Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam

Editing stats, using User:X!'s tool: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/ec/Floquenbeam

General user info

Username: Floquenbeam
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Aug 13, 2008 19:16:22
Unique articles edited: 1,484
Average edits per page: 2.40
Total edits (including deleted): 3,565
Deleted edits: 107
Live edits: 3,458
Namespace totals

Article	1224	35.40%
Talk	126	3.64%
User	163	4.71%
User talk	1095	31.67%
Wikipedia	745	21.54%
Wikipedia talk	84	2.43%
File	4	0.12%
Template	14	0.40%
Template talk	2	0.06%
Category	1	0.03%

Month counts

2008/08	20	
2008/09	33	
2008/10	19	
2008/11	9	
2008/12	26	
2009/01	0	
2009/02	116	
2009/03	167	
2009/04	144	
2009/05	87	
2009/06	304	
2009/07	314	
2009/08	326	
2009/09	488	
2009/10	446	
2009/11	419	
2009/12	380	
2010/01	160	
Logs

Accounts created: 2
Pages moved: 13
Top edited articles

Article

25 - HP_Newquist
24 - Emmanuel_Adebayor
18 - Structural_engineering
18 - Harlem_Renaissance
14 - Bridge
14 - Midget
13 - Racism
12 - Animal_Farm
12 - First_Transcontinental_Railroad
10 - Utopia

Talk

10 - 2009_Jupiter_impact_event
10 - Names_for_U.S._citizens
8 - Main_Page
5 - Rorschach_test
4 - Grief_porn
4 - Western_culture
4 - 2009_Great_Britain_and_Ireland_floods
3 - The_Secret_of_NIMH_2:_Timmy_to_the_Rescue
3 - Diablo_Cody
3 - Ribbon_(computing)

User

40 - Floquenbeam
24 - Floquenbeam/DPWL_Workbench
17 - Floquenbeam/Sandbox
12 - Floquenbeam/monobook.js
7 - Floquenbeam/SE_Workbench
5 - Floquenbeam/Emergency_backup_sandbox
5 - Floquenstein's_monster
4 - X!/RfX_Report
4 - Zzyzx11/Archive23
3 - Lord_Wikipedian_of_the_Wiki

User talk

154 - Floquenbeam
17 - Xeno
16 - Pedro
14 - Floquensock
9 - Delicious_carbuncle
8 - Drew_R._Smith
8 - Equazcion
7 - Sandbox_for_user_warnings
7 - Domino79
7 - Alison

Wikipedia

157 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
126 - Main_Page/Errors
63 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
53 - Administrators'_noticeboard
46 - Help_desk
33 - Wikiquette_alerts
24 - New_contributors'_help_page
19 - Introduction
18 - Village_pump_(technical)
10 - Requests_for_page_protection

Wikipedia talk

12 - Administrators'_noticeboard
12 - Requests_for_adminship
6 - Vetting_process
5 - Today's_featured_article
4 - Disambiguation_pages_with_links
4 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
4 - WikiProject_LGBT_studies
4 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
4 - WikiProject_Disambiguation
3 - WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases

File

1 - Shinhwa_-_TOP.jpg
1 - JabbatheHuttPlayset.jpg
1 - Where_The_Wild_Things_Are.jpg
1 - Beate-Uhse-Turm.JPG

Template

4 - Socialism_sidebar
2 - Poem
2 - Split_message
1 - RfA
1 - Philip_K._Dick
1 - Ethics
1 - TV_channel_categories
1 - Db-vandalism-notice
1 - Db-attack-notice

Template talk

1 - Solar_System
1 - Jamaica_Squad_2009_CONCACAF_Gold_Cup

Category

1 - Channel_11_TV_stations_in_Canada


Executed in 0.28 seconds
Taken 0.91 megabytes of memory to execute.

Alison's review of my previous account

Hi all. I am aware of Floquenbeam's previous Wikipedia account, as well as its full history going back some years. The previous account was abandoned solely for privacy concerns. I've been aware of these concerns for some time and I know them to have been well-founded. Ok - from examining the previous account, I can state the following:

1. The previous account had a pristine block log.
2. There were no ArbCom clashes that I can find, nor any sanctions ever imposed.
3. Editing was uncontroversial and largely wikignomish. Plenty of janitorial work was carried out.
4. The editor abandoned the account in very good standing, and under uncontroversial circumstances. They just upped and left it.

