasingly feel that the responsibility for what has become controversy over the RfA lies with others, not with Fae, who actually asked for advice from ArbCom. I stand by what I said about admins and community trust, but I now think that some thoughtful voluntary agreements by Fae would be sufficient to achieve that trust, and I consider stepping down to be more than is needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by My76Strat

It is clear the Fæ has lost the trust of a significant portion of users who previously supported their RfA. As unlikely as it might appear that Fæ could succeed at reconfirmation, I surmise it is imperative and call on Fæ to initiate a reconfirmation RfA without delay.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. My76Strat (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Bulwersator (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
4. No point in hanging on , the cats out of the bag. Unclear clean start resulting in a loss of support. Youreallycan 23:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
6. I wouldn't go as far as an immediate reconfirmation RFA though. We want to minimize the least drama possible. Secret ^account 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Resignation or reconfirmation seem the only two viable options. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
8. I was not involved in the previous RfA, but I concur, as per my short statements in all above endorsements. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
9. RafikiSykes (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
10. N^oformation ^Talk 01:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
11. From [[Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall]] (which the user displays on his user page): "These administrators state they are willing to stand for "re-confirmation" of adminship if a sufficient number of editors in good standing request it". Could an uninvolved admin please adjudicate when this view reaches "a sufficient number" (and then politely have a guiding word with the user)? GFHandel ♬  06:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
12. Agree after reading Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Admin_conduct_review_requested. There is just too much evasiveness. --JN466 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Draco^E 15:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Could the closing admin please apply the principles defined in WP:ADMINACCT, specifically the 'failure to communicate' section? As of today, Fæ still has not posted a response on this project page.

Outside view by TCO

It's hard to really have all the perspective on Fae/ash/Arbcom/WR/WMUK/etc, but the sourcing complaints seem like nits. More of a gotcha game. If we really want to evaluate the guy's writing, some sort of general look at several articles and the total amount of cite problems makes more sense.

I mean this entire encyclopedia has vast stretches of completely unreferenced content. And we accept it and let people Google into it every day. So the guy had a single fact (the gay beach, which btw hasn't been contested on its truth just on verifiability) that was unreferenced. Also, it was in a stub. Many people put less effort into a short article...are just trying to get something created to have an article...not vette it like crazy (heck that it had any sources is something!)

I bet the only way to avoid never having an unsupported claim is to never write an article. Even our very best writers on our very best articles (FACs with huge time spent on them) still get found out with some little mistakes by reviewers. Given some of the admins who don't even write, I really doubt Fae is so awful that he needs some sanction. He might even be above average.

Oh...and if you've never had a photo deleted for copyright, you're probably not participating enough. Not saying you should have one of those pages with 10 in a row deletions notices on Commons. But having an image turn out to need to go bye-bye does not make you teh eeful.

It's a given that our articles are not perfect...heck are not even looked at by an editor before publishing! Yeah, we should work to improve them, sure. But some attitude that ZOMFG I found a mistake, let's stop the presses is unrealistic. It's just disconnected to the actual state of our work product.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. TCO (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
2. We hold Admins to higher standards than other editors, and if he'd tried to get a DYK on that beach being Gay people would have expected a RS. But if Fae considered it an uncontentious fact that didn't need to be verified, then if someone disagrees the appropriate thing is to slap a {{fact}} tag on it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Support summary - My76Strat (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Support I can't be participating enough because I've never had an image deleted. (Possibly because I've never uploaded one - I cycled out to take a photo of a sculpture and then found someone else had done the same.) Peridon (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Support. I only looked at this case for an hour or two, but I think you hit the nail on the head. I was particularly moved by Ash's statement that "My work over the last 2 months to create a series of reasonable start-level articles for gay pornographic actors appears to be the real issue that you have with my existence on Wikipedia, a task that I started after you purged all "non-bluelink" names from the list of actors in gay porn films." I find it entirely plausible that Ash, being henpecked for what he suspected, and I suspect, to be entirely unreasonable ulterior motives, simply left out a source or used a substandard source here and there. There's a huge difference between deliberately misrepresenting sources, as in the Noleander case, and accidentally misrepresenting (or rather, simply leaving out) sources. I believe in "VnT", but not when it comes to evaluating an editor's motives and seriousness - the fact that nobody has turned up to say that that bathhouse really only had two floors makes me think it was no great crime to say three. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Support - Comments by Wnt above move me to agree with this view. CycloneGU (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Support - Marek.69 ^talk 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Support FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Orderinchaos 23:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

View of Balloonman

Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. My oppose rationale to his RFA:

Barring a major reversal this RfA is going to pass, but I can't in good conscious support it right now. While the person might have a clean start and have a solid history as such, I can't help but wonder if there are people here who might go the other way if they knew who this was. Who might be upset if they realized who they were supporting? While I do believe in a clean start, that clean start only goes so far... while I generally will only look at the past years worth of edits, it does concern me that we are unable to assess prior history. Faes history was apparently disruptive enough to invoke an RfC and possible sanctions (possibly as recently as a year ago); yet we have to take it on faith that Fae addressed those concerns/issues. I appreciate that Fae others view him as admin material, but I can't help but think of others who have run (granted in secret) on new accounts. Sorry, but I can't support at this juncture.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)NOTE: I've moved to FIRM oppose. The more I think about it, the more I do not like the secrecy surrounding this. A clean start is fine and I would have no problems with somebody coming here with one, if it wasn't for the fact an RFC led to the clean start. Who does the "secrecy" protect? This candidate. He is free to reveal his prior accounts at anytime, but choses to run while hiding.

