Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[carbuncle]

(mod note: "Conflicts of interest, paedophila images" subtitle added)
(mod note: See previous topic, 'Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face', for background)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

[Peter Damian]

Vandenberg says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...comment/F%C3%A6

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

This is correct, as I noted here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...t=35679&st=140# .

For reasons of disclosure it should be noted that after an RFC/U which caused me to refocus and improve my Wikipedia editing I took the option of a clean start, though I have never been blocked. Prior to this nomination I spoke privately with one of the critical contributors to the discussion, who knows both account names and we have resolved our concerns. I will recuse myself of admin requests related to editors who gave an opinion in that discussion. This is the first time I have had an RFA nomination. Fæ (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...minship/F%C3%A6

Who was the 'critical contributor to the discussion'? It was not Vandenberg (see below). And why did Vandenberg suggest that it would not unduly affect the outcome of the vote, given that many people were not even aware of the RfA? Vandenberg's argument was precisely that the "there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history", which is bizarre.

Vandenberg should be the focus of this, rather than 'Fae'. Fae is simply exploiting the corrupt nature of a system that allows these favours to be traded with influential and regarded admins like Vandenberg.

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

As I said to Balloonman below, there is no need to trust my judgement on the previous contribs.[1] The only request I have is that you believe me when I say that a participant in the old RfC (the 'prior critic') is aware of the previous account, has looked at the new contribs and reviewed the old history, and has not rocked up here to oppose this RfA. In addition, I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used.

Answering "What was the focus of the old contributions" will also simplify determining the old account name. However, I can answer "Are they ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here?", but this will end up being something you'll need to trust me on, and I don't think you will, but answers should be given anyway. A reasonable !voter here would not be concerned about the focus of the old account. It was too narrow for an admin candidate, but Fae has since broadened their focus. The reasonable !voter would be concerned about the specific issues raised at the old RfC/U, if the RfC/U been recent and there wasn't much evidence that the previous concerns have been resolved; the reasonable voter would have be voting 'great contributor, but not right now' and 'maybe next year' had the concerns about Fae been recent.

However the RfC/U is not recent, and the reasonable voter now has 50,000 edits to survey in an effort to work out if there are any issues. I consider the 'former critic' mentioned above to be a tough !voter at RfA, especially when they are concerned about something.

Had Fæ disclosed their prior account here at RfA, no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history. In both scenarios, respected members of our project would feel the need to oppose in order to protect the project from the unknowable: will the prior concerns re-emerge. To that, all I can say is that the people who know the prior concerns don't think it is probable, and are not the sort of people who will sit by quietly if it ever eventuates. And Fæ knows this. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[HRIP7]

The RfC/U was deleted by Will Beback today. The reason Will gave was that it was not established that Ash and Fæ were the same person, and that arbcom, in response to his inquiry, failed to confirm that they were. This being so, Will concluded that therefore the RfC was based on a faulty premise, and deleted it.

Twenty minutes later, arbitrator John Vandenberg undeleted it ...