My overall impression of this editor was of a kind and co-operative editor, a non-BITEy editor, and a good team player overall. This was a person who didn't get into edit-wars nor POV-pushed in any way. In fact, I would normally Support this RFA, though I will recuse in this instance - Alison ^❤ 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have questions for you.

1. How long had the previous account lasted? (e.g some months, some years)
2. Does the previous account have any overlapped period with the current account or other accounts if there were any?
3. Did the candidate previously run for Adminship? (this question was also made by JeyHenry)
4. What does mean by "a pristine block log"? You mean the candidate has no block log?
5. Can you clarify the "privacy concern"? Is it related to "real name" or "harassment" by his/her opponents?
6. You said the candidate had no ArbCom clashes, but what about AN/ANI/WQA clashes?
7. Why did you say "In fact, I would normally Support this RFA, though I will recuse in this instance" if you don't want to weight in your position as a neutral Checkuser?

I would be appreciated if you clarify 2, 3, 6 questions especially.--Caspian blue 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Floquenbeam has already indicated he does not wish to answer these kind of questions, which should be on the main RFA page, not here. In any case, a pristine block log obviously means one with no entries. I don't understand how you could possibly interpret it to mean anything else. As for the rest of the questions, I'll leave it up to Floquenbeam to decide whether to answer them, but he has indicated that answering them, giving hints to information could lead stalkers to the name of the account, which is undesirable. Please think about what purpose you're achieving by asking these questions. Majorly talk 16:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked about the question to Alison, not you, Majorly. I don't think my questions should be rejected "by you". Moreover, as Alison mentioned about ArbCom clash, I asked about any ANI/WQA clashes in his previous account. The overly protective behaviors of yours raise more unclear residues in regards to transparency. In addition, "any overlapped period" and "possible RFA campaign" are also crucial matters since his response to my vote give that he is too eager to get the mop no matter what it takes. That did not give me a good impression.--Caspian blue 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Majorly. Caspian, have you thought for a minute about what this could cause? If Floquen answered even a few of your questions, he could be subjecting himself to real life consequences with privacy – and there's some excellent sleuths around here, several bits of information about the account and they could figure it all out. It happened to Cirt at his RfA. This is a privacy issue, and he's done the best he could to be simply honest while remaining careful. Prying with questions at this time isn't helpful and doesn't appear very respectful of his personal life, frankly. JamieS93 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

CaspianBlue, it's not really my remit to make a call on what to reveal about this person and what not to, as pretty-much all of these questions make compromises with his privacy. This places me in a very awkward situation indeed & in matters relating to privacy, I'm usually absolute and unwavering (it goes with the Oversight job). Ergo, I would rather Floquenbeam address these questions directly as he sees fit. I can clarify that when I said a "pristine block log", I meant no block log. The previous account had never been blocked. Also, I made my comments regarding supporting for the benefit of people weighing up my comments and not for the closing bureaucrat; it's an indicator of the confidence I have in this person and their prior history, no more than that - Alison ^❤ 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Caspian, frankly this is stirring the pot, for whatever reason you ill-adivsedly see fit. You've already opposed. So frankly why ask these questions? If it's for the benefit of others then I'm sure they are capable of asking themselves. If not then what exactly are you trying to achieve? Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Caspian Blue, As I said before on the project page, I think I've said all I'm comfortable saying about my previous account, and I've divulged the name to as many people as I'm comfortable with. If this causes you to oppose (as you have already done), I understand and I'm fine with that. If it causes many people to oppose and the RFA fails, I understand and I'm fine with that. I've put Alison in an awkward position, and she has said as much as I'm comfortable with, so please don't ask her for any more information about the account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So got evasive non-answers and bad faith accusations

