Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ

Any genuine admin issues?

Motion to close

Desired outcome So, the desired outcome of this RfC/U is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to Archive Past Discussions

I still disagree, but it appears this is opposed. See Comment below. Closing discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have already tried to archive the discussions at the top of this page due in part to the length of the page (over 227,000 bytes, definitely over 200 KB), the excessive load time that results from such a page length, and having to burrow through 16 stale discussions to find the one comment in the one discussion that one is seeking. I am hereby filing a motion to archive past discussions to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fæ/Archive1. CycloneGU (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My advice, although I don't feel very strongly, is not to archive. So long as another editor objects to the archiving, I think it's reasonable to take the position that editors should see all of the discussion as we try to come to a consensus, and the talk page will have a fixed (30 day) lifespan. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is of course true, but my action was strictly given the length of the page. There's a reason WP:ANI archives discussions that are a single day stale. Of course, if the editorship in general disagrees, so be it; it remains a technical strain on the server the bigger the page gets. Further, the relevant discussion is not on this page, but rather here. CycloneGU (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps part of the issue is that you archived a large number of discussions without regard for which ones may still be relevant to the active discussions. Most of those discussions had comments only days ago and may not yet be complete. As someone who has expressed a strong opinion here, I do not think you should be the one deciding what is "stale" or what discussions should be archived. I would have no objection to automatic archiving of threads over, say, 10 days old, but manually archiving large amounts of content here is probably not helping the poor overworked servers as much as it is hiding relevant information. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - This suggestion is totally unnecessary and detrimental to investigation of the issues. Youreallycan 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like yet another attempt at rug-sweeping; joining Will's deletion and Rich's de-listing attempts. Tarc (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am hereby filing a motion that this unsupported section be closed. Think of the server resources we can save by just hatting this now. You know it makes sense. Begoon ^talk 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thats a clear hat trick - sometimes its incredulous the way such issues happen - I have looked at it in depth but , its senseless basically, sure there are partisans but there are also many fringe contributors that just defy interpretation . At such times it relieves me to remember that en wikipedia has many editors as young as nine years old. Youreallycan 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aw, it was just really my humorous way of opposing, and suggesting that maybe voting on something like that was a tiny bit of a waste of people's time, perhaps. That's all I was saying. But I do agree that information is often "tactically" hidden, or attempts are made to do so. Just wasn't commenting on that here. :-) Begoon ^talk 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, no worries, your humorous position was clear. Youreallycan 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• As I did in the Cirt RfC, before this RfC closes, here on the talk page I will list, with diffs, the editors who made personal attacks and/or unsupported accusations of homophobia and bigotry against some of the participants in this RfC. Wikipedia editors need to understand that using such contemptible tactics in an attempt to "win" a debate, is unnaceptable. Cla68 (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This talk page should not be archived. The RFC is uncertified, but is being allowed to run, for whatever reason. The longer it runs the more information comes to light, a process which has clarified the dispute for me, from the original appearance of two editors unable to resolve their differences, and escalating in process, albeit mainly by DC, in good faith, to a slightly different and more disturbing picture. (I wholly support the thesis that the majority of porn actors are less notable than the majority of mainstream actors, for three reasons, firstly the mainstream of anything is almost always more notable, secondly porn is (I believe) mostly ephemeral, and thirdly porn is (again generally) a bulk low quality commodity.)
  • None of the substantive editing issues are ... well ... substantive.
  • The RFA issue is being used to associate two accounts contrary to common decency, and to policy, and possibly law
  • DC and Bali Ultimate follow Fae onto other projects, exporting the arguments there
  • DC and Bali Ultimate together with others on the satirical site Wikipedia Review co-ordinate attacks on Fae, which have included socks of banned users on WMF projects.
  • The comments have moved from what looked like valid (if overstated) concerns over sourcing to personal attacks, innuendo and smears, which are likely to have, and indeed have the stated intention of having, off-wiki repercussions.

Now this may be all construed as a part of the Wiki-game by some people, but to me it seems the type of behaviour we need to recognise and firmly quash. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment

My effort to archive was for sections that had not been replied to for a few days and, per comments to DC on my talk page, were not meant in any way to be any effort to sweep anything under any type of rug, carpet, or linoleum floor. It was merely meant as a page cleanup utility, archiving discussions that are older so that newer and active discussions remain on the page. Threads archived are not "hidden", they are still available for anyone investigating any issues. Regardless, the items to be investigated are not on this page; they are on the project page.