There was too much secrecy a year ago when he ran, and as I feared, the revelation of his former identity is causing a stir. Was he deceptive in his RfA---a little, but people were informed of the facts and they chose to support him despite the lack of information and the known risk that this might occur. His adminship passed despite the fact that we knew at the time that he underwent his clean start "under a cloud" and that there might have been sanctions had the RfCU continued. But they still accepted him as an admin. The community made the bed and now must lie in it. Elsewhere in the RfA I wrote:

this isn't a matter of just a clean start, clean start can be invoked for several reasons: Harrassment, having revealed one's person identity, etc. This clean start was started as a direct result of an RfC. People who undergo clean starts are free to run for adminship, but the community is also free to question the issue and to oppose based upon that issue. {...} But the fact is that this person had an issue that was significant enough to involve and RfC that resulted in a clean start. That issue may have occured as recently as 12 months ago, but the community is completely unable to assess whether or not he has changed. Fae appeals to some superhyped "secrecy". If Fae is so concerned that if his prior account were known that it would sabotogue this RfA, then I think that seals the deal for me.

We cannot now claim that we didn't know about his past or that we were ignorant of the possibility. People supported and defended him vigorously during the RfA... and it passed. His actions must be judged on what he has done since gaining the bit. We lost any moral imperative to revoke the bit or nullify the RfA due to secrecy. If there isn't enough to remove the bit as a result of actions taken under the Fae account, then tough. The community voted to accept Fae KNOWING the dubiousness of his past by a ratio of 5:1. *I* say this as the leading voices in the opposition.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Well, sort of endorse, but far from endorsing entirely. I supported the RfA. Yes, you told me so. And you have been proven at least partially correct. But, with respect, the community didn't know everything, instead working with what we had. And that means that what you say about losing any moral imperative is just, sorry, chest thumping. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
2. per Tryptofish - I don't think we "lost our moral imperative" but I do agree the community should have investigated more deeply at the time, and that the community was misled by statements in the RFA. In an ideal world, the subject of this RFC might acknowledge that, and seek reconfirmation. I suspect the outcome may surprise some, in that event, but, regardless, it would be a meaningful outcome. Begoon ^talk 01:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

View 2 by Balloonman

A few people have stated above that they will oppose all clean start candidates at RfA or that there is a need for full information at RfA. In general, I agree, but there are valid reasons for clean start---Harrassment and/or revelations of real life identity, involuntary outing are a few. Thus, I think it is important to distinguish between a clean start to avoid one's past and one for other reasons. In other words, there are some reasons why Clean Start should not be a barrier to passing RfA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Anyone who intends to oppose all future Cleanstart candidates needs to think first how they intend to spot them. I suspect what they really mean is opposing anyone who admits to being a Cleanstart candidate. I'd prefer to know that someone is a cleanstart candidate, but currently they don't have to tell us. ϢereSpielChequers 14:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
2. WP:CLEANSTART clearly says, "You are not obliged to reveal previous accounts". Therefore, I concur with this viewpoint. Why would one want to connect themselves with the old account where they gained public humiliation, as this viewpoint states? CycloneGU (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Nobody Ent 16:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC) For me, the issue isn't that Fae cleanstarted, but that they didn't. Nobody Ent 16:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Fair enough. Not that I hang out at RFA much anyway.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Agreed. A blanket approach of opposing all clean start RfAs would give 'crats some difficulty I suspect. This scenario has no real bearing on a user who chooses to start afresh after serious harrassment when their conduct on the project has never been called into question. WJBscribe (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Endorse "Harrassment and/or revelations of real life identity, involuntary outing" St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Agree. Largely per Nobody Ent - the issue is not how a "cleanstart" should be treated, because one does not appear to have actually happened here. Begoon ^talk 05:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
8. --JN466 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Yes, I agree with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