Since the people here especially, Pedro (talk · contribs) accuse me of unnecessarily stirring the pot and making "a conspiracy", I must say my view against the pile of bad-faith accusations. I also find the attempts to silent my mouth totally unpleasant and offensive. The emphasis that "You already oppose the candidate, but what else you need for your vote?" is a totally ridiculous and illogical argument. As the RFA campaign still runs, voters have every right to ask legitimate questions since this RFA is not strictly based on "transparency". Depending on answers to my questions, I could still have time to change my vote to "Neutral" or add "strong". You seem to be rather fretting about how much my question would gather possible opposing voters. Since JamieS93 brings up Cirt's election, as I've said, I don't really understand why the people who abandoned their account for privacy want their privacy to be in a more dangerous situation by exposing themselves to more people and letting others to know about "oh the candidate has some undisclosed history". Cirt's interests are overlapped with the articles that he previously edited, so many people figured out who he was. That is his responsibility, not people who questioned about his previous account.

I don't see how my questions are directly related to WP:OUT the candidate's privacy. I did not require exact active period (some X months or Y years would be okay), and if the candidate followed WP:CLEANSTART, there is nothing to hesitate or linger to the question regarding whether the candidate had some overlapped period with the current account as well. From August, 2008 to Jan. 2009, the average edit count is way much lower than the one from onwards, so that gives some doubt the question. Moreover, how many Wikipedians are involved in ArbCom? The question about ANI/AN/WQA does not require to direct specific incidents that the candidate may or may not have.

Given that the recent finding of TheKoher/Cool3 as well as the election of The_undertow/Law, Ecoleege/Pastor Theo, I just don't want to be surprised by "Oh, we have another ArbCom announcement regarding X-admin". As you see, many voters rely on Alison's reputation and vague analysis, but I'm not convinced that "Trust me, we're trustworthy, so the candidates nominated by us are also trustworthy, so don't ask about the unrevealed past." Basically, most RFAs are nominated by "trustworthy" people in good standing, but not all of them pass the chance. --Caspian blue 02:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated in my oppose (#12) I harbour no criticism of those involved in launching the candidate’s bid or in verifying his previous background. However, I see no harm in other editors such as CBlue wishing to press on some of the areas which are already of obvious concern to some opposers, and which some non-committed editors may wish to know more. This is not “stirring the pot” as has been alleged. If the candidate needed to leave and come back under a different Id. he is absolutely fully entitled to do so. No one should have to suffer the threat of exposure or harassment and it is much to his credit that he has returned as a valuable contributor. The sticking point is wishing to subsume the previous unavailable history into the new one. I think the approach taken is ill-advised on the part of Floq., his co-nominators and Alison. It opens up a can of worms, creates a precedent and to some editors will call into question the integrity of those involved. Just coming back in due course following a clean start would eventually achieve the desired result, why rush? Leaky Caldron 10:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Floquenbeam is trying to "subsume the previous unavailable history into the new one", and I'm a little perplexed at seeing this perception repeated so often as it lacks any basis in reality. Floquenbeam mentioned the old account only to try to reassure the community that it had no "hidden" history of abuse or aggressive editing, not to try to claim "credit" for its edits. Floquenbeam did come back in due course, after a fresh start, and went the extra mile by disclosing the existence of a previous account and asking a checkuser to examine it. It seems to me that s/he has done what you're asking. Of course, if you feel that 3,500 edits is categorically too few for adminship, then oppose on those grounds, but let's try not to muddy the waters by repeating ideas that lack a factual basis. [Note: Mastcell's comment split by comment inserted by Leaky caldron - continues below at @Caspianblue]

(edit conflict)My oppose was based on his current account record only. I chimed in here only because I felt that CBs concerns were being misconstrued by the candidates co-nominators. There is no suggestion that his previous edit history should be subsumed, that was my instinctive, hard to avoid conclusion You are correct, there has never been any suggestion it should be taken into account; by him, his nominators or the ‘cratAlison. Leaky Caldron 21:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[MastCell continued]
@CaspianBlue, I can understand some level of skittishness given the recent events with Law, PastorTheo, and Cool3. On the other hand, this case is different - Floquenbeam asked a checkuser to evaluate his account history to verify that there was no abuse. Presumably, if Law, PastorTheo, or Cool3 had similarly requested a checkuser to examine their accounts, the abuse would have come to light (after all, they were all ultimately detected by checkuser). If an experienced checkuser has examined this account's history, then I'm comfortable that we're not sysopping someone with a history of abuse - it's actually a great deal more assurance than we have in the typical RfA. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

re: MastCell: "and I'm a little perplexed at seeing this perception repeated so often as it lacks any basis in reality." Rhetorical question: You do realize this is Wikipedia, don't you? :-) (FYI) Rhetorical analysis note: That is formally called (by some rhetoricians^;^) "snowball bullshit" [SBS].