With that said, it appears my archiving efforts are opposed by more people than support it (did anyone support it, I don't think I see another). I must respect this even if I still disagree with it. Thus, I will respect the wishes of the community, but will refuse to search for comments in older threads per the reason I archived in the first place. If anything needs to be brought to the attention of everyone, it really is best to start a new section rather than reply to threads that are several days old. I hope discretion will be used in closing discussion in various areas that have been idle, encouraging new threads if necessary.

With that said, I withdraw my motion. CycloneGU (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alternate "desired outcomes" ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on anonymous editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the section below, I listed editors, with diffs, who I felt violated WP:NPA during the course of this RfC. Some disagree, as TParis' comments illustrate, that the examples constituted violations of NPA. I stand firm in my opinion, however, that the diffs show ad hominem attacks which I consider to be violations of NPA. The editors I had listed, with supporting diffs, include: Russavia, Prioryman, Shrigley, Matty the Damned, Bluerasberry, Secret, Exok, AniMate, Wnt, FeydHuxtable, and WereSpielChequers. Cla68 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Re above allegations

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me the critical point here is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the RfC, Tryptofish has stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for point two. Reread the proposal again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/F%C3%A6&action=history – I don't believe that it's fair for Wnt's allegations about Delicious carbuncle to remain accessible, while my rebuttal isn't. At the moment, anyone can view the edit history and see Wnt's allegations about Delicious carbuncle is homophobic, but they won't be able to view any strong rebuttal of it. If Wnt's allegations are to remain in the edit history without a proper rebuttal accessible to reviewers, then I believe that any further discussion will be severely biased against Delicious carbuncle. If my revision is to be kept suppressed, then I would asked for revisions 475684225–475753974 and revision 475764298 should be suppressed as well in order to keep this from being one-sided. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if we suppress that, then we should suppress any statements that Fae exaggerated the role of anti-gay sentiments also. By the time we finish, we'd have suppressed everything and simply deleted this whole RfC. You know, maybe that's not a bad idea... Wnt (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/F%C3%A6&diff=475795227 – Perhaps they should unsuppress my counter-argument so that those going through the page history have access to both sides rather than only one side. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if they don't suppress what Wnt said, then what was the point of suppressing what I said? The content that Fæ didn't want anything to see are still accessible. Since the content that Fæ was complaining about is still accessible, then the suppression of my revision doesn't accomplish anything other than to censor the counter-argument. If Wnt's argument is still accessible in the page history, then my counter-argument should be accessible as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he does have a point, and as I've acknowledged above, my posting of the link was generally contrary to policy. "Linking to external harassment, attacks, or to sites which routinely engage in such attacks is usually inappropriate, and should be done only after careful thought has been given to the likely effect on the victim." If I gave any thought to the effect, I'd be lying to say it was careful. I will not oppose revdeling my edits containing the link as he suggests. (nor un-revdeling his edit if that outcome is preferred) Wnt (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am responsible for the suppression. I have reviewed it and believe it was proper; however, multiple links and references to off-wiki material cannot all be suppressed. In the end, editor discretion is required. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without the ability to access my counter-argument, what do you suppose users will base their discretion on? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: "However, multiple links and references to off-wiki material cannot all be suppressed." Then in reality, you haven't actually done anything to safeguard Fæ's privacy. Since you admit that safeguarding Fæ's privacy is impractical, all that suppressing my comment did was to censor the counter-argument. You might as well unsuppress my comment so that a counter-argument may exist. No one, even Fæ, truly benefits from the suppression of that comment, but the suppression will cause Delicious carbuncle and his or her reputation to suffer. The suppression accomplishes the opposite of what it meant to do. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be clearly understood by those reading this page that many of the contributors to this debate are active editors at the satirical website Wikipedia Review.

While Delicious Carbuncle denies "co-ordinating attacks" on Fae on that site, it is used, by him and others, to post information about what Fae is doing, on and off Wikipedia, and to report on what is happening. And of course they then go off to the appropriate pages, using whatever account or socking method they prefer and join in. I don't see them supporting Fae, therefore it seems not unreasonable to say they are co-ordinating attacks.