View by HJ

Diffs should be presented for the claims of manipulation of sources since the clean start. A single (disputed) diff accompanied by a vague assertion of misconduct, claims of impropriety on another project (which are a matter for the equivalent process on Commons), and reheating a nearly two-year-old RfC is not sufficient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Straight shooter award for HJ.TCO (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
2. I endorsed Themfromspace's view, but I suppose I agree with this as well. The more I think about it, the main problem isn't Fæ's post-RfA conduct (which doesn't seem harmful) so much as the shrug most of us gave to the information provided at the RfA. AlexiusHoratius 01:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Hear, hear. CycloneGU (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Agree, this looks more like people are upset about the fact that the RfA community was duped...but it isn't Fae's fault that the community decided to prove how magnanumous and forgiving it was by promoting him in err. The community spoke loudly in support despite the dubiousness of his RfA situation. A call for a new RfC needs to be based upon actions that occurred in the past year since his RfA. Elsewise it is a witch hunt. It might be different if he ran in secret, but the community knew this was a risk and chose to promote anyways. The fact that we are disfunctional is not his fault.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Pretty much it, minus the harassment aspects. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 08:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
7. what are the issues with the conduct of this account and post RfA.Mtking ^(edits) 08:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
8. --В и к и T 16:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Agreed. Peridon (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
10. ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
11. This RfC is the highly damaging mess that it is because of the original failure to identify any context for it. Exok (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
12. œ^™ 04:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Agreed. As Rich Farmbrough has pointed out, this RfC apparently isn't even certified. Even if you count the old one I haven't seen one single smoking gun of genuine Bad Conduct in the whole mess, just a lot of harmless little details that are trumped up in the summarization and re-summarization. Wnt (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

    Strongly agree. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I will have nothing more to do with this farce. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

14. BabelStone (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Agree - Marek.69 ^talk 07:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Very well said. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Agreed - there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there is an actual problem being dealt with here. (Wnt and Exok above make good points.) Orderinchaos 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
18. I only agree with some of this, definitely not all of it. And I think that the talk page motion to close is a mistake. But I agree that the filing of the RfC/U lacks specificity as to what is really wrong post-new account. I think there are some issues, though. Specifically, there's some evidence of the Fae and Ash accounts editing simultaneously, although it may have just been to clean up some loose ends without self-outing. And there's the Steffans sourcing, although it seems that there was poor conduct in both directions there, and what Fae did doesn't rise to the level of actually being bad-faith disruptive, as opposed to low-quality editing on a BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Well put Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Anthonyhcole

This editor deceived the community during this RfC, which was addressing poor behaviour, by declaring that he was quitting. This resulted in the RfC being put on hold and the likely ban on editing BLPs not being applied. He then misled the community at his RfA by declaring that he had opted for a clean start "after" an RfC. At the RfA he pointedly stated that he had never been blocked nor had a ban imposed, while knowing the only reason he avoided a likely BLP topic ban was his lie about quitting the project. I'm also very unimpressed by this editor's persistent arguing that an embarrassing nickname should be included in a BLP, never mind the dubious quality of sources. What kind of person does that? ArbCom should heed this case. If another editor applies for a clean start after "quitting" while under scrutiny, ArbCom should advise the editor to return to the community and complete the process before agreeing to a clean start. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Factual, and good advice indeed to arbcom. Note statement from Fæ. . --JN466 17:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
2. I can support this as well. I would add, that the RfA community bears cupability for allowing an RfA to pass despite glaring deficeincies in the rfa. But the RfA and ArbCOM communities turned a blind eye to it and said "We don't care."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3. "support" including what Ballonman said.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Strongly endorse, including all preceding comments. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
5. Agree but my agreement is best viewed as "per Balloonman's comments" - he expressed well a view I share. Begoon ^talk 02:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
6. Epbr123 (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Strong support N^oformation ^Talk 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Once again, I can endorse parts of this, while not endorsing it entirely. What I agree with the most is the advice to ArbCom about returning editors. It's very good advice. I think that this view somewhat overstates how much Fae, personally, misrepresented things at the RfA, and somewhat overstates his position in the discussion of the BLP (the embarrassing nickname was used by the BLP subject herself, in a book she published). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Endorse. The extent of this editor's deception with regard to the RFC/U and RFA is substantial, and far more extensive than his supporters in this discussion have been willing to acknowledge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

(far) Outside view by SB_Johnny

Given that Fæ's identity is quite public and therefore there is no additional "risk" to simply and directly acknowledging (or denying, if that's the case) that the Ash account did indeed belong to the same person, refusing to make that acknowledgement (or denial) serves absolutely no purpose but to feed a worthless drama. Dropping the secrecy would be a helpful thing to do, and (perhaps) allow for a more rational discussion of what people want to see happen.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Proposed. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
2. Pretty obvious - and a far better course than to have anyone "delete" this RFC/U. Collect (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
3. Yeah, much of this drama could have been avoided that way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
4. Yes indeed. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
5. --Peter cohen (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
6. --JN466 21:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
7. Should have been disclosed at the time of the RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
8. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
9. Fully endorse. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
10. Yes. That seems sensible, and overdue. Begoon ^talk 03:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
11. Bulwersator (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
12. The cat has been out of the bag for a long time now. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
13. Nobody Ent 15:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
14. Per WJB, although I think it is essentially admitted to now.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
15. I agree and find the lack of response to this RFC as well as to the question in general to be problematic. Admins are expected to answer to the community that gave them adminship in the first place. N^oformation ^Talk 01:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Support summary - I have observed at least one occasion where Fæ has addressed a user on their talkpage. This shows awareness and wherewithal as equally as a lack of response here shows disregard. My76Strat (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
17. Endorse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
18. Totally. RafikiSykes (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

General comment by Wnt

This process denigrates a highly active and productive editor, for the sake of elevating the most malignant forces at work on Wikipedia.

