Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fæ

Fæ

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (119/22/7); Scheduled to end 22:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination

Fæ (talk · contribs) – Fæ is a highly active and experienced contributor (for those who like stats: 50,000 edits over 12 months) in a variety of areas in which having the tools would benefit the project. I highlight the following reasons why Fæ should be given the tools:

• Fæ is an OTRS volunteer and has been since August 2010. The fact of being an OTRS volunteer already demonstrates a high degree of trustworthiness. But also, having the administrative tools will help Fæ to carry out important OTRS-related functions, like dealing with copyright and BLP violations that get reported via email.
• Fæ has a demonstrated commitment to, and proficiency in, content work, with three good articles and one featured article.
• Fæ's one featured article, Hoxne Hoard, demonstrates exactly the qualities the project needs in an administrator. The article passed FA as the result of an organised collaboration between multiple editors on- and off-wiki. It's one thing to write an FA yourself; it's another thing entirely to demonstrate the people skills, teamwork and leadership needed to get a large collaboration across the line. I'd also suggest having a look at WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/BL for Fæ's ongoing collaborative work in GLAM projects.
• Fæ is very competent in deletion policy and practice. Fæ makes well-reasoned nominations (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis Xavier Montmorency and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irena Lipienė) and arguments.
• Fæ is a proficient vandal fighter.
• Fæ deals with complaints well - one of the most important parts of being an admin. A review of Fæ's talk page articles reveals that editors do disagree with Fæ from time to time: but the disagreements and complaints are dealt with courteously and constructively. Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

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

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

I don't understand what is being alluded to. What was the focus of the old contributions? Are they ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here? Even if they see the same "refocus" that John sees? Or might he have a different "measure" than some of the other editors in the discussion? I feel that a ball is being hidden from the editors here. We routinely !vote based on contributions of the age that I presume these were. Are we all to cede to John's judgment on this issue, and not allowed to reach our own conclusion based on the "old contributions"? Is this to be a new way to circumvent scrutiny? Just start a new account, and run for sysop? Seems unfair to those we have bounced based on their "old contributions". At the least. I've already !voted, but this strikes me as quite unusual, and has suddenly grabbed my attention. Answers for the community would appear to be called for. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said to Balloonman below, there is no need to trust my judgement on the previous contribs.[1] The only request I have is that you believe me when I say that a participant in the old RfC (the 'prior critic') is aware of the previous account, has looked at the new contribs and reviewed the old history, and has not rocked up here to oppose this RfA. In addition, I swear that the person I am referring to would be here, stridently opposing, if they thought it was in the best interest of the community and project. They are not a meek and mild type. Far from it. They are not here attesting to this themselves as that would make it simple to determine the name of the old account that Fæ used.
Answering "What was the focus of the old contributions" will also simplify determining the old account name. However, I can answer "Are they ones that could concern a reasonable !voter here?", but this will end up being something you'll need to trust me on, and I don't think you will, but answers should be given anyway. A reasonable !voter here would not be concerned about the focus of the old account. It was too narrow for an admin candidate, but Fae has since broadened their focus. The reasonable !voter would be concerned about the specific issues raised at the old RfC/U, if the RfC/U been recent and there wasn't much evidence that the previous concerns have been resolved; the reasonable voter would have be voting 'great contributor, but not right now' and 'maybe next year' had the concerns about Fae been recent. However the RfC/U is not recent, and the reasonable voter now has 50,000 edits to survey in an effort to work out if there are any issues. I consider the 'former critic' mentioned above to be a tough !voter at RfA, especially when they are concerned about something.
Had Fæ disclosed their prior account here at RfA, no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history, but I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now due to the fact that they can't see the prior history. In both scenarios, respected members of our project would feel the need to oppose in order to protect the project from the unknowable: will the prior concerns re-emerge. To that, all I can say is that the people who know the prior concerns don't think it is probable, and are not the sort of people who will sit by quietly if it ever eventuates. And Fæ knows this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, John, this is increasingly disturbing. From what you are saying, had the material that has been hidden from the !voters been disclosed to them, "no doubt there would be a few people who opposed due to the prior history" This is shocking. Your comment that "I doubt that they would number more than the number of people who are opposing now" misses the point -- if they were equal to the number of opposers, then this nomination would not (at this point) pass. And btw, it is irrelevant that you and an editor who brought an RFC against the candidate do not oppose him (thought I note you do not say that that editor "supported" the candidate here -- could that be because of the prior history, that he saw but that other supporters did not see?). The other !voters here deserve to be aware of the same information that you two had access to, and to make their own "informed" decisions. Otherwise, their !votes are severely flawed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 2011-03-19T20:37:15

The English description of the maths has resulted in a distortion, somehow. My estimate on the number of people who would oppose is that they would not number greater than the people who are opposing because the account is undisclosed, without any affect on the overall total. That is just an estimate, for what it is worth, since you asked for it.e.g. There are currently eight oppose !votes on the grounds of the undisclosed account. Had Fae disclosed the account, my estimate is that instead of the current eight !oppose votes, there would be a different set of eight oppose !vote.
You are also inverting my statement with regards to the former critic not opposing. The point is that the former critic not opposing is that they would oppose if they had concerns, and they have told me that they have no intention of opposing. That should answer your question "could that be because of the prior history, that he saw but that other supporters did not see?"
You have the right to oppose because you are not convinced on the basis of one year and 50,000 edits, but I do not agree that you and other !voters deserve to know the previous account name. That would invalidate the WP:Clean start policy. I do accept that the closing crat may wish to independently confirm that the reason for clean start is well founded, as that is the basis on which this RFA exists. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My RFA has resulted in a few people speculating about my clean start and the repeated attempts at outing have fuelled the speculation. I am pleased to find that the majority of my fellow Wikipedians wish to respect the confidentiality of a clean start and I would expect my RFA to make it easier for future nominated candidates to avoid keeping their own clean starts secret. I also respect the viewpoint that some have that full disclosure is necessary at RFA and have no problem with that being a rationale to oppose my RFA regardless of any disclosures I make. To set aside some of these issues I would like to provide the following Extension to earlier disclosure:

I am not Newman Luke and had never heard of this account until my RFA was running. I have never been banned from any topic or article or had any sort of ban imposed on me, ever. I interpret my "refocus" as a more positive style of interaction including active avoidance of drama, as part of clean start avoiding unnecessary interaction with editors that were part of past drama and moving my spheres of interest to new topics to become a more generalist Wikipedian and avoiding the articles which were the sites of previous disputes without it being a complete self-ban. I would intend to continue in the same positive style after this RFA regardless of outcome. Fæ (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: My focus over the last 6 months in helping with GLAM related collaborations means that I am more likely to be one of the go-to-guys for related admin needs around these areas when I am uninvolved (this may include helping during an edit-a-thon or workshops). I have experience raising notices at RPP, UND, AIV, UAA and SPI and, at a minimum after working through NAS, if I am considered competent for the admin task I may offer to help when help is needed with backlogs or where specific issues arise. I would tend to be conservative around deletions and would be likely to only take on cases where I am fully confident of correctly and unambiguously interpreting policy. As can be seen from my contributions I tend to move about rather than sticking to one process (6 weeks of a backlog purge on OTRS, a couple of months clearing out unsourced BLP queues, a month of welcoming new users (that one resulted in a peak in my edit history and skewed my balance of contributions to userspace), various periods of patrol on IGLOO which highlights a variety of problems or hanging out on the IRC help channel for random requests) and would hope to focus on areas that would gain the most immediate benefit from involvement and where I can commit to giving sufficient time in reading policy, guidelines, past cases and then ask for help and feedback if there are things I am unsure of. I already use a number of browser-based scripts to help with routine tasks (such as checking the licences of uploaded Flickr images or formatting a citation based on a GNewspaper image, see User:Fæ/Geek) and may eventually create non-controversial scripts to help with some admin backlog work.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: My involvement in the GLAM/BM, GLAM/BL and GLAM/DER collaborations along with their associated articles (for example Hoxne Hoard (FA), British Library Philatelic Collections (GA) and Vindolanda tablets (GA)) have been my best contributions (and eaten most of my recent wiki-time) with the benefits of working as a team and a chance to meet with curators and museum staff who have devoted their lives to making knowledge freely available to the public (an aspiration that will sound familiar to any committed Wikipedian). More gnomicly, my OTRS work has resulted in some important images and text being verified and made available and sometimes undeleted for articles (often outside my normal sphere of interest, such as all photos owned by the Iowa House of Representatives and an etched metal plate negative thought to be a youthful Abraham Lincoln). I have enjoyed giving friendly personal help for a wide variety of people and in the process have learned a lot about the practical interpretation of international copyright whilst remaining a strict layman on the subject and staying open to sometimes finding out that what I thought was intuitively right and fair, turns out to have a legal case stating the exact opposite.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I can think of no conflicts over the last few months, only polite discussion (if persistent from time to time) and sometimes abuse from vandals (being called things like idiot, fat assed street walker or murderer seem more bizarre rather than stressful). Going further back to October last year the discussion here sticks in my mind as a debate about something insignificant that went on too long (making it an embarrassment for all parties, including me) where I felt that a citation for a photo I had uploaded helped article verifiability and others thought it was not needed consequently deleting the citation repeatedly. I felt strongly that standard policy was unambiguously in support of my opinion but instead of arguing with an evolving local consensus I preferred to take the article off my watch list and walk away to avoid becoming disruptive when this might have been a case of IAR anyway. Looking at the article now, I am delighted to see it has recently achieved GA status with most of my original contributions intact and the photo I uploaded is still the lead image, though the claim of the image caption remains unsupported by a citation. The lesson learned was that if the discussion is stuck then walk away early rather than when it gets embarrassing; there are plenty of other articles needing attention and I can always come back to check up on progress in a few months time (if I still remember what the disagreement was about by then). Though I do not seek conflict situations, I have experience of helping with conflict resolution and Talk:Israel Shamir and Talk:Enthiran are both illustrative examples of articles where I have been heavily involved in resolving conflict and received a bit of flak in the process (the latter example started some deletion discussions which resulted with a new copyright essay on lists being proposed by Moonriddengirl).