Members include

• Delicious Carbuncle (who raised the AN/I and RFC after reading about Fae on WR)
• Tarc (who reverted my de-listing of the RFC, despite the fact that it was not properly certified)
• Bali ultimate
• Cla68
• SB Johnny
• Michaeldsuarez

Most of these users are scarcely seen around Wikipedia, yet they all suddenly turn up here.

I think the last smidgen of assumed good faith just evaporated. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

This is complete nonsense. And yes I post there too. Particularly the claim that Most of these users are scarcely seen around Wikipedia, yet they all suddenly turn up here. - most of these users have done far more to improve the "encyclopedia" part of Wikipedia (rather than the "pointless drama board" part of it) than you, or many of the other participants here have.

And then you get crap like this: using whatever account or socking method they prefer and join in. - is there an SPI you want to file on any of these people? No? Then stop adding even more unfounded allegations to the whole mess. Accusations of socking are serious matter. Above, Cla's comments were hatted simply because supposedly "unfounded allegations" of personal attacks (despite the fact that these "allegations" were supported by numerous diffs) are personal attacks themselves. Take that to heart. There's not a shred of evidence of sock puppetry here. Block time.VolunteerMarek 22:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:PumknPi is a sock of blocked WR editor Tungsten Carbide. Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And there's nothing "satirical" about Wikipedia Review, whatever that is supposed to mean (I'm guessing trying to portray it as "non-serious"). Yes, the average level of common sense and sense of humor there are a bit more developed than here on Wikipedia. But the criticisms are very serious.VolunteerMarek 22:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greogry Kohs on WR boasts of having bought an admin account. Regulars boast of their multiple socks. A banned user returned to attack Fae on Commons. A throwaway account attacked him here. At least one account on this talk page has been blocked as a sock.

And if you don't understand why I say "satirical website", never mind. It is more polite than "hate website" which is what most of it is. And maybe you are right it is block time, but I am always reluctant to block people. Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

As far as I can tell Gregory Kohs is not one of the people you list above. You made an allegation of sock puppetry and then listed some names. If your intent was to accuse some abstract "others" of sock puppetry, but not the user names you actually listed, then please strike your comment and/or clarify it. Otherwise, file an SPI report against DC, Tarc, BU, Cla68, SBJ and Michaelsdsuarez. And let's see how those go...VolunteerMarek 00:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich, where were you when BADSITES was being proposed as a policy or guideline? They could have used your support since the initiative failed. That was back in the days when some people would actually oppose candidates in RfAs for having WR accounts. Cla68 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is useful, although I understand why people would. Wikipedia Review does serve a function, and if it didn't exist someone would have to create it. Many highly respected editors (I would include Volunteer Marek in that category) have accounts there. Nonetheless there are things that go on there that are puerile vindictiveness, not surprisingly given that it also attracts banned users who can't let go, people who run out-and-out attack sites, and people who are there to troll WR since they can no longer troll WP. This is all very fine and when that sort of thing that happens in that forum is pretty irrelevant to WP. But when the maelstrom is exported back to WP, that is a bad thing, and those who are unaware of its source should be told. Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Rich, in your opinion, could any discussion or directing to threads on Wikipedia from WR be considered off-wiki canvassing in the appropriate circumstances? I daresay this entire RfC is such an affair. And that is assuming good faith. CycloneGU (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt they could be considered canvassing, and indeed much worse, that is the nature of that website. It is to share any "dirt" either with the stated intention of using it to "reform" Wikipedia or destroy it, depending on the user. Or of course just for the "lulz". Rich Farmbrough, 02:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

See ad hominem and count how many times "logical fallacy" appears on the page.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not ad hominem. All these users have been active in WR discussions about Fae, and have turned up here. Maybe there are more. Rich Farmbrough, 23:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I think Rich makes a good point about WR, but so far I'm not aware of actual socking involved - rather, this is a WP:CANVASS problem, as readers of that site may well be recruited in a non-neutral way. Now WP:CANVASS is by nature an ad hominem argument in every application. I do not support WP:BADSITES, and I think the related language in WP:Linking to external harassment is practically unworkable even when I'm favorably disposed toward its purpose. The key reforms we need here are 1) to simply be willing to stand up in support of good editors and to reject cases against them that amount to a whole big pile of nothing and 2) to reject or significantly trim back overbearing "ethical" guidelines like BLP which can be used by the ambitious to gain "editorial control" over Wikipedia and condemn its editors. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone here had just focused on the issues raised in the "Statement of dispute" in the RfC, then it would have been much better for everyone, including Fae. Wnt, part of your view posted in the RfC focused on why you disagree with the issues raised in the "statement of dispute". That was fine. When you, or others like Rich and Russavia, however, use ad hominem tactics like alleging canvassing, BADSITES, homophobia, harassment, and the like, you really do Fae harm because it really discredits your argument. Keep your arguments honest and there isn't a problem. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started with the issues raised on the project page. I have investigated some of the claimed referencing problems, they are non-issues.