Understand that the control of Wikipedia, the right to broadcast and most especially if preventing the broadcasting of certain information, is incredibly valuable. It is comparable to commercial sites that sell for millions if not billions of dollars. And like it or not, the admins are largely in control of these assets. There are some of us, inclusionists, who like to use Wikipedia as an open pool of information, free for everyone to take and contribute what they find interesting, free of restriction and connivance. But we are opposed by a deletionists, in particular some few dozens who are highly active, who distort, misinterpret, and outright abuse Wikipedia policies to take out stuff they don't like. They are champions of wounded ethics, telling us that we shouldn't talk about the humorous sense of "santorum" or show the Rorschach blots or cite Wikileaks documents, as if somehow all the things distributed by reputable press outlets and Google suddenly become wrong because we put them on a free site. While we work from sources, they work from watch lists. While we type up cite templates, they revert other people with poor excuses. But now they go further, and make it their business to delete editors, and specifically, admins.

Who is the villain? The one who uses a reputable, though Wikipedia-citing, reference about a list of actors to support some small fact about an actor? Or the one who lays down an edict that any actor mentioned in an article has to be blue-linked or else removed? Our guidelines on notability are clear - they control who has an article written about them, not who is mentioned at all.

If we use this process to revoke Fae's admin status, despite the lack of evidence of any abuse of it, that's truly remarkable. What admin doesn't make bad calls that would incense us? It means we are legitimizing private-eye tactics and trifles over genuine evaluation of admin performance. We are legitimizing privacy invasion and bullying and anti-gay pandering and threats. We are giving people who want nothing but to turn our open pool into their private plaything yet another admin's head for their pointy stick. Are they quietly accumulating their own sleeper agents among the admins, or simply relying on the threat of being branded on the internet with bad publicity to give them more and more power over the others? Whatever they intend, it should be clear that every independent Wikipedia admin will eventually be voted off the island, unless they stand up to these people and stop these purges.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Proposed. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

   Agree with this statement minus paragraph #2. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC) I will have nothign more to do with this farce. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2. Not sure about para 2, otherwise well said. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
3. As the two above. Peridon (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Hear hear. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC).

Balancing comment from Collect

The issues regarding the prior account, the RFC/U closing, and the new account then applying at RfA are real and substantial. Those indicating a concern have evinced no anti-gay, homophobic or other concerns here at all. This is not a "deletionist" vs. "inclusionist" debate at all, it is a discussion about whether Wikipedia procedures have been fully and properly complied with. Nor is this a venue to discuss abrogating WP:BLP or any other fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. Collect (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Yeah, this RfC/U is staring to veer towards the "evil deletionists" rhetoric that got someone blocked recently. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
3. During the process of this RFC/U, Fae has followed a pattern of behaviour which he has also displayed in other venues such as his RFA here, his RFA on Commons and his evidence to the Joint Committee on Privacy:
   1. He is evading significant issues. He has not replied to the RFC here addressing the problems with his RFA.
   2. He tells untruths. DC has had to pull him up on some points on the talk page for this RFC/U. On Fae's talk page, John Vanderburg has had to point out that Arbcom never gave a go-ahead for the RFA here.
   3. He engages in diversionary tactics. His repeated use of the homophobia card and repeated mention of WR is a long-standing pattern of behaviour here on WP and also on Commons. On the RFA on Commons he never answered my questions about a number of deletion discussions where he voted against policy and/or the final decision. Instead he mentioned that the deletion discussions had been previously mentioned on WR. During his testimony to the privacy committe, Fae did not mention the word "privacy" once and evaded the question where all the witnesses were asked what they could do to help privacy.
   4. He applies double standards. He is asking to DC to account for off-wiki behaviour while he and his supporters are closing off discussion of his behaviour elsewhere. He has asked DC to make commitments about what he will do off Wikipedia. Now let's see whether he will take up the challenge of committing here and now to correct the evidence he gave to the privacy committee so that they get a more accurate impression of privacy issues on Wikipedia and of the privacy issues in Fae's own contribitions to Wikimedia projects. Some how I don't think he will take up this challenge as readily as he challenges DC. Both what he asked of DC and I ask of him concern Wikipedia-related behaviour of his project. No doubt he will seek to invent a difference between them. This and the other problems demonstrate that he lacks the openness to challenge expected of a good administrator.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
4. The inclusionist/deletionist rhetoric in Wnt's view is a strawman argument that has no base with the facts of the matter. ThemFromSpace 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Effectively rebuts Wnt's view. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
6. Whether or not this RFC/U is the proper place to address the cleanstart/RfA issue, it needs to be addressed. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Support, especially as per points 1 and especially 3 above - I've seen the gay-basher/homophobe card played far too strongly and repeatedly with less evidence than none to back it up. It early on reached the same level as a black editor being RfC/U'd and claiming everyone opposing him was a racist Klansman. I do not know enough about points 2 and 4 to endorse them with honesty, but I suspect they're accurate based on my personal experience with point 3 in here, and the repeated warmings-over of DC's poor judgment as a means to attempt to nullify this proceeding. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
8. Reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
9. AlexiusHoratius 18:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Yes, and Peter cohen makes a good point above about double standards. Begoon ^talk 05:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
12. --JN466 16:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
13. Yep. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
14. I can support this more or less---there were failures in process and how things were done here. Fae/John/the RfA community which supported let Fae pass despite significant questions. (Do not, however, take this to mean endorsing desyopping.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
15. Endorse both the principal statement and the analysis by Peter cohen. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
16. Epbr123 (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
17. RafikiSykes (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
18. - Youreallycan 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
19. Draco^E 15:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Further statement by Delicious carbuncle