Additional question from Vejvančický

4. Why did you choose to keep in secret your previous actions here on-wiki? I respect your right to start with a clean slate, but I also value openness and transparency, especially here at RfA. You don't look like a person unable to explain the matter, so why did you choose to contact only selected editors and ArbCom?

A: I was originally invited to go for RFA a few months ago and so have given plenty of time to thinking through the guidelines and checking past cases with respect to the RFA process, guidelines and best practice. The contacts I have made are as recommended by the guidelines. By making a positive declaration as part of my nomination acceptance I have made no secret of my clean start and by asking Arbcom to confirm my declaration whilst in parallel reconciling with a respected editor who was a critic in my past RFC/U (and being lucky enough to find them prepared to put that in writing as evidence for Arbcom) these steps have been an active interpretation of RFA guidelines which are non-specific about expectations for declarations and provide no guidance for how RFA ought to work for a nomination of a candidate with a clean start background. The archives show that in recent years there are no examples of successful RFA for clean start candidates who have chosen to make an open declaration of their background which has probably discouraged nominations for otherwise suitable candidates and certainly made me delay accepting this nomination. There are many reasons why people take a clean start and due to the declaration I have already made you already know everything that Arbcom consider relevant for RFA, to pursue the matter further would be to compromise the point of clean start which not only offers a clean slate but the opportunity of reconciliation. Doubtless there are some that would prefer a full open book as a prerequisite for RFA but this would eliminate candidates such as myself from ever running, remove the benefits of an environment where reform was encouraged and would instead be likely to foster a culture of the burying of any problematic past rather than offering pragmatic solutions. --Fæ (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold up a moment. You explicitly state above "...by asking ARBCOM to confirm my declaration whilst in parallel reconciling with a respected editor...". Whose parallel are we talking about? Did you approach the other editor for reconcilliation or did ARBCOM? Or did you approach directly, but copy the thread to ARBCOM? Or did you and ARBCOM approach at the same time? I'm struggling to see how John Vandenberg can state I can confirm that Fæ took the time to talk with one of his prior critics... unless John was party to such commentary. Yet John has stated that his comments are in a personal capacity..... it doesn't look like that unless you included John directly, and only John and the third party in your communication?. Why would you pick on John and not some other arbitrator?. Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The email discussions happened in parallel as stated. I'm not sure I understand why the order of email correspondence is that relevant to this RFA but I'll explain it a bit further - at the beginning of this month JV suggested I take the initiative of writing to someone involved in the RFC/U mentioned above, but JV was not a direct party to that email thread which was in confidence until the other party chose to make a statement for the record (I have not seen any statement they might have made but I gave permission for the email thread to be sent to Arbcom). 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. My choice of Arbcom member was based on their reputation and of me having no known involvement with them in the past, it was therefore more a question of picking one from the list rather than not choosing some other arbitrator. I am not in a position to answer questions about the confidential records, the choice of JV's phrasing or appropriateness of the choice of Arbcom member and if these are questions you would like to pursue in full then they require clarification from Arbcom or JV directly. Thanks Fæ (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from My76Strat

5. This tag was placed within the 1st minute. The bitten new editor removes CSD tag and places an under-construction tag 6 minutes later. In the next minute a bot replaces the CSD, and for the next 4 minutes they war against the bot, Their talk page goes to level 3 warning, after the last warning, all within ten minutes, the editor is not see again editing. CSD remained in place 11 hours before an admin action removed the tag. Because this action did occur today, it is appropriate to ask: Why is it such a high priority? (To forgo policy and be away from your own RfA to do it) Do you believe this was a bite? and To what extent would you feel responsible if this editor never returned to edit? My76Strat (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A: There are two parts to your question so I'll unbundle it slightly:

1. I judge the CSD I raised as bitey and was concerned about it before you raised it as a question (see this discussion on the removing admin's talk page). The good practice advice (which I support) is to allow a 10 minute grace period for most cases, I believed this was an exception as when I first saw it, it consisted of two words "Florida park" which were identical to the title (the article has later been moved) and as you can imagine there are many hundreds if not thousands of things that can be described as Florida park (most being places and businesses in Florida rather than "La Florida" in Spain which is what the article has now become) and I thought this was highly likely to be intended as a duplicate of Florida State Parks. By raising the CSD so early on what I thought was a blatant exception, I missed the creator giving the article some context 6 minutes later, it is unfortunate that I did not catch his problems with SDPatrolBot and it is compounded by the unfortunate coincidence that s/he had problems with Mendijur Ornithological Park immediately before. I have gone back to User talk:OI-10-j.artetxe to explain what happened, how to manage speedies in the future and apologise for my premature speedy which had such an unwelcoming unintended consequence with the bot. Using SUL I have checked their 3 accounts but they have no email address for me to do a better job on following up. The experience highlights for me how useful the 10 minute rule of thumb is to make these sorts of poor outcome less likely to happen and I will stick to it in future by preferring improvement notices (which are my habit to use instead of speedies when there is any doubt in my mind). In terms of perception, yes I would feel responsible if the unintended outcome were to put this editor off from returning to try again, they have something of value to add to the encyclopaedia and the reason I joined up with Wiki Guides is to help with our ability to welcome new users and make a positive effort to make their initial experience more than a series of boilerplate templates and user warnings.
2. I do not understand your question about priority and might be misreading it. Looking at new articles is a regular part of what I do on Wikipedia, it is not a priority and neither is it less important that other tasks. As far as I know there is no policy about not doing other things when your RFA is running. You might be referring the guide to requests for adminship which states it is not a policy, says nothing about how to prioritize your time and gives no minimum time for replying to questions. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Your response is well received. It reflects favorable upon you. In my oppose, I did use prose with negative leadership connotations; If I had instead, stated "Your actions indicated a strong sense of dedication, coupled with an exuberance towards the project, with good intentions, that overreach at times, and just needs to slow down a bit". I think you could gather it was an issue we could reconcile, and you would be right! Your concerns are towards the others, because some have show significant regard for this issue. I think you will be fine, and receive favor, with recognition of your positive attributes; Rightfully! Hear this stern pronouncement: "You need to slow it down!" "You need to expend diligence, to find reason not to delete". That simple change in perspective will fix your tendencies. Right now it seems like you are looking for the reason to CSD the article. To the second part, for sure much is not written. Consider an example of a person text-messaging, during a job interview. Written or not, such a decision will have consequence. It was my intent, that had you simply made some welcoming gesture, I would have moved towards support. I have seen actions by you while on patrol myself. Your RfA would be an example to emulate. You had neat appearance, good statements up front, and a who's who of support. It was when, I noticed you hadn't had a single edit here, besides the one where you opened the RfA; And I mentioned the open question. Then I see your activities, you describe as normal. I had just encountered an eerily similar situation. I answered an IRC help which I figured would be a 5 minute deal, a break. I have never had any problems. But this one was different, took an hour, and began the spiral, which is known as my derailment. And for the simple taking, of the request, I had been shown that was negative to judgment. As an old soldier, I am familiar with the inferences. To be sure, it would have been better if I had planned to conduct myself more stringently. And if you had a plan, the better plan is the one that reminds you not to divide your attention, or unnecessarily put yourself at risk. I did highlight the fact, so I could know if it was worth the risk? Having found these examples in recent editing history, is more damning. Inadvertently, you placed a dangerous obstacle against your goal! Blocking yourself, with increased difficulty, for excessive nonchalant. If it is! "neither here nor there" that you are concerned, then yes I did waste a bit of that. I hope you emerge this RfA successful, you are doing well, and handling things well. Continue and you should be fine. As far as hypocrisy within the crowd, there are some, But you are in the presence of some fine people as well. And they will uplift you if needed. I will gladly see you serve as administrator. For now I remain opposed, But my opposition has weakened, and your good conduct forward could sway me to a position of greater support, and I will observe. Thank you. My76Strat (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Balloonman

When reviewing a candidate, I believe their past year is the most important period to review. I'm willing to overlook older indiscretions, thus the fact that you have this account and a clean start is not a deal breaker for me. That being said, not knowing who you used to be, I have a few questions:

6. At a high level, what was the nature of the RfCU? EG 3RR, edit warring, POV pushing, etc? And how have your addressed the issues raised there.

7. Right now it looks likely that this RfA will pass, how has changing your name/hiding your pass affected this RfA? Namely: a) If your old name were known, do you think any of the people who supported you would oppose you based upon previous contact? b) would there be people rising up to oppose you based upon who you used to be? c) prior to the RfC, was your old account infamous or just another account? EG do you think most people who hung out around admin areas were familiar with your name or was the RFC really it?

8. Please describe how you introduced your new account to the community? Did you simply change names and continued to edit the same articles that you had prior to the name change? Did you take some time off from WP before making the name change? Did you take time off from the articles/subjects which resulted in the RfC? Do you still edit those articles? Other?