In the context of Floquenbeam's RfA, there would appear to be a snowman's worth of the aforementioned SBS — but whether or not that is melted by the light of discussion or light shining down from on high when her sonnet appears (see Question #13 ^;^), it would appear she shall prevail anyway. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 21:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The "gospel" of Alison

“ ... and while perhaps some editors can take Alison's word as gospel, I cannot. User:Tanthalas39 ”

On several occasions I have been delighted to see Tan's expressive virtual lips (beneath truly terrifying hair) shape shocking syllables in a good cause, and in that spirit (excuse me, Alison, avert your eyes) — Show us proof that Alison is a dishonorable [c-word], or apologize for (and withdraw objections based on) aspersions of dishonorably misrepresentative analysis of Floquenbeam's previous account — which has been described as an honorable and unblemished account which was abandoned for sensible reasons of privacy clearly understood as such by Alison after a careful review.

Obviously, I may be out of the loop (although surely there are several nooses being looped in various dark alleyways of Wikipedia) and have missed the memo detailing how Alison is a dishonorable perpetrator of skullduggerous nefariousity (perhaps a truly horrifying link to Wikipedia Review I've missed) but seriously, show me/explain the basis for dismissing Alison's judgment (within the reasonable constraints of this situation).

Links to essays, articles, villainous diffs, please — rather than vague aspersions of lack of faith. No bullshit please, and doubly so, no snowball bullshit if bullshit appears, i.e., please be creative enough to compose your own bullshit, rather than repeating someone elses. (Excuse any appearance of rudeness, but I am an experienced practitioner of rhetorical analysis, and "bullshit" is a formal term of art in my realm of study, the real, and the virtual: including Wikipedia, of course.)

NOTE: While I am often accused of lack of seriousness, do not mistake lightness of approach with seriousness of purpose. The disrespect being displayed for the word of an honorable member of the community is a serious matter. I have no reason to disbelieve Alison's assessment within the scope required. If you believe there is reason, then show us all. And if your "oppose" vote is based on such dismissal of Alison's word, then give us the foundation, rather than vague, hand-waving, yes, "bullshit".
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 02:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I personally feel that a bureaucrat should be the one taking the role Allison is taking as we are already trusting them with RfAs anyways. I'd likely move to support (or at least neutral) if that happens. But as it sits I don't think we should be taking anyone else's word for stuff like this. There is no clear need. In my case, do I trust Allison's summary? Frankly, I don't. Not because I think she's dishonorable, but because she views things through a very different lens than I do. Things she doesn't see as problematic (speedy deleting a redirect as substantively similar to an actual article when having a COI) I do, and things I don't see as problematic (lower-end notability BLPs existing) she sees as a huge problem. I thus don't trust her opinions and views simply because I fully expect them to be very different than mine, even on what I'd regard as factual issues (like if a redirect can be "substantively similar" to an article or if a "breaching experiment" that had just been widely rejected is disruptive.) All that said, I'd feel the same way if someone else who largely saw thing through a similar lens to what I do (say SoWhy, Stifle or DGG) was taking the same role. Let the folks that do RfAs handle this rather than getting someone else's hands in the pot. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you, Hobit. Very clear, and well expressed. (Not that you need my approval, but you have my sincere praise, nonetheless.) That you have given a specific solution to the problematic issue (a Bureaucrat, not Alison, should do it), is especially praiseworthy. Again, thank you. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Whatever about our differences, I feel that a very fair and accurate summation from Hobit, actually. I've already discussed the matter with one bureaucrat and am hoping they'll comment here at some stage - Alison ^❤ 21:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Alison has shared with me the name of the account in question. I confirm that it was in good standing with the community. The account was never blocked, nor was it the subject of any RfC or ArbCom proceedings. WJBscribe (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The myth of "content creation"

A general response to opposition to Floquenbeam's candidacy based on that issue

It has recently come within the scope of my knowledge to learn the TINY number of people we are talking about (1,000 voters in recent Arbcom election, about 500 of which are the more-usual suspects, among whom lie the 100-of-us-usually-mucking-about).