My aim in re-opening this RFC/U was not to start a debate about Fæ's RfA. Although I did suggest that Fæ should voluntarily resign their adminship because their RfA was tainted, that was not the focus of this RFC/U. User:Ash was not an admin and so there could not possibly have been any issue in that regard. Users who interacted with Fæ when they were using the Ash account will recall just how disruptive Ash and Benjiboi were in discussions of biographies of living people. The locus of the dispute was probably List of male performers in gay porn films which has been stable since the departure of Ash and Benjiboi, save the occasional removal of articles deleted at AfD. There are no longer prolonged discussions on AfDs for gay porn performers and they are kept or deleted based on the standard criteria. We no longer have living people listed as porn performers because someone didn't take the care to check where article links ended up. Sourcing issues and excessive videographies in biographies of some gay porn performers remain, but these may eventually get cleaned up. User:Ash would almost certainly have faced some form of editing restriction had this RFC/U been completed at the time that User:Ash claimed to leave Wikipedia. Not only was Fæ's claim at their RfA that they had a clean start "after" an RFC/U false, but it seems to be forgotten that there was a good reason for having this RFC/U in the first place and that this RFC/U was never concluded.

I have been accused of being homophobic for mentioning the poor sourcing in Voidokilia beach article, but it is simply an example of how Fæ is continuing the same patterns that were an issue with Ash. Fæ used very poor sourcing to declare that "The beach is considered friendly for naturists and gay tourists". User:John Vandenberg, who you may recall from their endorsement of Fæ's RfA, has tried and failed to find better sourcing for this statement. Fæ was only able to add their own image of what one presumes are naturists and gay tourists to this article because they had included the poorly sourced statement. Fæ also added the image to Naturism, an article which already had seventeen other images. Seventeen. Note that there is no section on naturism in Greece in the article. This is the continuation of a pattern of image abuse by Ash.

There have been statements to the effect that there have been no issues with Fæ's activities as an admin. This is simply not true. Shortly after becoming an admin, there was a discussion on ANI about their admin actions. That discussion is in relation to the BLP on Karrine Steffans, already mentioned by some people here. I have also offered a BLP example, but here is another - Fæ added this sentence "On 30 September 2011, Le Vell was arrested on suspicion of a sexual offence and released on bail until 16 November, pending inquiries" to Michael Le Vell, following a talk page discussion where they argued for inclusion of this information because "Including the item is not a breach against WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE as the arrest will stay a highly notable event for this actor and his career regardless of whether there is any later prosecution". Note that case has since been dropped with no charges being laid and the incident should probably be removed from the article as undue weight at this point.

As User:Ash, Fæ maintained a list of allies and enemies. They used custom javascript to highlight changes in their watchlist and distinguish between changes made by allies and changes made by enemies. (If I recall correctly, enemies were marked with a small image of a spider.) On Commons -- up until someone noticed it very recently -- Fæ similarly kept a list of enemies and highlighted their changes. They have since had that page deleted and replaced it with one that does not contain such obvious "battleground" references. An archive of the deleted page is available here. It would be helpful if an admin could delete the subpages belonging to the Ash account, but I suspect you will just have to take me word on this one. Those who think that Fæ is a fine admin and editor would do well to examine their edits and interactions on Commons where their behaviour is far closer to that when they were known as Ash.