9. Since starting over, have you used your old account?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

A: (6–9) Thanks for your interest but these questions appear to be a fishing expedition for information about my history before clean start and so I will give this one answer to all four:

The GRFA states that questions here are "for reassurance whether they will present concerns in future" which is the reason that I included an open declaration at the start of this RFA and was prepared to be investigated by Arbcom and take their advice in advance of accepting a nomination. I believe this preparation supported by questions based on my 12 months edit history is more than adequate for the reassurance that the RFA guidelines are looking for. Should you have concerns about my declaration, good character or have reason to doubt my compliance with associated policies then the proper course of action would be better to raise these for the attention of Arbcom rather than continue to ask probing questions that I cannot answer without invalidating clean start confidentiality. Fæ (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have struck my comment about appearance as poor wording. Fæ (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Worm That Turned

10. Have any of the editors who were "against" you in the RfC, knowing you history, supported this run for RfA? (given the number of editors who have !voted, I hope this is not inappropriate) Removed as there is clearly too much bad faith attempting at outing, and question could lead to more. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from Lambanog

11. A dispute has arisen between two editors about chocolate. One editor insists on removing any reference about chocolate having a beneficial affect on cardiovascular disease per WP:MEDRS because the information is based on a primary study and the mainstream medical opinion is that chocolate is unhealthy. Another wishes to retain it because it is an interesting nugget of information. The other editor, however, removes it without further discussion. An edit war is on the verge of erupting when you are called in to mediate. What Wikipedia policies are involved and how would you decide to handle the situation?

A: Your question poses several issues in my mind and though it is tempting to respond with an essay or dive into the massive topic of chocolate, I'll instead focus on the two components, "which policies" and "how would I handle it" with the two caveats that dispute resolution of this type does not require an admin and might be nicely resolved by a friendly request at WP:Third opinion (voluntary process) as in the scenario you give they have not yet gone too far into WP:Edit warring (policy) (which in practice is the short answer to your question and what I would suggest before stepping in) and secondly that as there are only two parties, page protection (policy) would not be appropriate:

1. Identifying reliable sources (medicine) is a guideline (a good one) but not a policy however it does represent a consensus view for the topic and I would refer to it. With that in mind, here are the policies that spring to mind in order of which they occur to me (which I now notice the first 3 are the core content policies):

   • Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (part of OR) - this seems the key policy to drive any resolution: is the study in question easy to verify, is its use fully appropriate for the "beneficial effect" being described, are there really no secondary sources?
   • Verifiability - there may be many issues here relating to verifiability including the nature of the publisher (is it self published or a walled garden of sources) and the burden of evidence for the addition are commonly applied.
   • Neutral point of view - the key component probably being the issue of due weight being given to the primary material, this may lead to it being included due to being a study with some impact, if the impact cannot be found in any other reliable sources apart from a primary study then the discussion will revolve around the whether any mention can satisfy this policy.
   • Being an "interesting nugget" is not, of itself, a clear rationale and whether the information is encyclopaedic (IINFO), adequately peer reviewed (NOT#OR) or of uncertain long term historic significance (Recentism) are likely to form part of this discussion.
   • I'm stopping at 4, these are so wide that I would expect them to cover most likely issues, with the caveat that at the back of my mind would be to give room for common sense (fundamental principle) as in particular with disputes, over literal interpretation of policy can sometimes cause a debate to diverge rather than converge on a resolution or consensus.

2. How I would handle it; my checklist (off the top of my head so I would expect to have missed something obvious and would encourage the dispute participants to point out options and alternatives):

1. Take a careful look at the background history, am I missing something about previous article revisions, earlier archived talk page discussion, does it seem "fringey", have the participants disclosed any conflict of interest, taking into account Conflicts of interest (medicine) (a peek at their contribution histories will give a quick insight and odd patterns will normally jump out at you). Is there a prior or continuing resolution process (if the latter it I would defer until that process concludes). For the topic of chocolate there are a number of commercial companies that have interests in promoting medical benefits of chocolate products but again one would expect any odd pattern to jump out and it is worth asking about any odd edit pattern (whilst firmly assuming good faith) before getting into the nitty-gritty. Before going any further check my intuition, if I'm feeling like I'm missing the point, get some independent eyes on it before doing anything.
2. With what I now know about the background, do I want to take this on? If my experience in the topic is non-existent or the dispute is more extensive and passionate than I feel competent to handle then I might want to ask around for someone with better experience to lend a hand or at least confer with first. If I have any possible interest, I may need to recuse myself or get agreement that it is not an issue (such as having edited a related article).
3. Check for a quick fix. If one of the participants in the dispute has overlooked something obvious, I would have a chat on their talk page or by email if it seems an embarrassing oversight. Other easier options may not have been tested, for example independent verification of a source (like visiting a Library to look at a physical copy) or asking for quick feedback on a noticeboard such as RSN.
4. Realistic mediation proposition, this would follow the best practice of Third opinion if that still seems to fit (if not I would seek independent advice or consider some of the options listed at Mediation). If either of the participants refuse to accept that this type of mediation is appropriate then I would point out some of the other Dispute resolution processes that they can request or we can jointly agree another way to resolve it locally. In my suggested mediation process I would point out that it is not binding and that I am not acting in special authority but the discussion could be referred to if the dispute goes on to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or otherwise escalates. The basics of my expected mediation process would be to summarize, putting the cases clearly from all points of view, after positive confirmation of the facts I would put forward my opinion and recommendation (which itself might be an ongoing process, such as RFC or an expert bibliography review).
5. Keep the article and participants on my watch-list for a couple of months to see if there are later questions, challenges or clarifications requested. If the dispute continues then I would consider helping with moving it on to a recognized dispute resolution process or with raising a 3RR or other notice board request for intervention. Having been involved in the details by that point, I would expect any action to be taken by an uninvolved admin. Fæ (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional question from Cunard

12. Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) wrote in the neutral section, "... there is one question that you can answer without fear of disclosing your past account: have you, yes or no, edited using your prior account since the creation of this one?" Cunard (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A: I replied to Nikkimaria's original comment as I changed one of my replies here as a result, in reply to this additional question about clean start, John V.'s statement that he sees a lot of bullshit clean starts and mine is not one of them seems adequate. Having added a further declaration above and seeing the responses, it is clear that the issue is whether the clean start policy applies to RFAs rather than about my contributions. It seems ethical to, and so I do, make a commitment that if I am given the mop in the future that I will hand it back and comply with any changes to the consensus on how clean starts should apply to RFA. With regard to secrecy, I have made an open disclaimer about my clean start background and from the criticism below it is understandable why others have gone through RFA without making any such open statement. I believe that openness should be encouraged for future requests and, as has happened here, the community then has the benefit of being able to question the volunteers responsible for associated scrutiny and challenge the effectiveness of their procedures. Fæ (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So is that a no? NW (Talk) 15:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

13. Your answer to question #12 was evasive. Please answer "yes" or "no" to that question. Cunard (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A: There was an overlap; I continued to work on a few articles with my old account in order to finish adding information without outing my new account or to close down discussions. There were a total of 23 edits outside of my userspace or not made to fix broken transclusions made by other people as a result of deleting pages in my userspace. There was no double voting and it was made clear that I was closing the account. Fæ (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Fæ: Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Fæ can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats posted to talk —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I have redirected Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fae to here, seems like a good idea. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Support

1. Strong support—awesome editor, per below :). Airplaneman ✈ 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Support - Clearly a devoted user, shows strong signs of having clue, can't find any reason to oppose. —SW— ^express 22:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

   The evidence below showing CSD tagging within minutes of article creation is somewhat troubling, but not enough to move me out of the support column. Hopefully you will reconsider tagging articles for deletion and/or cleanup within minutes of them being created as an admin. —SW— ^gab 15:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Strong Oppose for giving me the impression that he was an admin and thereby preventing me from offering to nominate him. People these days. Otherwise, absolute support for being a fantastic user and an excellent human being plus, if he fucks up, I know his favourite watering hole and when he plans to be there Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Strong Support(edit conflict) All interactions with Fae have been positive. I don't have any issues with Fae becoming an administrator, I believe he would perform the task quite well. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Strong Support - (edit conflict) Great contributor, would do the job to the best of his ability. He has my complete support and trust —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:03am • 23:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Support I thought Fae already was an admin! Sumsum2010·T·C
7. Yeah I also though Fæ was an admin. :) —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Support I've met Fae a couple of times now in real life and think he has the right combination of commitment, temperament and clue. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Support. An easy decision. Both because of the esteem in which I hold the nominator and because everywhere I've seen the candidate, I've never had any qualms. A very clueful editor who would put thee tools to good use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I've seen Fæ all over the place, doing all sorts of great work - I have no concerns at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Support Conscientious editor who works in many different areas. Looks to be a well-rounded candidate. The Interior (Talk) 23:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Strong Support Your not already an admin? Inka⁸⁸⁸ 23:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Strong support, excellent interactions/judgement at AIV and thick-skinned as well. A quick review of edits outside of anti-vandalism indicate that this is a well-rounded candidate. No concerns. Kuru (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Support I have good experience with this person! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
15. Fæ looks like a good editor to me. Good luck. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Eminently sensible and productive editor whose promotion will substantially reduce the workload for the rest of the admin corps.  -- Lear's Fool 01:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Support I can't see why not. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
18. as nom. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
19. Support. A browse through the Fæ's contribution history shows nothing but positive work. 28bytes (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
20. Weak support An exceptional vandal-fighter and a moderately well-rounded candidate otherwise. I really like the transparency shown in the nomination acceptance statement.--Hokeman (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
21. Support. Tiderolls 02:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
22. Support Clearly trustworthy (yay OTRS) and a more than competent editor (Hoxne Hoard is a great article). An asset for sure. Steven Walling 02:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
23. If this fails, I'll quit. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
24. Support Sensible and patient. Acroterion _(talk) 03:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - Per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
26. Support per above. I thought you were already an administrator! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
27. Support. Broadly experienced. Good demeanor. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
28. Support per the commentary already offered by several editors whose opinions I hold in high regard. Strikerforce (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
29. Stephen 04:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
30. Support Of course. First Light (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
31. Support Excellent editor, great attitude, good common sense. --John KB (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
32. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
33. Support Very good work at new pages, also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Castellanos López. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
34. Support Been impressed in the past with the candidate staying cool under conflict, thoughtful and constructive work in content/Talk and AfD discussions. And yes, I honestly thought you were already an admin. --joe decker^{talk to me} 06:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
35. Support excellent candidate. Johnbod (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
36. Support All around excellent candidate. Bonus points for me being petrified of Fetchcomms' threat. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
37. Support. Hard-working, intelligent, trustworthy. Net benefit as admin. -- œ^™ 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
38. Support. Fæ has all the right skills and experience. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
39. Support I did know Fæ wasn't an admin, and as soon as I had come out of New Admin School was planning to see if I could find some reason (other than Fæ not consenting) for not nominating him. I've never seen any problem in the time this account's been around (having had plenty of chance to see him at work). Calm, knowledgeable, polite, good content work - and nominated by someone whose opinion carries more weight than mine would. Peridon (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Hardworking, not a drama-phile, can be trusted with the tools, and I haven't seen any cause for concern in a random sample of edits. I like the GLAM work; this seems to be an area where we can really get top-quality sources and build high-quality coverage across swathes of wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
41. Although you might want to consider redirecting User:Fae to your userpage. It is a slight irritation typing in unicode, after all. —Dark 10:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
42. Support Have seen him around the place and seems like he should get a mop! 10:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookie (talk • contribs)