Any disputes with User:Ash are resolved, since the account is closed.

There are no ongoing disputes with User:Fae mentioned in that section.

The issue of RFA has been done to death on AAN/I. Re-raising it here and using it as a locus to attempt to out User:Ash is contrary to common decency and WP:SOCK Legitmate uses, section on privacy.

Claims that it is fine to "out" User:Ash because of a sourcing dispute about a nickname an author used in two autobiographies is fatuous to say the least.

Given this and the background, I am naturally lead to wonder why there are users supporting a clearly unsupportable position.

I'm not sure if your position is that it is merely coincidence that a significant proportion of these users come from WR - and indeed are active in DC/Fae threads there.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

(Responding to Peter Cohen) A logician will tell you that plenty of good arguments are logically fallacious and plenty of bad arguments are logically sound. An example of a bad argument would be counting the occurrences of a phrase on a Wikipedia article and drawing some conclusion about the significance of the information Rich Farmbrough provides above. I note that Cla68, in a similarly illogical and condescending move, brought up "ad hominem is a logical fallacy" point to deflect the point about off-wiki canvassing [68]. That isn't a socking claim: I'm just curious as to where this trope has come from. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, Rich, I have an active account on WR too [69], as has John Vandenberg. [70]. --JN466 11:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Those links do not work for me, though. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I feel bad for Fæ. It's dismaying to see another human being's real-life reputation dragged through the mud, essentially because he took a questionable path to becoming a Wikipedia administrator – which, in the grand scheme of things, is an exceedingly minor infraction. However, it is important to recognize that Fæ deserves a good portion of the blame for his own public embarrassment. He uploaded sexual photographs of himself to Wikimedia sites under a previous username, engaged in some questionable editing practices under that username, and started a WP:CLEANSTART at a time when he was coming under scrutiny (even if the scrutiny was not the reason for the CLEANSTART, the timing inevitably appears suspicious). After this, he became a Wikipedia administrator after a RfA in which an arbitrator endorsed him in a way that many editors now question. And then Fæ became a Wikimedia UK trustee and tied his real-world identity to his new account. Tying his real-world identity to his Wikipedia identity created a very real risk that his real-world identity would be tied to the skeletons in his wiki-closet. This risk was exacerbated by Fæ’s status as a Wikimedia UK trustee, making him a public figure and a legitimate target for scrutiny. I am absolutely not saying that Fæ deserves to suffer real-world harm for any on-wiki infractions, nor am I saying that he should be harassed. I’m saying that he left the door open for some ugly things to come out, and my sympathy for him is a little bit limited as a result.