I am asking for Fæ to be held to account for their actions as User:Ash, as they almost certainly would have if they had not evaded the process through deceptive means. Concerns about Fæ's RfA should likely be addressed elsewhere. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this comment:

1. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
2. That all sounds reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
3. --JN466 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
4. I was definitely wanting to see some evidence of recent misbehavior since the new account was created and since Fae got adminship. Seems DC has provided more than enough instances of that. Specifically, that edit war over the Karrine Steffans article is rather egregious.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Marek

I met Fae on 15 January 2011 in London. He was intending to run for RfA at this point but was worried by the clean start of a previous account. When we discussed this, he was completely open and honest about his past, and his previous accounts, he simply did not want this information linked to his real name, so as not to cause embarrassment to his family.

He could have simply chosen to remain quiet about this.

When details of Fae's real life identity appeared on one particular external website in November 2011, I was shocked, but not completely surprised considering the type of website it was.

When I saw that this had spread to Wikipedia, I was both disgusted and angry (and surprised). If Fae stood for adminship today, I would have no doubt in supporting him, as would I if he stood for election to the UK board tomorrow. He has proved to be both dedicated and professional in both roles.

I really am not sure what we are trying to achieve here.

Are we trying to dirty the name of a good Wikipedia, so that he resigns his adminship and board position and completely turns his back on our projects? If so, then we are doing a bloody good job of it, in my opinion. I probably would have done so by now.

I think Fae has been tormented enough, his privacy has been violated to the extreme and now to add insult we are repeating the whole thing on Wikipedia. I would suggest closing this RFC as soon as is physically possible before any more (possibly irreparable) damage is done to Fae's professional reputation and to avoid unnecessary distress to his family.

Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside views by Tryptofish

View by Themfromspace (2)

Fae should voluntarily agree to refrain from using the administrative tools (blocking, deletion, protection, etc.) on articles and disputes dealing with adult entertainment-related topics, broadly construed.

Users who endorse this view:

1. Based off the first of Tryptofish's proposals above, but less restrictive. Combines both the contentious topic area with the questionable RFA. ThemFromSpace 01:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Ok, I see the difference now... the above is a more specific ban on editing period of adult related items, this is related to the use of admin tools... which I think it more appropriate and in the spirit of his agreement not to use the tools relative to the RfCU in the first place.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes, I can support this too. My thinking above is that there really isn't evidence that I have seen of Fae using the admin tools controversially in this topic area (or anywhere else), but I also accept the argument about the earlier agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Wnt (2)

We have seen no evidence of significant wrongdoing by Ash/Fae on Wikipedia. No evidence has been presented that he has abused administrative tools or his position as an administrator. No evidence has been presented that he has lied, distorted, or made up any information. It would be preferable not to omit a few sources on minor details somewhere in 24,000 edits, but that is well within our expectations for a good editor. Any misrepresentation in the RfA was small, and not done by Fae; if the standard he faced when obtaining adminship was less than our current standard, it was still much higher than that for those long-standing admins who were elevated when the status was "no big deal". Therefore this RfC should be closed with the community's acknowledgment that Fae is in good standing holding the normal powers and privileges of an admin and editor without restriction.

Users who endorse this view:

1. Wnt (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm going to support this. Enough is enough, but even without that, Fæ has been holding himself with class and not getting involved in general in something that is turning more into harassment regarding a WP:CLEANSTART that some editors do not want to remain in place. I will advise not getting into situations in areas where he has run into conflict, but otherwise there is no reason to pester him. CycloneGU (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Guess what: I'm going to support this too, even in the context of my views above. I think that it is, in large part, factually correct as to the evidence that has been presented. My quibbles are that Fae was a little resistant to constructive discussion during the Steffans sourcing discussions, and the chronologically overlapping edits of the Ash and Fae accounts are less than ideal. But those are far from capital offenses for an editor with so many good contributions. (Cast the first stone, and all that.) For these reasons, I increasingly feel that I would only favor solutions that would involve voluntary agreements by Fae, as opposed to binding sanctions. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Still further statement from Delicious carbuncle

It was bad enough that the community uncritically accepted falsehoods from Russavia and Prioryman about non-existent "deeply homophobic" discussions on Wikipedia Review, but now Rich Farmbrough has decided to up the ante and accuse me of possible illegal actions. Not content to stop there, he states as fact that Bali ultimate and I use Wikipedia Review to "co-ordinate attacks on Fae" on other WMF projects.