    Pile-on support. Trusted, level-headed and competent. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC) !Vote indented: while I certainly respect your wish to keep your old account undisclosed, after reading your answer to question 12, which doesn't jeopardise your privacy in any way, I now feel a bit uneasy about supporting this RFA. I'm sorry Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

43. Yet another Support. No one can be this appropriate for the admin tools, I thought. I'll look into his history. So I looked. And looked. And looked. Quite simply... support. Worm^TT 12:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
44. Support Good candidate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
45. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
46. Support Fæ is friendly, helpful, thoughtful, has good wiki-knowledge, is prepared - indeed keen - to admit to mistakes and learn from them (not that xe makes many), and shows superb judgement. Chzz  ►  13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
47. No duh... - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
48. Support Extremely helpful to newbies, has helped me a lot, great content contributor on both en-wiki and on Commons, low tolerance for drama, and keeps the vandals at bay (reverting vandalism on my user page and RPPing it, for instance). Trustworthy and wouldn't abuse the mop. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
49. AGK [•] 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
50. Strong support He deserves the tools. WayneSlam 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
51. Support TNXMan 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
52. Support Absolutely. Swarm ^X 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
53. Syn 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
54. Strong support – Absolutely. —mc10 (t/c) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
55. Support I kinda thought you were already an admin, have only seen good things and your answer to Q3 about walking away when things get tedious is something I like to see. I have every faity you'll use the tools well. SmartSE (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
56. Support. I've worked with Fæ at Suicide of Tyler Clementi, where I clearly remember another editor hurling abuse at Fæ, who handled it exactly the right way. The candidate has my trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
57. Strong Support - Great candidate and awesome editor. SunCountryGuy 01 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC) 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
58. Support Nice username by the way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
59. Support absolute unequivocal support.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
60. Based solely on the contributions I support. However I find the company of some supporters not the kind I wish to be in. In addition I'm afraid I distrust John Vandenberg a great deal (sorry to be personal - but he has signed the official "ARBCOM SEAL OF APPROVAL"), so his opinion, in commentary of the undisclosed previous account (rightly undisclosed and I ask for no information on it), prevents me from being quite so enthusiastic as others above. Good luck with the admin bits. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

    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. 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. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Reconfirming my support. Explanation on the disclosure of the accounts is fine, and I certainly don't want anymore information on the prior account. Explanation re: the dodgy CSD call is also fair enough - we don't ask for perfection and your open approach to be challenged is all good with me. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  19:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

61. Support - most excellent! Orphan Wiki 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
62. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
63. Support Great contributions and a patient, friendly attitude to others. Will be the kind of admin diffuses tension, acts as a role model and draws new users to the project. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
64. Support. Definitely. The Land (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

    Since there's an argument about whether two-word !votes count, let me expand: I have worked with Fae on a number of occasions, most particularly the Hoxne Hoard FA collaboration, and met him in person there and on other projects connected with GLAM-WIKI relations. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a sincere and committed Wikipedian who has a lot to offer the project and that is why I am supporting him. I've no knowledge of his previous account and don't feel it is relevant. The Land (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

65. Support - Fæ is a good editor, and I feel he'll make a fine admin. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
66. Support Seems to do good work...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
67. Support - Racepacket (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
68. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
69. Strong Support - Would make a great admin. Krashlandon ^(talk) 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
70. OTRS, vandal-fighting and judging XfDs are three very good reasons to have the tools, and I cannot refute anything in the excellent nomination statement. Besides, I felt obliged to do my bit to improve the company in which Pedro finds himself ;) —WFC— 01:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
71. Support I can't see any problems in the candidate's history, and no reason not to trust them! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
72. Support Only one question: are you a he, or a she? "Fae" sounds female-istic :P --Diego Grez (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
73. no reservations --Guerillero | My Talk 03:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
74. Support- Great contributor. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
75. Support Good contributor and well deserving of the mop. I have no issues at all supporting. – SMasters (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
76. Support. Undisclosed prior history a concern, but trust John Vandenberg's vouch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
77. Support. I remember nearly choking on my coffee when I first saw your moniker (fæ means blockhead in Danish), but it has got to be one of the most misleading usernames around. You are a consistently competent editor and should have been conscripted into the Corps of Administrators a long time ago. Favonian (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
78. Support, also per Fævonian. Drmies (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    Heh. Nice touch Drmies. That made me laugh. —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

79. Strong Support, the nomination states everything precisely. A very good editor. Novice7 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
80. Support -- I've encountered Fae a number of times and have always been impressed with their diligence and collaboration. I have wondered when Fae would add these tools. WP will benefit greatly from this. (I also had noted the oxymoronic username in Danish -- just passed it off as proper Danish modesty :) ) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
81. Support, quality editor with a good attitude and temperment. Dayewalker (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
82. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
83. Support excellent candidate, also thought you were already an admin. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
84. Support No concerns Pol430 talk to me 21:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
85. Support The nomination is convincing enough for me to support this RFA. Minimac (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
86. Stud! Loved the work with Iowa legislature to get image donations. I'm fine with both the clean start and the declaration of it. Sometimes it is best to put the drama behind.TCO (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

    sometimes it's never allowed. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