Note: Five hundred people CANNOT write the encyclopedia of all human knowledge — what we can do (and do) is provide and maintain a virtual environment in which thousands, millions, billions can participate to create such a work of knowledge.

So, bless those who develop content, but that is not what we should be voting on. (However many are upset to learn that, tis true.)

Now, within the scope of content creation, what an administrator should know is the art of dealing with "flaws in interaction" of participants. For some articles, there are no problems. On some, there are infinite problems. (For example, at times Sarah Palin and Roman Polanski, for which I have many hundreds of hours of experience of "current events wrangling." No comment on whether such labor is sensible in the grand scheme, or not. Perhaps another occasion.:)

While I have not experienced directly the skills of Floquenbeam in this realm (of "chaos control"), there is evidence in the statements of those who support.

BOTTOM LINE: WP:FA creation should not be a requirement for those who make the machine work, although they should certainly wrap their mind around the processes of all elements of the Wikipedia machine enough to know when they don't know enough to act.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 03:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! And to the below also. Sometimes you manage to say quite sensible things - I think you should stop it at once :) :) I have argued in other places that there is a need to recognize what admins actually need to DO to keep the encyclopaedia going (as distinct from what any user needs to do). And one of the admins jobs is clearly to keep the road clear, keep the traffic flowing, keep the content coming. This is quite distinct from creating the content, and skills at one are not necessarily related to skills at the other (cf Matisse, Ottava Rima, Badgani, and countless other prolific content creators who have a terrible reputation where working with others is concerned). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit count issue

A general response to those who who oppose Floquenbeam's candidacy on this basis

I hereby donate my roughly 5,000 Huggle edits to Floquenbeam. Surely no one should care, since no one respects that work anyway. Five thousand Huggle edits and three dollars will buy you a frappachino. RESPECT?: I have witnessed an RC patroller (who was also an administrator on the Dutch Wikipedia) make a 3RR error in judging "vandalism," and within ten minutes was blocked, accused of being a sockpuppet, stripped of their rollback bit, and even had (yes, that quick) their rollback userbox unceremoniously stripped from their user page. They went on wikibreak with a bad [taste] in their mouth. (duh)

AND: I have also seen amazing wisdom being displayed at ANI by someone with about 1,000 edits resolving topics (?!?!) ... who I later learned (when I asked), that they did not do RC, but rather took time to compose messages with great care, and spent a lot of time reading and studying Wikipedia policy and the discussions within the Community. I.E., Their edit count told you NOTHING. You had to observe what they did. And see that it was good.

SO: We all know that Floquenbeam could rack up a few thousand edits in Huggle, and we also know that few give a [f-word].

So, for those who oppose for low edit count, let us acknowledge that while it may be a handy excuse, it is not a good basis for opposing.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 04:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pig in a Poke?

I still have a worry that we are being sold a pig in a poke and that we might never fully let the cat out of the bag. I feel we are where we are when it comes to this nomination, and I understand the nominee's desire to not reveal more and more about themselves. That said, I'd like to suggest that pass or fail, next time around we have a standard set of questions someone in this situation is expected to answer and have confirmed by a bureaucrat. I'd suggest the following:

1. Did you have a clean block log? If not, briefly describe the cause of the blocks.
2. Were you the subject of any Arbcom or RfC actions?
3. Would a reasonable person suspect you left your old account to escape a well-known reputation of some sort?
4. Did you use your previous and current account in a way that could reasonably be called abusive sockpuppetting?