I understand that many people here have a negative view of Wikipedia Review, but it is no more and no less than a forum whose main focus is critical discussion of Wikipedia and other WMF projects. Some of the particpants there are people who are banned from Wikipedia or other WMF projects. Some of the participants there are current Wikipedia editors and admins. Mike Godwin stopped in for some discussion recently. There is no single voice or viewpoint represented in that forum, any more than there is on any one of Wikipedia's many discussion pages. The idea that Wikipedia Review is "homophobic" is simply ridiculous. I have no special powers at Wikipedia Review - my ability to edit my own posts is limited; I cannot delete even my own posts; I have no administrator rights whatsoever. Are offensive comments made by individual contributors? Yes, often. Can some of those comments be seen as homophobic? Yes, some of them can be and should be seen that way. Are there any "deeply homophobic" discussion threads? No, there are not. That is a complete fiction used to discredit criticism coming from Wikipedia Review in general and used to tar me as a homophobe. Have I made any homophobic remarks on Wikipedia Review? No, not intentionally and I hope that I haven't, and no one has ever actually suggested that I have, just implied it by association with the mythical homophobic threads.

Did I violate WP:OUTING by associating Fæ with his previous account? There were several on-wiki discussions, including one on ANI, which made that connection before I re-opened this RFC/U. I tried to steer questions about the connection to ArbCom, but they sidestepped the issue. When I made the connection between the two accounts here, I was careful to use on-wiki evidence. The two accounts were connected because Fæ disclosed information about their identity here, by their own choice. The only reason I recognized Fæ, WMUK trustee, as User:Ash is because I recalled the name they had attached to it. Prior to that, there was a period of many months during which I assumed, like most people, that Ash had left Wikipedia as they had claimed.

I do not "co-ordinate attacks on Fæ", either here or on other WMF projects, using Wikipedia Review or any other means. Yes, I have created threads relating to Fæ on Wikipedia Review. Yes, I discuss Fæ with other contributors there. When did harassment start being synonymous with discussion? The vast majority of those discussions are visible to anyone who cares to read what I have actually written, rather than relying what has been insinuated here and elsewhere. I can understand why people are defending Fæ here and why some here see my actions as negative, but there is no need for people on either side of this discussion to fabricate evidence. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

View 2 by ReverendWayne

The policy WP:ADMINACCT requires an administrator to reply to concerns of the community. Evidence suggests that Fæ misrepresented his past at RfA by stating he had taken a clean start after an RFC/U when it appears that he changed names to avoid the scrutiny of an RFC/U in progress. This concern was raised both in the current RFC/U and on Fæ's talk page, but he has offered no substantive reply. Even if the community should have exercised greater caution in giving Fæ the bit, his deception ten months ago and his refusal to answer a proper question now, together, amount to conduct unbecoming. Fæ should no longer be an administrator unless reconfirmed by the community.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm going to carefully endorse this. I agree with everything it says, since it doesn't actually call for an enforced recall. It calls on the subject of the RFC to properly address the concerns herein and elsewhere. That I endorse. Begoon ^talk 04:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Peter cohen (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
4. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
5. The subject of the RFC is failing to properly address the concerns here. Fae's lack of communication has become part of the problem. Youreallycan 15:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
6. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
7. Draco^E Redacted, per WP:NOTCLASSY and Fæ’s email to me, which suggests he read my comment. Mission accomplished. Donkey punch, anyone? 14:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
8. This sums up one of my biggest concerns quite nicely. Kcowolf (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
9. Central point, most everything else is a red herring.VolunteerMarek 10:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
10. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
11. Per VolunteerMarek N^oformation ^Talk 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by PaoloNapolitano

A website which Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community have no control over, harbours harassment of high-profile Wikipedia editors. The sole purpose of this page appears to be attacking Wikipedia and harassing high-profile users. The most alarming about the page are it's subforums who promote, and are devoted to harassment of Wikipedia users. Because of this, Wikipedia and the WMF should discourage use of the website.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I can't confirm the sole purpose of WR as I've only looked at a few diffs enough diffs to confirm various allegations - including that at least one regular was Homophobic. But there have now been several occasions where events there have caused disruption here, and I don't recall anything positive coming out of that site. I'd suggest that any editor who uses both should make a choice between the two. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Yeah I look at it sometimes, that's pretty accurate. We should be really cautious about enabling their drama and so on. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
3. I agree with half of this; I can't say that WMF would take a stand against the site, however. I do agree that a site that harbours banned Wikipedia users cannot be good for Wikipedia; it's not review, it's mob creation. Additionally, this actually has nothing to do with the RFC itself. CycloneGU (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
4. I agree, use of Wikipedia should be discouraged by the WMF. Harassment and attacks on members are rife on subforums such as AN/I and RfA. It's a website which Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community seem to have no control over. :) Don't judge something before looking at it. Wikipedia Review has a positive influence on Wikipedia in many ways... crappy articles are highlighted there and members go over to WP and fix them (often these errors are on BLPs), corruption is exposed and often routed, discussions censored on WP are freely (if sometimes rudely) allowed to progress and develop on WR. It's your safety valve. It keeps the worst monsters from walking your back alleys. →StaniStani  04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
5. I'm reluctant to support "discouraging the use" of a website, but WP:CANVASS should either be repealed entirely or else applied in this case where the WR editors are concerned. Wnt (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Volunteer Marek