87. Support Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
88. Support I come across Fæ regularly and have no qualms about their eligibility to adminship. They will have provided their true identity and details of their past to become an OTRS assistant and I feel sure that any concerns about a previous existence are unnecessary. Kudpung (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
89. Support Thought you were already one. --iGeMiNix 03:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
90. Support Great editor and no red flags. --Banana (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
91. Support - No issues, particularly no CSD ones. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
92. Support I've crossed with Fæ many times at WP:AIV and WP:RCP and the experience was positive. AIV reports tell much about certain qualities of an editor. Materialscientist (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
93. Support - meets my standards: in particular - over 50,000 edits, high-quality article work and created some new articles with the barnstars and DYKs to prove it. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
94. Support - No concerns. Good edits, seems to interact well with others. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
95. Support - In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. - Philippe 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
96. Support - A trusted editor. I see no reason why another good mop should not be handed out.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
97. Support-Contributions show that he is capable, OTRS shows trust, and question answers show understanding of policy. The opposes given thus far aren't sufficient to prevent adminship.Smallman12q (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
98. Support Entirely trustworthy. Granting this user admin rights will be of considerable benefit to the project. Lovetinkle (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
99. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
100. Support - Looks like a great asset to the project. Mlpearc powwow 05:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
101. Strong Support. Like many others, thought he was already an administrator. He has long served in a leadership capacity. In my opinion, outside of receiving access to additional tools, this is a mere formality. Major duh. Cind.amuse 06:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
102. Support per reducing the number of redlinks I have watchlisted. Twelve months of solid contributions and a properly disclosed WP:CLEANSTART are good enough for me. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
103. Support per much of the above —DoRD (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
104. Support - Competent, capable, no issues...no significant issues anyways, the ones raised by the oppose/neutral camps are negligible. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
105. I wasn't persuaded by the opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
106. Support I always like to qoute the old saying "Do you trust this editor?" My answer is Yes, I feel anyone willing to go through RfA these days deserves support. ZooPro 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
107. Support I have had some positive interactions with Fae, and in addition, I feel his responses and discussion in the present RfA reflect well on his judgment and demeanor. It appears there may be some legitimate concerns about xSD tags; but I trust he will glean any useful feedback surfaced here, and use it to inform his future tagging. -Pete (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
108. Support Considering the errors in the context of the very large amount of excellent work being done, I think the problems about deletion tagging have been responded to appropriately, and I expect very few such errors in the future. changed from Weak oppose DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
109. Support- excellent editor, will be an excellent admin. Reyk _YO! 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
110. Definitely. Seems like exactly the type of person we want to be an admin: experienced and an excellent editor. ceranthor 00:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
111. miranda 03:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
112. Strong Support. I've worked with Fæ extensively over the last 12 months on WP:GLAM/BM and WP:GLAM/BL projects where he has done excellent work liaising with external institutes and working collaboratively and cool-headedly with other editors to produce quality content. From his impressive edit history he seems to be active almost 24/7 on NP patrol and fighting vandalism, and it is clear that he needs the tools, and I am sure that he would use them effectively and judiciously. Over-speedy CSD tagging is obviously a concern to some editors, but he has demonstrated (e.g. here and here) a willingness to modify his tagging behaviour in line with community consensus, and so I do not think that this should be an impediment to adminship. BabelStone (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
113. Support Initially had my doubts about this editor as a deletionist and intially peed me off with his persistance. But it turned out that he is generally correct about his articles nominations and does a damn good job cleaning the shite out of wikipedia. Exactly what we need and is hard working and dedicated to improving existing articles and getting shoddy content ousted or improved. Interaction with him was pleasant and I think he could do great things with the tools, providing he doesn't start deleting genuinely notable articles which can be improved!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
114. Secret ^account 02:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
115. Support I have noticed Fæ's good work and am confident that this will help Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
116. Support Like most of the other people around here, I thought Fæ was already an admin. Though I don't think I've ever directly interacted with Fæ, I have seen him/her work from a distance, and I've seen enough to know that this user is knowledgeable, reliable and dedicated to the project. The clean start issue does not concern me, as Fæ has followed all the steps recommended at WP:CLEANSTART, including divulging the name of the past account to ArbCom. S/he even went one step further and talked to one of the editors involved in the old RFC/U. I trust ArbCom's scrutiny. I would, however, like to see an answer to the question of whether or not Fæ has edited using the old account. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
117. Support - This editor's participation in the OTRS program pretty much convinced me, because as a former volunteer there I gained great respect for the people and process. It is not easy to get in as you are vetted carefully, and not easy to do that level of work. However, I took the time to consider the Opposers thoughts, but have come away unconvinced by their arguments. I understand the need some have for a fresh start. I believe the user is trustworthy and has need of the tools, which will be used for the benefit of Wikipedia. I wish the candidate all the best, and give my thanks for the service to date and in the future. Jusdafax 03:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
118.  Support Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 05:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC).
119. Support Adminship is no big deal. The process of getting there shouldn't be, either. You have my support. Basket of Puppies 06:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose When I entered here neutral, I did say I would gather. Fully anticipating to find the good credentials. It would seem impossible; For such as I find, to exist in the midst. But they are! Examples follow, which show the things and their notes, For an inspection is required: * This CSD Is a BITE, and misidentified as SPAM. Notability assertions in the text: "National Champion", and "World Champion" * This CSD is a BITE, is questionably tagged A7. Notability assertions in the text: "nominated accessory designer of the year" "hort films like "HEART" by Patrick James Quinn" (BLPPROD or AfD) are better choices. * This CSD first identifies as SPAM, 2 minutes later changes to G12 copyvio, Admin declines deletion as mirrored text. * This tag starts as a bite, progresses through 10 minutes WTF, and ends with me felling like this user needs to slow down just a bit. Implications of a trigger finger are now a concern. Rational and judgment, fall into question. * This CSD is a BITE. After three hours, and numerous logged in users add their consensus, (buy collaboration) again comes the candidate with this CSD, mislabeled db-corp, which should exclude a school. The mistake was noticed and corrected within 1 minute to a PROD. This is a situation which gives greater cause than I can overcome. They are compounded by this extenuation: All edits are within the past three days; Edits by the same hand which had obligated, presence here. I have also been shown that simply the choosing, to multitask is viewed as a negative quality. In the presence of much support, and an open question; The qualities I imagined of you, were discredited by activity which reflected instead: Misjudgment, Aggressiveness against new members, A rushed sense of action, and a trigger happy notion of deletion. I did know these to be grave in consequence, and felt very badly. But, who is served that your first decision was shown above. while colleagues await answer, and their chance to see your reply. So they could also have confidence in your communication skills, and concise manner. And while holding these examples back you were instead producing what have been call in the past, "egregious examples". To these; are my regards. My76Strat (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'll only comment on the first one, and let the candidate or others discuss the rest if they're inclined. This CSD was an absolutely correct tagging, in my opinion. G11 is for an article that "does nothing but promote some entity, person or product and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic," and the article, as it was when Fæ tagged it, started off with "[the subject] is one of the most under estimated fighters I have seen in my life time" and continued with "Right then I knew this young fighter was someone to look out for" and similar WP:FIRSTPERSON violations. It was an absolutely unencyclopedic and promotional article at that point, and Fæ was right to tag it as such. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   The WP:BITE concerns seem reasonable, they were nominated a minute after creation. It's an understandable concern; doing so is often considered somewhat poor etiquette at the very least. Swarm ^X 06:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   I don't understand this notion that quick CSD tagging is bitey... CSD exists to keep various forms of obvious cruft out of Wikipedia. When an editor spots such things it seems fairly reasonable to apply the appropriate tag. Will doing so scare new editors off Wikipedia? No, not in my experience. Is it not bitey to wait 10 minutes and then tag the article for speedy deletion? I can think of no sound argument to suggest this is so. If an article is tagged for CSD, the author has the option of adding a 'hang on' template requesting that they be given some more time to work on the article. If an NP patroller is using a semi-automated tool like HG or GLOO then it simply is not practical to ignore the article for 10 minutes and hope the author has done something to improve it before applying the CSD tag. To my mind, leaving the article for 10 or 20 mins only increases the potential for the patroller to forget about the article and it slips through the net. Cruft discredits Wikipedia, it should be rectified or removed promptly. CSD criteria are so worded, as to only include the most grievous cruft. Inappropriate CSD tag application is a genuine reason to oppose on an RfA; however, this notion of quick CSD tagging being bitey is fatuous, IMO. Pol430 talk to me 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Your comment is sufficiently valid as to necessitate this response. The BITE was included as an aggravating circumstance associated with inappropriate tagging. It must not be insinuated that these tags were of themselves proper. Propriety can glean by considering that none of the above examples survived with CSD intact. In each example when the appropriate measure was achieved, it was an invalidation of the original BITE. This is not the cruft you have correctly associated as better served by speedy removal. Within this context, the examples fit the criteria where you stated, you would be concerned; "Inappropriate CSD tag application is a genuine reason to oppose on an RfA" If you agree the tags were appropriate, that would be another debate. The other more appropriate means (PROD, AfD) give allowance to your other concern about forgetting. The establish a resolution and set achievable standards, with deletion as recourse. The above examples are not attacks, BLP concerns, threats, disparaging, or any other way relevant to content we would endeavor with speed to remove. (as in urgency) as they egress to requiring oversight. I hope that will help put the BITE into a proper context. My76Strat (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2. I can't see your whole history, and I'm suspicious about the answer to Q3 in light of the disclosure. I respect that redemption is a wonderful thing for the community to encourage, but adminship is much more than an award for good behavior, and not every capable editor should be an administrator. Townlake (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Oppose Following a tetchy AFD, I posted some polite advice in his editor review. He subsequently removed this comment from his editor review, which seems improper. I forgot all about the incident but it all came back when I found myself going through the same process several weeks later at the entertaining topic of Learned pigs & fireproof women. The candidate seems too quick to bite and delete and won't take criticism. In other words, he can dish it out but he can't take it. His tendency to cover his tracks seems telling. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   Fæ asked you this question regarding you comment. Only some days later, after you failed to answer, did he remove your comment and indicated this in the edit summary. It may not be the recommended procedure, but your handling of the situation is not ideal either. Favonian (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   Irony alert. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

4. FIRM Oppose Barring a major reversal this RfA is going to pass, but I can't in good conscious support it right now. While the person might have a clean start and have a solid history as such, I can't help but wonder if there are people here who might go the other way if they knew who this was. Who might be upset if they realized who they were supporting? While I do believe in a clean start, that clean start only goes so far... while I generally will only look at the past years worth of edits, it does concern me that we are unable to assess prior history. Faes history was apparently disruptive enough to invoke an RfC and possible sanctions (possibly as recently as a year ago); yet we have to take it on faith that Fae addressed those concerns/issues. I appreciate that Fae others view him as admin material, but I can't help but think of others who have run (granted in secret) on new accounts. Sorry, but I can't support at this juncture.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)NOTE: I've moved to FIRM oppose. The more I think about it, the more I do not like the secrecy surrounding this. A clean start is fine and I would have no problems with somebody coming here with one, if it wasn't for the fact an RFC led to the clean start. Who does the "secrecy" protect? This candidate. He is free to reveal his prior accounts at anytime, but choses to run while hiding. Sorry, can't support this and hope that the closing crat takes into consideration the trend regarding supports/opposes over the past 36 hours into consideration when closing this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

   In regards to the need for faith, the fact that the people involved in that RfC haven't rocked up here to cause a major reversal should help.
   The most senior person in that RfC knows of the prior account, and was given time to review the situation before this RfA. All of the other people involved in the RfC are close colleagues of that person. i.e. the person who knows is a good representative of the people who instigated the RfC.
   In addition, Fae has refocused. 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. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   "people here who might go the other way if they knew" - yes, they might. Should they? no. Clean start is clean start - and we can't get much more evidence that that is genuine, in this case, than the assurance by JV above.  Chzz  ►  01:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose LeftCoastMan (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   This user has been blocked until April for "really, really unpleasant behaviour - nasty personal attacks, battleground mentality to the max, severe trolling"

   Go on then, I'll bite. Any reason? The Bureaucrats will give your comments more/some weight if you add a rationale. In addition a rationale would be courteous to the candidate. Pedro :  Chat  21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

   Ditto. I have reasonable faith that 'crats will ignore this useless noise, but it does also sway other sheep. So, LeftCoastMan, could you elaborate?  Chzz  ►  01:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   On a quick skim of the support section, I counted nine support votes with no rationale whatsoever provided. Are those votes also "useless noise"? If not, could you please explain the difference so I will understand it? I've never understood the distinction; "those support votes are assumed to be per nom" seems bankrupt to me, as the rationale-less oppose vote can be interpreted along similar lines of speculative logic. Townlake (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Didn't know I had to explain myself. Please point me to that rule, law, regulation, or arbitration ruling that requires me to elaborate. And even of the Bureaucrats gave 10X weight to my vote, this RfA is going to pass. But I'll play along. Essentially you all are voting for a sockpuppet who refuses to discuss his/her/its past. That sucks. A regular editor would be slapped silly. So there, not that it matters what I vote. It was more symbolic than anything practical. So there, I replied. And thank you Townlake, that's what I noticed–just a few of the those jumping on the bandwagon have added much to the conversation.LeftCoastMan (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   @Townlake - to me, yes, support with no rationale is equally useless.

   @LeftCoastMan thank you. That is helpful.