Actual harassment of Fæ should absolutely not be allowed, but I don’t think the editors Rich listed above have been harassing Fæ. It is not outing to tie a CLEANSTART account to a previous account when the editor has tied the new account to his real-life identity. And I don’t see how besmirching other editors’ reputations simply because they participate in Wikipedia Review is helping anything. Rich, call off the witch hunt and stop trying to silence opinions contrary to your own. If you're done discussing the actual issues raised in this RfC/U (the merits of the sourcing concerns, the RfA issue), then stop participating in the RfC/U altogether. Sorry to have been blunt, but it had to be said. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: I've seen three of these photos - none of them are sexual. They're the kind of thing that an actor making a PG-rated romantic comedy could have appeared in. The only thing that makes them "embarrassing" is a) he's not so pretty as some actors, and b) a lot of suggestions, made by others, that maybe he actually likes that kind of thing. All the other vicious rhetoric floating around on WR is based on pure speculation; I've seen no sex photos at all. Wnt (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, Wnt. I haven't taken it upon myself to view any of the photos, as gay sexual imagery is not exactly to my taste. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic claim of Farmbrough's here is "Any disputes with User:Ash are resolved, since the account is closed". If I logged out of "Tarc" and logged into "AnonymousGuyX" and started trolling some discussion here, "Tarc" doesn't get away scott-free if the connection is discovered. This perverse hair-splitting of a real-life person into "activities as Ash" and "activities as Fae" is just bizarre. Tarc (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but agree. I've seen that point of view put forward elsewhere here, too. If that's what a cleanstart is, a mechanism for instant absolution from all your sins without discussion, complete disappearance, even while the subject of an RFC, and a brand new, squeaky clean identity, no questions asked, ever, even when applying for positions of trust, then I apologise for even posting at this RFC. In that event I should be posting at the RFC for cleanstarts. Begoon ^talk 02:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that point of view, but Ash walked away from the gay porn bios which were the disputes were. It is not useful or sense to claim they are not resolved, DC and whoever else was opposing user Ash effectively "won" by default, DC says this quite clearly "everything has been peaceful since Ash left" (paraphrase but pretty close). To try and resurrect this with the "evidence of disputed behaviour" at this attempted RFC is a major fail. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That's why I agreed, in the "Motion to Close" section above, that refocussing an RFC on the genuine issues of concern here would be a good move. Unless you want all this to happen again. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, that is completely the opposite of what happened with Ash/Fæ (not Fae). Ash was the account that became tied to what felt like harassment, and a WP:CLEANSTART was deemed appropriate likely for this reason among others. Fæ came to be after the fact and didn't have any problems - at least not serious ones. Fæ even gained the trust of the community and became an administrator. Now...I personally have never been part of any alternate accounts, so by that rule, I should automatically qualify to be an admin...right? Wrong. Fæ gained the trust of the community through his actions on Wikipedia and even got onto the Board. That is a rare accomplishment, and is the only reason we know of the link between the two accounts. If not for someone bringing to a public forum the linking of an image formerly tied to the same personal name - which for all we knew at first glance (i.e. without "digging") could have been a completely different person (hey, my first and last name are shared by a lot of people) - we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I do believe that the user in question seriously meant to bring action against Fæ. This user would not have brought this information to the spotlight if there was not a serious intent to cause further harm and embarrassment to Fæ. And, even if it is something that just anyone could have found out, it is shameful and an embarrassment to the editor in question to make a spectacle out of this. Yes, things are going to come out of this RFC/U, good and bad. Embarrassing Fæ to the point that he might have to have yet another WP:CLEANSTART is not something that should have happened. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything you have stated above does nothing but perpetuate the lie of "treat Ash and Fae as separate entities". That is not how life works, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's your problem. They ARE separate identities. And someone - I won't shame this person by naming him/her unless that person identifies him/herself - deliberately posted information linking the two accounts in an attempt to embarrass and shame Fæ. This is the very definition of outing. It doesn't matter if the information was there publicly available in the first place. The very nature of what this user did is the very definition of "outing". And if Fæ is going to be sanctioned for anything - which would be a victory for the off-wiki conduct at WR (and no, I am not saying everyone there is a "nasty") - then the user outing Fæ ought to suffer punishment for bringing this information to a public forum. Was there really a need for any of this - shall we say - shyt?

  Also, you claim "Everything you have stated above does nothing but perpetuate the lie of 'treat Ash and Fae as separate entities'." As already stated, there is no lie in this. The example you yourself give says you could log into "AnonymousGuyX" and do bad activities, and thus suffer punishment under "Tarc". That part you are correct on. That is sockpuppetry and you can get in (big) trouble for that. Saying that Fæ (BTW, I note again, it's NOT "Fae") is a sockpuppet of Ash is, however, NOT accurate. Ash was an account under which the person operating it got off to a bad start, which to me sounds like some kind of harassment took place among other things. In cases of WP:CLEANSTART, an abandoned account (admittedly a month or two later if the evidence is right, but now completely abandoned) is simply and effectively a retired account, like a retired user. This is why it is a separate entity. Fæ is not a sockpuppet of Ash or vice versa. You have compared them to a Tarc/AnonymousGuyX scenario as if it were sockpuppetry. Sad to say you do not know what you are talking about. CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except, when I read what you linked to, it says:

• the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account.
• Changing accounts to avoid the consequences of past bad behaviors is usually seen as evading scrutiny and may lead to additional sanctions.
• 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.