The above statement by PaoloNapolitano is irrelevant to this RfC, out of place, serves only to inflame pointless drama and is thoroughly ridiculous. I could as well propose a statement to the effect that Wikipedia and the WMF should do something about that damn American Pomeranian club website which has been irritating me lately. Additionally, people who claim to "have only looked at a few diffs" or "only look at it sometimes" and similar statements, which are obviously trying to veer between not wanting to admit that they read the damn thing while at the same time pretending that they know what the site is actually about (since it would be nonconstructive to condemn a site one has never seen) should either admit outright that they follow WR compulsively or simply refrain from offering uninformed opinions.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I raise my hand. →StaniStani  04:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm not endorsing all of it, but it's not for Wikipedia to say what Wikipedians may or may not do off-site, unless it results in disruption on-site. I think WR has devolved into being pretty much Something Awful, but there are some Wikipedians whom I respect who comment there, and that's their right. Anyway, if editors involved in this RfC/U have disrupted Wikipedia through their actions elsewhere, sanction them, but don't make a blanket rule about other websites. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Disclosure: I am (or was) a Wikipedia Review member, and my WR account is currently suspended since I leaked some secret threads and postings about the outing of ED sysops, why Wikipedia Watch is down, and why Scroogle is experiencing technical difficulties. Nevertheless, the WMF shouldn't dictate which websites its users use. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

View by certifier Nobody Ent

• I do not care about anyone's sexual preference.
• I skimmed WR once about ≥ 18 months ago (don't remember exactly); took a second glance a week or two ago in the context of this RFC and the unblock request of Mistress Selina Kyle. I have never posted there.
• I do not wish anyone real world harm, and advocate treating everyone civility. Nonetheless I consider dealing with harassment and physical threats is the purpose of local law enforcement, not Wikipedia.

It has been falsely claimed that linking Ash=Fae via on-wiki evidence is outing. To the contrary the outing standard applies to "legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information." Note the list does not include prior Wikipedia accounts. The applicable standard is cleanstart: "If you attempt a clean start, but are recognized, you will be held accountable for your actions under both the old and new accounts. The fact that you notified someone of the change will not excuse you from the consequences of your actions or protect you from recognition." By linking both accounts with his real world name, Ash/Fae (AF) has clearly failed to follow the cleanstart protocol.

I have certified this RFC because, in my analysis, AF has shown a pattern of deceptive clintonesque editing. I don't see it as a new RFC but rather the logical continuation of the one he ducked out of years ago. That RFC was suspended after AF announced his apparent departure; in fact, he created a new account 13 hours later.

A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start fresh with a new account. "Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history" is socking. As AF overlapped his edits, he was socking, not cleanstarting.

During his RFC, he prevaricated about his so-called cleanstart in that he made the false claim that it was after his RFCU.

When asked explicitly about it, he ducked the question

He claimed/implied he would not participate in this RFC , but he made statements both on their user talk page and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Fæ and on their talk page , where he falsely implies he was "so scrupulously honest"

During the talk page discussion he again makes a false statement which he only acknowledged after being caught,

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has been accused without evidence of being a homophobe and failed community ban started. Just as Super PACs are used in US presidential campaigns, this has been done without AF's direct involvement; rather he left vague insinuation on their talk page. He discouraged independent evaluation of claims regarding DC with the contention that merely doing google searches would result in physical harm to him. While he has not made direct accusations, he could have stopped or mitigated them with a statement to the effect "While DC and I disagree about xxx, there's no evidence he's a homophobe," and failed to do so. Silence implies consent.

AF lists himself open to recall but couches his criteria with a "negative canvassing" qualifier such that such listing is essentially meaningless. He fails administrator accountability by ignoring queries regarding recall .

In summary, AF is an editor who shows little actual respect for the Wikipedia community and repeatedly skirts the truth.

For good or ill, I have been involved in dispute resolution for awhile now and I'm fairly good at reading Wiki leaves. I have no illusion this RFC will end with other than "no consensus" nor that AF will do the honorable thing and request a desysop and a new RFA. Nonetheless it is valuable in that it both ensures his future actions will be highly scrutinized and allows the community to send him a message that hopefully will encourage him to be more forthcoming in the future.

Users who endorse this view:

• Fæ did eventually acknowledge the overlap between the two accounts in his RfA, but I can't say I'm impressed by the initial attempt at using the politician's trick of talking about anything but the thing he was asked. And there is no sign that that tendency towards prevarication is entirely a thing of the past. --JN466 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Lots of deception involved with the editor's history. Here was one blatant violation where User:Ash outright stated that he was no long contributing. Due to the rather misleading userpage you can see even now, that makes several comments suggestive of the editor leaving altogether, many editors were unaware that Ash had simply taken on a different name. This clearly was done as an attempt to dodge the RfC and appears to have been just one of many ways this was attempted (one of those other ways being an attempt to delete the RfC when it was in DC's userspace).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)