Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fæ

Fæ

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (97/5/2); 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)

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)

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)
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. 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)
43. Pile-on support. Trusted, level-headed and competent. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
44. 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)
45. Support Good candidate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
46. Support No issues seen. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
47. 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)
48. No duh... - Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
49. 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)
50. AGK [•] 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
51. Strong support He deserves the tools. WayneSlam 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
52. Support TNXMan 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
53. Support Absolutely. Swarm ^X 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
54. Syn 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
55. Strong support – Absolutely. —mc10 (t/c) 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
56. 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)
57. 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)
58. Strong Support - Great candidate and awesome editor. Gabesta449 ^{edits ♦ chat} 19:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
59. Support Nice username by the way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
60. Support absolute unequivocal support.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
61. 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)

62. Support - most excellent! Orphan Wiki 21:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
63. Support -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
64. 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)
65. Support. Definitely. The Land (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
66. Support - Fæ is a good editor, and I feel he'll make a fine admin. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 23:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
67. Support Seems to do good work...Modernist (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
68. Support - Racepacket (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
69. Support Why not? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
70. Strong Support - Would make a great admin. Krashlandon ^(talk) 01:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
71. 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)
72. 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)
73. 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)
74. no reservations --Guerillero | My Talk 03:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
75. Support- Great contributor. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
76. Support Good contributor and well deserving of the mop. I have no issues at all supporting. – SMasters (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
77. Support. Undisclosed prior history a concern, but trust John Vandenberg's vouch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
78. 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)
79. 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)

80. Strong Support, the nomination states everything precisely. A very good editor. Novice7 (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
81. 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)
82. Support, quality editor with a good attitude and temperment. Dayewalker (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
83. Support. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
84. Support excellent candidate, also thought you were already an admin. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
85. Support No concerns Pol430 talk to me 21:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
86. Support The nomination is convincing enough for me to support this RFA. Minimac (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
87. 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)

88. Support Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
89. 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)
90. Support Thought you were already one. --iGeMiNix 03:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
91. Support Great editor and no red flags. --Banana (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
92. Support - No issues, particularly no CSD ones. Shadowjams (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
93. 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)
94. 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)
95. Support - No concerns. Good edits, seems to interact well with others. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 17:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
96. Support - In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. - Philippe 18:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
97. 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)

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)

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. 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)

   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)

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

   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)

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)

   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)