   @both - further discussion of the meta-question about !votes with no reason would be better elsewhere - as such discussion is not directly concerning this candidate, and I don't want to clutter their RfA. Therefore, please, let's take this to WT:RFA#Are votes with no rationale "useless noise"?. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   You've answered my question, and I thank you for that. I have no interest in discussing further at this time, though (I couldn't resist putting a toe in the water.) I appreciate the invitation. Townlake (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   (edit conflict)LeftCoastMan, indeed no rules oblige a !voter to make a comment, but RfA is not a 'first-past-the-post' election, and one oppose vote equals three supports. Like all Wikipedia consensus gathering, it's supposed to be a discussion rather than a poll, and in a close run RfA the closing bureaucrat will evaluate the quality in the discussion. It's generally considered good faith to offer comment. Not saying anything suggests either no effort to do one's own research, "I just don't like him/her", or simply too little understanding of how Wikipedia works its processes and primary goals to be able to !vote objectively. Kudpung (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   I thought I explained. It was not "I just don't like him/her/it". And one oppose equals three supports? I can't tell if you're being snarky, or I'm missing something. And as for good faith, would you not assume good faith to me if I didn't elaborate my reasons for opposing? LeftCoastMan (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   What you are missing are my generalisations of RfA !voting. I am assuming good faith quite obviously, because you had already stated that you were not aware of the general consensus that not commenting on 'oppose' is frowned upon. Please see WT:RFA#Are votes with no rationale "useless noise"?. Kudpung (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   It may or may not be worth noting that this user was blocked for their battlefield mentality. Swarm ^X 14:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Added a note about that right under his vote. It's not a stretch to think that this person was being a troll when casting the oppose vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Salih (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   I hope you don't mind me asking why? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   I prefer not to elaborate on this, however, if the candidate asks me for a rationale, I can. Salih (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Oppose. While I have had a mixture of experience, some better than others, w/the candidate, this one was negative and was quite recent. In it the candidate reflected -- as pointed out by more than one editor -- some of the things I hope not to find in our sysop crew ... an overly quicky use of the speedy delete tag, a failure to use more than 1 of the 10 minutes one might alot for an article to be improved, a failure to do one's own wp:before search before applying a speedy tag, a failure perhaps to assume good faith, and a failure to realize the negative impact that one's actions might well have on new users. All of this screams out to me "not now". Perhaps at a later time, but there were too many issues in this quite recent incident for me to ignore.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Regretful oppose – You’ve done truly excellent work in a lot of areas of wikipedia and I was originally going to support this application. I’m also impressed by your actions in the AfD mentioned in Vejvančický’s support. However, I’m concerned by your very quick CSD tagging. A month ago you tagged this article by a new editor as CSD A1 “no context” 1 minute after creation, which I think was pretty bitey. As the issue was raised on your talk page, I find it worrying that you did the same thing on Wednesday (see question 5). Whilst I acknowledge that the CSD guidelines only warn against rapid tagging for A1 and A3, I think it would also have been friendlier to wait longer than a minute on these A7 nominations: [2] , [3]. Remember that newbies can take a while to figure out the editing interface, and for all editors having your work instantly tagged for deletion makes article-writing a less enjoyable process. I hope you’ll take these concerns on board and make sure you give people time to finish writing before hitting the delete button. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   That's a very keen observation that you raise with respect to the speedy (1 minute) tag applied to the Black Caviar article. This was clearly a case where a newbie didn't know how or forgot to apply an {inuse} or {underconstruction} tag. I still think the candidate warrants elevation to adminship; however, I'm changing my ivote to weak support.--Hokeman (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose - CSD concerns. As shown by other commenters on this section, Fae seems to resort to speedy deletion a little too speedily; in many cases, nominating articles for CSD which have only just been created and barely had a chance to be improved. I agree that this creates concerns with WP:BITE: having articles nominated for speedy deletion within minutes of their creation is, I believe, one of the main issues that discourages new users from Wikipedia. Fae is currently on course to pass this RFA, but if he does, I hope he will bear these concerns in mind, and take the time to consider a CSD candidate carefully before deleting it, to make sure it really does fall within the criteria; and in particular, to make sure that new articles get at least a chance to be developed before being deleted. Robofish (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Weak Oppose. The work with new editors is a problem. I checked the last week or two, and besides the problems with A1 and A3, I found an article mistakenly marked as copyvio, when it was the outside site that copied Wikipedia, an article Tyrone Cummings proposed for BLP prod which had a perfectly good RS for the notable career in the infobox, though not in a reference section, a speedy followed by a prod followed by an AfD on Courthouse junior school, which is indeed an unacceptable article, but should have been merged as is normal for primary schools--the real problem here was that no helpful personal explanation was given the obviously very inexperienced new editor, just a succession of formal templates. What seems to be a personal note must have been a form notice, because it advises the editor to try a draft version in userspace, which is very often good advice, but not in this case where in would be almost impossible to write an acceptable article, & the user should have been guided towards other ways of getting started here. All of these are signs not of bad intentions, but of going too rapidly.The last thing we need here is another admin going too rapidly with the new contributions. I realise I and others are picking out examples from a very large body of work, but that's just the problem--its too much work to be done properly. I'd suggest another 3 months or so, and I certainly hope to support then. If approved now, probably the candidate will have learned from the criticism to be more careful, but I'd rather see it first. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Fæ questioned me about the Tyrone Cummings article, because they had checked the ref in the article at the time of the prod & found it did not work. So I looked, and it did it does not, and, what is more the other two refs now in the article did not check out either -- not that they do not work, but that the links go to the stats for Dominique Jones! So the article is actually a fake altogether, and I will delete it as a hoax as soon as the RfA is over--I want to leave it for the meantime so others can see also. It would have helped to have said that about the link, and ideally it should have been checked enough to be speedied initially, but I think very few admins go to that much trouble routinely--at least, I usually don't. (I found the article by checking the articles with candidates deletion warnings & deleted contribution list where the link was blue, not red, a useful exercise -- because I also found a few articles that had been wrongly re-entered, and speedied them & protected against re-creation.) I am beginning to think the Fæ makes already not many more mistakes than most admins, and, with a little more caution learned from here, will do a good deal better than than the average, and I am changing to support. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   At the suggestion of User:Eagles 24/7, I have moved the article on Cummings to User:DGG/Tyrone Cummings, pending deletion at the close of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

10. Oppose - moved from neutral, please see my comments there. Off2riorob (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

    I think it is worth mention to note: Any response given by the candidate to which the audience of this RfA is apart, was disregarded, with communication instead conducted on your talk page. I hope it reached your eyes well, but the sleuth necessary for me to observe, further indicates an intention to withhold from observation, the very conduct participants have come to observe. Instead I am beginning to see a cunning that deeply concerns me. Those concerns are strengthening a resolve to preempt success which had appeared established. I implore any participant who gave support for any reason other than diligent observation, please apply that diligence and ensure you are not echoing hollow praise. This is an important consideration. My76Strat (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    My use of user talk pages is to point out factual errors and to avoid embarrassment for the parties involved, I have taken care to avoid any action that might be interpreted as canvassing. This is done without expectation that any opinion will change, only that the facts ought to be right here. In this case Off2riorob agreed that they had overlooked earlier statements and reworded their statement. In the case of DGG they added a further statement about the example being used which was not what they had thought. Describing this as "cunning" appears to be a leap on your part. Thanks Fæ (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    I do not intend to imply others should join the direction my concerns have drawn upon. Instead rather that each ensure by their own diligence that my concerns are not held by consensus. I did not intend to leap to a conclusion by stating a direction of perspective my observations were beginning to confuse. You may have perfectly good reason to carry the conversation to a talk page. The talk page of this RfA is said to be a good choice. I simply hold that your conduct throughout this RfA is the express interest of every diligent participant. A related conversation is relevant to us all and a note stating the discussion had occurred at some alternate location better serves its existence than a discovery by otherwise surprise. I was not my intention to cast this upon you as a conclusion of any kind. To whatever extent it appears as a statement against you, I apologize for that. I hope when a fair mind considers my words, they will see that I intended to describe its effect on me. Even that was as of the moment it was appended. Your response here, has served to alleviate some of the aforementioned concerns. You have shown much positive resolve in your manner of handling situations, and that speaks well to your abilities. I hope this has cleared your concern regarding my intent. My76Strat (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

11. Oppose Concerns raised above concerning the treatment of new users at CSD and mistakes with CSD taggings are far too recent and problematic to support this request, although it currently looks as if it's passing anyway. Regards SoWhy 09:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose CSD concerns with new users as outlined above. Seems it will pass anyway at this point so i hope Fae addresses this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose. The nominee's replies to queries about the RFC/U and related concerns which the nominee prefers to remain secret or hidden here are at best ungracious and at worst dismissive and disparaging, and the efforts by others to further neutralize such questions have a disturbing "you don't need to know" effect which controverts the apparent intention. – Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose. I'm sorry but I cannot support an RfA such as this one. From the statements made above, it seems that this isn't a situation where due to some unconnected reason, e.g. harassment, an editor has switched to a new account and is unhappy about disclosing their previous identity. If that is indeed the case case, the right course of action is to disclose the past account and let the community judge for themselves whether there has been a "fresh start" and whether past issues have been addessed. I note that a "respected editor" who was a "critic" is stated not be opposing this RfA - no doubt a statement from them here that past concerns had been addressed would impact upon potential opposition resulting from the past account being revealed.
    Nothing that has been said so far convinces me that there is a need for secrecy and I do not think the community is so unforgiving that conduct under a previous name more than a year ago (I am assuming no overlap between the accounts) will not be forgiven. I think an important element of reform is owning up to past mistakes. That isn't happening here. WJBscribe (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

