John Vandenberg distances himself Options

[carbuncle]

The chickens are coming home to roost...

Did you ever imagine...
Did you ever imagine that after my being your chief critic and the lead of the opposition to your RfA, that I would be your chief defender and lead of your defense in your RfC? Now, I don't know how you've been as an admin over the past year---People are speaking on your behalf and no meaningful evidence of abuse has been presented---so I'm assuming you've done an adequate job. But I do find the dichotomy of the two times we've interacted to be interesting.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I was clear in my RFA that a discussion challenging and improving the clean start policy would be a good idea. I don't really see it as a dichotomy, I always respected the alternative point of view and was happy to have it expressed in my RFA and would have accepted that at the time as a reason for rejection. I now deeply regret sticking to my values by openly declaring a clean start as part of my RFA. Sadly, I would find it hard to advise any prospective admin to be so scrupulously honest in the future, particularly if they might take an active voluntary role in the work of the chapters. I would be surprised if Arbcom would now give the same advice they gave me before accepting an admin nomination. As for my use of the admin tools, anyone who takes time to examine my work in detail will find the tools used carefully and consistently, taking advice when needed. Considering the intense scrutiny my contributions would have had over the last week as part of the hunt for evidence of any "evil doing", I am confident that has already been demonstrated. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom did not advise you. Arbcom didnt know about you until 6 March 2011 and the RFA was already live on 14 March 2011‎. Arbcom's only response was to acknowledge receipt of your email. The RFA was live before they could possibly have properly analysed the cleanstart.
I did advise you. I privately told you that "You should also assume, at all times, that all of your previous accounts and anon edits will at some point be outed." and I gave you one of many examples of how you could be outed. So far I havent see any evidence that you're a bad admin. However you have not understood that cleanstart depends on you not connecting your new account with your old account, as you have been adding to the collection of data which connects Fae to your old account. You need to accept that it was your actions since the RFA which have been at odds with your desire to keep Fae separate from your old account. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[carbuncle]

Let's add the rest, because it's good stuff:

Sorry John, my first email to you was on the 8th January 2011 (I left a YGM note on your Wikipedia user page for it on 4:47 pm, 12 January 2011) in which I asked you "Perhaps you might be able to lend a hand with confirming (or indeed not confirming) whether my edit history prior to my clean start as User:Fæ poses any issue with RfA?". I also stated "If you do offer to investigate my prior account I would be happy to follow your advice on how to handle RfA or defer the idea. I previously contacted NewYorkBrad at the beginning of December about the same issue and he offered to look into it but has not replied to a follow-up email and so I have to assume he's been too tied up to get back to it." You responded to that email on 27 January 2011 and I explained my past account to you on 28 January 2011. There should also be a record of the email from PhilKnight on 5 March 2011. In your email to me on 5 March 2011 you stated that you had looked into in since January and reviewed the case in detail during the past day, which I read as you looking into my case and my past account as far back as January 2011, though perhaps I misunderstand you? Please check your records. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
[some intervening chat about the RFC/U snipped]

I dont know what you are contesting. You did approach NYB and I prior to that, but neither of us had time to look at it. You didnt inform Arbcom until 5 March, and PhilKnight merely acknowledged your email to arbcom-l. I did start to look at your account history properly on March 5-6 and decided to assist in a personal capacity by recommending that you go and talk to Lar. In our one-on-one discussion I told you that Arbcom would not be involved more than to simply log the new and old account, without any analysis done. I made sure to inform the community of this as well. I'm just making it clear that Arbcom didnt opine. I did. I'm OK with what I did, as I tried to not lie to the community, but I'm listening to the community too. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick John. I obviously am making undue assumptions about what forms the record for Arbcom or how Arbcom processes work. I had thought that my emails discussing and reviewing my possible RFA to NYB and yourself before 5 March 2011 counted as contacting and discussing my RFA with Arbcom members. If you count these as off the record personal emails that's fine, but I believe that this distinction was not pointed out to me until now.
I appreciate your comment about the community and I would fully support any process for consensus building. At the same time Russavia's comments about what happened last month when an apparent travelling circus coordinated through Wikipedia Review successfully de-railed my Wikimedia Commons RFA should be taken into account to ensure any process is a fair representation of the community view. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[No one of consequence]

Let's add the rest, because it's good stuff:

Sorry John, my first email to you was on the 8th January 2011 (I left a YGM note on your Wikipedia user page for it on 4:47 pm, 12 January 2011) in which I asked you "Perhaps you might be able to lend a hand with confirming (or indeed not confirming) whether my edit history prior to my clean start as User:Fæ poses any issue with RfA?".

So she was trying to use Arbcom to immunize herself from her past? That has never worked, and to even try is a gross misunderstanding of how Arbcom is supposed to work. Plus, she commits the error of assuming that no response=approval, which has gotten multiple editors in trouble, and (if I recall correctly) led to John's first resignation, when he took non-response to an Arbcom mailing list proposal as assent.

Arbcom should probably put up a note somewhere,

Arbcom can not absolve you of your past sins or immunize you from the consequences of past actions, so don't even ask.

[carbuncle]

So she was trying to use Arbcom to immunize herself from her past?

Psssst - Fæ is a man, man.

[No one of consequence]

So she was trying to use Arbcom to immunize herself from her past?

Psssst - Fæ is a man, man.

I thought Fae was "Ashley"? Must be a Brit thing. I can't think of any male "Ashley's" in the US, other than in Gone With The Wind (and 18th century US Southern culture had more in common with English culture than with US Northern culture in any case).

Excuse my silly transatlantic prejudices.

[Kelly Martin]

I thought Fae was "Ashley"? Must be a Brit thing. I can't think of any male "Ashley's" in the US, other than in Gone With The Wind (and 18th century US Southern culture had more in common with English culture than with US Northern culture in any case).

Excuse my silly transatlantic prejudices.

Ashley is a fairly common man's name, although it has fallen out of favor as a male name in the US in the past few decades.

[No one of consequence]

Ashley is a fairly common man's name

Of course, although my first assumption was otherwise.

although it has fallen out of favor as a male name in the US in the past few decades.

Which explains it, as I am roughly that age (a few decades (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif) )

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[Vigilant]

It's pretty rich that Ashley van Haeften and his cohorts want to censure delicious carbuncle for outing when the original crux of the dispute, as user Ash, was adding people's name to "List of Bathhouse Regulars".

That's rare air even by wikipedia standards.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

And the 'threat' that Ashley is afraid of is quoted as having pictures, that he uploaded to commons, sent to his partner...

Seriously?

What a queen. I've shown this to a couple a gay friends who, while castigating me for wasting my time with this(you don't know me, I do what I want!!), are howling over the victim card playing, hysterics throwing, poofy flouncing coming from van Haeften.

The killer quote was, "He gives fags a bad name. Sheesh." Thanks Tony.

This post has been edited by Vigilant:

[Vigilant]

Quite the humbled Tigger.

Looks like Rabbit has won this round.