amongst other stuff. Begoon ^talk 12:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what I am talking about, Cyclone. "Sockpuppetry" is quite applicable here, especially as the two accounts controlled by the same person have overlapping edits. Whatever you're mounting this spirited defense for...an attack of WR users or a noble defense of Ash/Fae...it is entirely misguided. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fundamental problem in your reasoning in this comment, CycloneGU, which is that Ash and Fæ are not "separate identities." They are one entity – a human being – a single man. I agree that they're not sockpuppets, but calling them "separate entities" is just fundamentally wrong. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said quite clearly that some highly respected WP editors have accounts on WR (I will add that many other highly respected editors have been banned from, or left Wikipedia). I also said quite clearly that WR serves a purpose. I have left out most of what I have found on WR and other site run by disaffected ex-Wikipedians, which equates to reading many hundreds of forum posts, blog posts and articles, because they are completely different places from Wikipedia and it is perfectly acceptable to say things there that would mean an instant block here - but some of it is far worse than WR. Further to the matter of "witch-hunting" WR members, I opposed the attempt to ban DC, and I removed the SPI templates from Selina's user page. I do agree that Fae may have made unwise choices, including responding above, and I said as much, but it is not our job to penalise him for those choices, or to enable others to do it in the way you describe. And you are assuming things in your statement that even WR do not universally assume. I am not trying to silence anyone, I am simply pointing out certain facts which seem salient. I believe I have probably covered everything significant, but I thought that before and there were still further surprises. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the response. Full reply below. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I think maintaining that most of these editors (and probably one or two more) are involved here as a result of their involvement at WR is unexceptional. It is also demonstrable that WR regulars have used underhand tactics, in the past, and blocked users have returned to attack Fae on WMF projects recently. That is not to say that the entirety of WR edits as a bloc, it clearly does not, WR regulars abuse each other as much or more than they abuse WP. Ascribing to me a position that goes beyond the evidence, whether deliberately or through reading too much into my post is not helpful. I do not take such a position. My position is that readers of this dispute, and the ANI over blocking DC should be aware that a substantial number of those supporting DC are party to off-site forums which advertise such discussions, primarily for the purpose of influencing them. Readers should also be aware that the contributors there are largely hostile to Wikipedia. If there are more WR editors here supporting DC they should have the decency to make themselves known. Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Since you brought my name up, do you think my comments have been supportive of Fae or in opposition to Fae? Unless I'm missing something, I've mostly been commenting on (1) how it's a bit silly not to just acknowledge that 2 accounts are one person's account, (2) how the "sex-scandal" crap is unhelpful to all sides, and (3) offering some fact-checking regarding "unnamed persons" who have been accused of being bigots and dismissed as such. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that people come from WR is not saying that they have no moral standards. And indeed we appear to share the view that both homophobia and homophobiaphobia at least do not need to enter the equation. To me though, the matter of linking the two accounts is important. User:Ash edited gay porn bios pseudonymously, and has a right to expect that we not associate that account with his real world identity. If the editing was sufficiently tendentious the community has a right to put a stop to it. Had the RFC against Ash run to completion and a topic ban on gay porn bios been enacted, and another user appeared and started editing gay porn bios in the same manner, a SPI would have been filed, the two accounts linked and that would have been fine - the new account could not claim WP:SOCK privacy if they edited gay porn bios as the old. But in this case, importantly, there was no topic ban in place, and more importantly Fae did not edit gay porn bios. Therefore any attempt to link the two accounts is egregious "outing". Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I guess my point was that "people from WR" shouldn't have their input and concerns dismissed just because they're "from WR" (personally I think it's entirely possible that we might represent the readers (or end users) better than your average noticeboard buzzard).

However, I have to admit that your argument on the "outing/clean-start" has convinced me. Perhaps I'll be less convinced after sleeping on it, of course. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been well documented above the editor linked both accounts to his real life name on-wiki; I consider application of the transitive property to be routine. Nobody Ent 18:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The transitive property is precisely the point that linking the accounts is outing. And if you read "outing" it makes it quite clear that outing is still outing regardless of how easy or hard the association is to make, there are a whole number of ways you might identify someone verging from the near trivial to extremely sophisticated. It was clear that the account was at that time intended to be anonymously pseudonymous, if I might coin a phrase, that is all that is required. Rich Farmbrough, 19:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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." Nobody Ent 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]