    With the greatest of respect, WJ, it looks as if this candidacy is going to succeed anyway, and I'm sure that this new sysop will come under great scrutiny from the community - and they are well aware of it. In spite of the 'secrecy', nothing appears to suggest that any past demeanour was especially egregious, and they are personally known in RL to at least one admin who has !voted here. Kudpung (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

15. Oppose. I firmly believe that there has to be a greater level of transparency for anyone wanting to climb the power pole at WP. I urge the editor (with the unnecessarily difficult username to type) to withdraw the RFA, lay out all the previous cards on the table, and allow the community to make an informed decision during a reapplication (you will come out the stronger for it).  GFHandel.   00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    While much focus surrounds this question of transparency, there is abundant transparency within the contributions visible. I take note that nothing was written to regard my response to Q5. But a thing was written. Having discerned no less than 5 additional CSD actions since raising the concern. I can not see the details of these actions, but I reasonably presume there was no regard given to the counsel of my attempt. I don't need knowledge of former conduct, to absorb the implications of these. And I have less reason to believe in a desire to improve. My76Strat (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    I firmly AGF in that no genuine, serious request for the tools by mature individuals with sufficient history to pass my RfA criteria, is interested in climbing any poles to 'power'. In the absence of any other system for finding people to maintain the quality of this project, someone has to be a 'moderator', and this is determined by our evaluation of theeir need for the tools and competency in using them. In spite of the mantra that Adminship is no big deal, getting through the atual RfA inquisition makes it one. Kudpung (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    The point being of course that we are all wondering why the candidate obviously believes that there would be difficulty getting through "the actual RfA inquisition" with the disclosure of previous activity on WP?  GFHandel.   02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

16. Oppose Anyone should be able to make a clean start of things under a new account. Admins, however, aren’t your basic ordinary “anyone”. It is just too difficult on Wikipedia for the regular rank & file to desysop an admin once he or she has been handed the scales of justice and the saber of enforcement. Greg L (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose. Whenever disputes and policy come come up the ones that are brought up 90% of the time are WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V or their extensions. But there are 5 pillars and the three just mentioned are the ones that put the most burden on content contributors while the other two that should help contributors have been systematically neutered or perverted in the general Wikipedia mindset. Further I do not get an indication that the candidate appreciates or has reflected upon the BITEY criticism others have given him from his long response to my question. The thought process therein didn't seem to take that dimension into account. I fear Fae might be the kind of admin that disruptive wikilawyers and system gamers would take advantage of to prevent contributors from building an encyclopedia. Lambanog (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    Apologies in advance if you think this is wikilawyering, but your question had the word 'policies' in bold and that is why I stuck to policies. 5P is not a policy. Your criticism that I might be taken advantage of is interesting, it would be helpful if you could point to an example from my last 12 months of contributions where this has happened. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    The 5 pillars may not be policies per se but clearly the content policies you seem to emphasize in your method of evaluation are derived from certain pillars. When I say I'm looking for something else that I think is missing in your answer therefore, your search to find it if you wish to do so should be much easier because there is less ground to cover. I also note above that My76Strat provided a pretty clear critique that should have help you realize the concerns. Your response here though suggests you still cannot see the basis of my concern or the policy—yes policy—that it is based on. I would prefer that an admin candidate is aware of this automatically but if even after being prodded a candidate fails to see it, I'm inclined to oppose. As for your editing record, unfortunately I'm finding it hard to evaluate because of the sea of short reverts that obscure the kind of pages or discussion I would consider pertinent. Although I believe in a fresh start and do not hold that against you, I imagine the inability to judge I am facing looking at the contributions of your current account are similar to the reservations of others who wish to evaluate your previous account. From what I can see my concerns are not addressed enough for me not to oppose. You seem a pretty good editor but the most disappointing experiences I've had with Wikipedia admins so far have been with pretty good editors that edited similarly to you. Lambanog (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    I think the fact that he addressed the question, even if he did not give you the answer you wanted, demonstrates his intelligence and dedication to the project and his work, and would be enough for you to be able to rewiew your position. A great many successful admin candidates, and current admins, would stumble over such a question. Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think it is too much to expect an admin candidate to recognize and identify what policies may be applicable to a situation—a rather plain vanilla dispute involving the removal of a reference—especially after prompting. The candidate has still not done so. I am left to assume he does not see the applicability of the policy I have in mind in such situations but only the policies he has cited. Hence my oppose. Lambanog (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

18. Oppose I am troubled by the lack of transparency about the candidate's previous account - as well as the apparent off-wiki discussions regarding this RFA. Unless the discussion includes personally identifiable information it should be done in the open. Skinwalker (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
19. [Soft] Oppose [redacted] I was moderately in favour of the candidate from his editing history and behaviour alone. None of the CSD concerns above really bother me, in that what is a 'Speedy' for if it cannot be done, er, speedily? What does really concern me is that which seems to be deeply troubling Epeefleche, that is to say this obsession with secrecy, and the lengths the candidate has gone to make sure he will not be outed. I find the lack of transparency lamentable – in particularly the cryptic post by Vandenburg sent shivers down my spine. Most candidates with a 'history' prefer to come clean to the jury with evidence how his/her behaviour has changed/matured, and let the jury make the judgement for themselves. Now we are being asked to take it on trust. Excuse me, this is clearly not a case of WP:RTV. No other candidate in history of RFAs, AFAIK, has chosen to hide behind this Arbcom cloak, and this makes me extremely uneasy indeed, even if someone were to point out to me that there were indeed precedents. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think that anyone has suggested that this is a wp:RTV case, the relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Clean start. If some people want to amend the Clean start policy to say that those who invoke it can never become admins then I'd suggest they come up with a proposal that they think is fair and workable, file an RFC and make a case for such a policy change. ϢereSpielChequers 15:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    I never said editors were not entitled to a clean start. I'm merely saying that those seeking to be admins (other than sock-puppeteers and the Essjays of this world who deliberately deceive) generally do and ought to lay all their cards on the table, and let the community be the judge. We're being asked to play poker here, with 3 cards hidden. I don't see why there should be an exemption in this case.--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    This candidate has taken the "Strongly Recommended" option in Wikipedia:Clean_start#Identification_with_old_account of informing Arbcom before running for adminship. I don't know how many candidates in the past have decided that "strongly recommended" is not the same as "must", nor indeed how many if any candidates have informed Arbcom but not informed the community. But I can remember at least one prior RFA like this where the candidate had a prior account that was disclosed to a trusted editor but not to the whole community. If we aren't prepared to have editors who've invoked cleanstart ever become admins without publicly revealing their former accounts then I believe we should change the Cleanstart policy. But it seems a tad harsh to oppose someone for following a policy that you disagree with. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    WSC, this isn't a matter of just a clean start, clean start can be invoked for several reasons: Harrassment, having revealed one's person identity, etc. This clean start was started as a direct result of an RfC. People who undergo clean starts are free to run for adminship, but the community is also free to question the issue and to oppose based upon that issue. While a clean year is generally sufficeint to run for Adminship, it is impossible for us to determine if s/he truly has had a clean year. If he had been around for 18 months to 2 year, I might be willing to over look the fact that he had a previous account. If I knew that his RfC was 18 months to 2 years ago and that he took time off or continued editing for several months on the old account before starting this clean start, I might be able to overlook the RFC. But the fact is that this person had an issue that was significant enough to involve and RfC that resulted in a clean start. That issue may have occured as recently as 12 months ago, but the community is completely unable to assess whether or not he has changed. Fae appeals to some superhyped "secrecy". If Fae is so concerned that if his prior account were known that it would sabotogue this RfA, then I think that seals the deal for me. IF Fae has changed, then his edits from the last year would be sufficeint to prove that he grew. I can't help but wonder what kind of drama is in store for WP WHEN this identity becomes known. I can't help but wonder if there are people who are supporting this RfA that would be opposed if the knew who it was. Sorry, this is the one type of clean start that sends up scores of red flags when it comes to an RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    To be clear, if the reason for a clean start was because of RL harrassment, having exposed one's RL identity, online harrassment, etc, then having a clean start would not be an issue. But in this case we are talking about a person who could have been a perernial problem child at ANI and not know it. I cannot support a person knowing that the persons identity might come back and bite us... IF and WHEN the identity of this account were known, will it result in a recall RfC? Will people who supported be saying, I would have never supported if I knew, etc.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    I don't know the identity of the former account, and yes it is possible though I suspect unlikely that I would blanch if I knew it. But I take some comfort in knowing that two Arbs who do know the identity are in the support column. However if this candidate had simply started a new account in March last year and never mentioned their former account then all this would not be an issue..... Now if we were to change the way we vet accounts or admins we could perhaps revise that. But unless we do that I will take the pragmatic view that there is little point going back more than twelve months in a candidate's history. ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    Presumably, this account has "clearly reformed" itself. The person behind the account has made definitive changes for the better. If this is enough to convince two arbs to support, that's fine. To me, its an indication that the necessity for a clean start might no longer be needed. Why all the secrecy? Why hide? If he has truly redeemed himsself, then yes, there might be some backlash when he comes out of the closet. Why not let the community judge the candidate knowing who it is? Avoid any doubt or future drama. I honestly, don't buy the secrecy. Again if the clean start were due to other issues, I would have no problems with the clean start... but this isn't due to a benign issue, but rather one that stems from an RfC. I believe in second chances, but I also believe that actions have consequences. If he's redeemed himself, face the music first.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

    I think it's great that policy allows individuals to reform with a clean start. Such should be encouraged. To that end, a one-year clean nose is certainly a positive sign. I did expressly say I found nothing problematic for this candidate except for the cloaked history, and would clarify my opposition as being 'soft' and being perhaps more philosophical; many 'neutral' votes have also voiced this concern. On the other hand I recognise public perceptions may be at variance with policy. It might be a 'right', but the secrecy is a public relations own goal, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

    I would add that my concerns would be largely allayed if the candidate were to be open to recall if elected. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

20. Oppose, There seems to be a lack of contrition for the incidents of aggressive deletion and bitten newbies, and the evasiveness about the past account (especially the answer to question 12) is concerning. It's clear that Fae has made great contributions as an editor and I'd love to see these continue, but I don't want to see Fae turn as aggressive with the tools as with the tags. A couple more months, no more biting, and an attitude willing to admit mistakes would go a long way. Night Gyr (talk/Oy)
21. Oppose per WJB and Balloonman, above. Refusal to disclose past history and a clean start is great for an editor, but that sort of secrecy is undesirable in an admin. Ray^Talk 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
22. Oppose the CSD problems and my general belief that because the bit is in practice hard to remove, we need a full history. I worry we are getting a pig in a poke. Hobit (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral I am of the opinion that any and all edits to Wikipedia should be disclosed in an RfA. Keepscases (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   I wouldn't concur with that. I would agree that guidelines could be reconsidered for areas of improvement however. My76Strat (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   To both My76Strat and Keepscases. I agree very much with your stances. Indeed my support was tempered by the lack of disclosure. However on balance we do need to remember that people requesting adminship are doing so with the aim of simply helping further (in general). There seems to be a genuine reason behind the retirement of the candidates previous account and privacy concerns are acceptable. At the end of the day this is just a website, albeit a highly prominent one. Any poor admin actions can (indeed frequently are) be reversed. I'd like full disclosure but I respect that there is a human being at the other end of the screen name of this candidate, and one who, presumably, only has good intentions. I'm not sure insisting on some kind of full disclosure is relevant to either the creation of an encyclopedia or its' administration. I note you're both neutral, of course, so this is not a challenege just commentary. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   I concur with My76Strat and Keepscases on this point, though my (regrettable) oppose was based on other reasons. If the bar is as low as Pedro suggests -- "Any poor admin actions can ... be reversed" -- why then, lets simply save everyone time and not have RfAs any longer. The point is, RfAs turn on a review of an editor's contributions. If he hides them, he puts himself on a different plane than his peers who seek adminship. He may be entitled to "hide", but then again we are just as entitled to not give the tools to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Poor form. I have not suggested that any "bar is low" and I challenge you to provide a diff showing otherwise. All admin actions are reversable. This is a statement of fact. RFA revolves around trying to ensure editors granted the extra bits will not perform poor admin actions in the first place, or at least very few of them. I suggest you reconsider the first part of your commentary above. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral(Moved to oppose) This is a totally neutral placement, a statement that, I am observing and likely will gather enough information to set appropriate regards, upon this RfA. My76Strat (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Undoubtedly, this user displays potential, and stands upon strong credential. My concern relates to their apparent absence here. At minimum 100+ edits have been saved to Wikipedia, excluding this RfA. Because these occurred after this RfA opened, while a question, remains unanswered, my assumptions are strained. Though I could produce a list of negative implications, I am interested to know if I am alone at finding this odd! My76Strat (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   My understanding of don't bite the newcomers would question this need. That you prefer biting opposed to participating, is moving me closer to oppose. Fortunately you could emerge successful regardless of my lone observations. I feel you show a level of disregard, I can't condone. My76Strat (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Wow. Yes, the speed of that tag was particularly poor. I trust the candidate will go easier and learn from this. Such quicky applied tags are discouraged. Pedro :  Chat  21:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

   Yes. I have never heard of a CSD, being Tagged, declined, and show up at RfA, All in the same day. My76Strat (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

2. There's an extent to which I agree with Keepscases (and those are words I never thought I'd say), although equally this position makes a nonsense of our clean start rules. I'm also conscious that this user could have simply started again and never said anything about it. And I wonder how many other users who're currently admins have spotty histories—I know of several who've behaved in ways we disapprove, but then started a fresh account and achieved adminship. And if I know about that, then there must be plenty of others I don't know about. I'm neutral, tending oppose because of the overly hasty CSD tag mentioned above. The low numbers of new editors are a genuine problem linked to CSD, so I prefer close scrutiny of CSD tagging, with a presumption not to promote if there are overly harsh tags.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Neutral, leaning oppose over the response to Balloonman. It is perfectly possible for you to answer such broad questions without making your past account obvious, and I find your response to these questions to be assuming bad faith on the part of the questioner. Calling the questions a "fishing expedition" is unfair given the connotations of that expression here - it's an honest request for information, and one that appears carefully worded to allow you to protect the identity of your old account while addressing potential concerns. Given that we can't judge your history for ourselves, I would encourage you to answer these questions, even if your answers are by necessity somewhat vague. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   I am sorry you are taking my answer above as an assumption of bad faith, this is not my intention and I have now struck my comment about fishing which in the past I have often used in a professional capacity to describe types of investigation or audit with it being more technical rather than a value-laden term but I accept it is subject to a negative interpretation by the reader here. I carefully reviewed the history of past RFC/Us and some of the information requested would make it extremely easy by simple elimination to work out which one related to me (very few RFC/Us are normally raised each month and they are available as an indexed table), further if I had picked out which information to reply to then the information I left out would itself be of interest and lastly if I replied to each question in a general manner or refused to give any answer then I would appear to be unnecessarily opaque. Thanks Fæ (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   Appreciate your willingness to amend your wording above, so I've struck my "leaning oppose". However, there is one question that you can answer without fear of disclosing your past account: have you, yes or no, edited using your prior account since the creation of this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral, leaning oppose moved to oppose - I just find myself unable to assess the history of this user and have more questions than answers, like are they going to use their tools in the field of their previous disruption, are there previous RFA under the previous username and suchlike unanswerable questions, so I am unable to support. I have been corrected and missed that the user has stated this is their first RFA and they have stated that in relation to the RFC user discussion in regard to their previous username they will not use the tools in situations related to that, but but I do feel that for positions of authority that disclosure is preferable, without it I can't support. People know the name of this previous account and attempting to hide it is impossible and imo disruptive. I am moving to oppose - Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

   • People known the name of candidate's previous account? I certainly don't. Is there anything in the history of that account that would naturally be an issue at an RfA? If so, I think we should certainly now it. We've refused many a candidate for activities that date back to what is here the not-too-distant past. Is this going to be a new approach otherwise? If you have dirty laundry from x years or months ago, and wish to have a leg up on your competition that don't do so, simply create a new account and run for sysop with your history completely hidden? This makes little sense to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   The Arbs and at least one other editor know the identity of the candidate's previous account. I don't know the identity of the previous account, but I take comfort in the fact that at least two arbs are in the support column and I haven't noticed any among the opposes. I am also reassured at being told that the previous account had a clean block log, and in knowing that Fæ started editing almost 12 months ago. Therefore I'm prepared to judge this candidacy purely on the Fæ account and my interactions with the candidate in the last 12 months at various London Wiki events. If other Arbs turn up and oppose then I might reconsider my position. ϢereSpielChequers 15:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Would you want to be the arbitrator who opposes this RFA? I wouldn't put any stock in the way that detail is shaking out. Townlake (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   I'm not an Arb, have never run for Arb and have no current ambitions to serve as an Arb. But I don't consider our Arbs to be editors reluctant to take positions on controversial matters. I would hope that any Arb who opposed this candidacy would at least make it clear whether they were doing so because of the CSD tagging or because of the previous account, and if because of the previous account how long they would suggest that Fae wait before running again. I am a London Wikipedian who has met this candidate and others in real life, and I have in the past opposed a candidate who I like in real life but didn't consider was suitable for adminship. I think that is a far more awkward thing to do than I believe it would be for an Arb to oppose in this scenario. BTW I'm not quite sure whether the detail you are referring to is the current set of Arbs or the details of the previous account. ϢereSpielChequers 16:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   Neutral for now but plan to move to oppose. Moved to oppose. Incomplete answer to my question. If looking only at content work would pass, but oppose rationales given by others cause me concern especially in tandem with the currently incomplete answer. Lambanog (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   I voted oppose myself but I'm wondering how you could consider that answer incomplete? It was a very broad question and Fae gave a thorough answer covering a lot of points. If it had been any longer I think it would by getting towards WP:TLDR.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

   A lot of points but not the point that is of most concern in Fae's particular case as suggested by the nature of the opposes. I will give Fae a day to address my concern or not as he chooses. I don't need an explanation just an indication he realizes what he missed. Lambanog (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

4. I hope I can make a comment here; please move it if it's in the wrong section. OK, disclosure first: someone emailed me concerned about the change of username and the non-disclosure of the previous name and track-record. Discount my comment here as you wish, under the canvassing policy. I just want to know why an RfA candidate is not compelled under the rules to disclose previous accounts. Sorry, I'm too busy in RL to research the threads above. Tony (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

   This section is perfectly appropriate for your comment, sorry to hear there has been canvassing against this (or any) candidate. The policy in question is at wp:CleanStart, it was formerly at Wp:Sock and has been policy for at least three years, if you don't like the policy what would you propose instead? As for the canvassing, may I suggest you forward the offending email to Arbcom, and suggest that anyone who has been canvassing at RFA fess up to Arbcom and promise not to canvass again. ϢereSpielChequers 07:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Neutral Good contributions but I can't get over the unrevealed past account. I probably wouldn't judge the candidate on year-old edits but the lack of transparency is improper for someone being chosen by consensus for the admin tools.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Neutral for now while I review deletion concerns expressed by others; see material I just posted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fæ#Recent deletion-related activity --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Neutral - There is a lot to like about the candidate's lengthy contribution. I'm a tiddly bit concerned about some CSD tagging being bitey as mentioned above. But not a deal breaker anyway. The other thing, I respect is the candidate's privacy but in a RFA disclosing the past is probably better as its running for public office and people can make constructive comments from it. There are a few candidates who had changed their usernames and did not need to resort to cleanstart and gone on to become very successful admins e.g. Ironholds in the previous months. --Visik (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)