The third one is of course the most subjective. It might need to go. I'd prefer an objective question there, but don't know how to hunt out people who, let's say, were known trolls or who's past actions would make them clearly unsuitable as admins. In particular I worry about people with vast areas of COI that don't acknowledge them in their new accounts... Thoughts?Hobit (talk) 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, that some people would always think they were getting that pig in a poke. Was it Ryan Postlethwaite who very clearly expressed the opinion that if you didn't put the name of the previous account in the public domain, he could never support you at RfA and didn't believe you should run for admin? In cyberspace all you have is the script on the page - I know from long experience in a different cyber community that some people create complete personas around online usernames and are fully capable of operating as two distinct personas in one community. Hence I do have sympathy with concerns that the "person" applying for admin was once a different "person" who was certainly unsuitable for the job.

I don't have an answer to that. Persons I consider reliable have verified their opinion on the answer to the four questions (as you say, three are factual and the fourth is more subjective) and yet I can still see people having doubts, because they personally cannot see the previous 'form'. Perhaps it is necessary to ask someone who has had to abandon a former account in this way, to wait longer before application. Perhaps they need 2 years, 6000 edits, 50 GAs (although, as I said to Proofreader, I personally do not consider content creation to be a significant component of what makes a good admin) - more than the usual candidate, so that they can more legitimately say 'look at my content now'. I don't know.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re the (implicit) bullshit (of "Pig in a Poke?")

From praising to denouncing an editor's comments so soon. Ah, must be an election of some sort. :-)

(So that latecomers are not confused), a bureaucrat has just said (see earlier topic re "gospel" of Alison)

“ Alison has shared with me the name of the account in question. I confirm that it was in good standing with the community. The account was never blocked, nor was it the subject of any RfC or ArbCom proceedings. WJBscribe (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ”

As Floquenbeam has said

“ Yes, I previously edited under another name. I retired that account for privacy reasons, so I don't want to publicly disclose its name. I've asked a Checkuser/Oversighter, Alison, to review the old account's edits, and verify on-wiki that I'm not hiding any blocks, bans, warnings, aggressive editing, or any other skeletons in the closet or bad behavior. I've also asked her to review my "privacy reasons", to verify it's a legitimate concern, and not a smoke screen. Her comments can be found here. [See below] ”

Higher up the page, Alison has said

“ Hi all. I am aware of Floquenbeam's previous Wikipedia account, as well as its full history going back some years. The previous account was abandoned solely for privacy concerns. I've been aware of these concerns for some time and I know them to have been well-founded. Ok - from examining the previous account, I can state the following:

1. The previous account had a pristine block log.
2. There were no ArbCom clashes that I can find, nor any sanctions ever imposed.
3. Editing was uncontroversial and largely wikignomish. Plenty of janitorial work was carried out.
4. The editor abandoned the account in very good standing, and under uncontroversial circumstances. They just upped and left it.

My overall impression of this editor was of a kind and co-operative editor, a non-BITEy editor, and a good team player overall. This was a person who didn't get into edit-wars nor POV-pushed in any way. In fact, I would normally Support this RFA, though I will recuse in this instance - Alison ^❤ 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

”

Bottom line, do not hand-wave about "Pig in a poke" the day before election ends

The questions Hobit wants answered "the next time" something like this happens, are presented in a way to imply they have NOT been answered this time.

“ I still have a worry that we are being sold a pig in a poke and that we might never fully let the cat out of the bag. I feel we are where we are when it comes to this nomination, and I understand the nominee's desire to not reveal more and more about themselves ”

That is bullshit.

I say that as an expert on bullshit. (serious laughter) Cut the crap.

1. The topic title "Pig in a Poke?" is not about the future, but now.
2. "Now" has been well [sufficiently] covered. Do NOT imply the questions have not been answered — when they have.
3. You want to talk about "next time around," title it so. The pig has been poked, and the poking has been found wanting — you want to poke more, get a sharper stick than this. :-)

Now, let there be beer (or coffee, or tea, or sasparilla ) for all!

The barfight is over. Let the barbecue begin — and I do not mean a roast. LoL :-)
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 14:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, but can we have the discussion in a few days? Because I think it's an important subject matter. I refrained from voting because anyone raising good faith concerns about this nomination has been attacked pretty hard for being political or trying to deliberately compromise Flo's privacy (or implicitly bullshitting), and I want to make clear that I have a good faith concern about this rotten process, but it's not connected to Flo. So can we have the discussion once Flo is out of the picture? --JayHenry (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jay,

That's probably a good idea; I know I came up with this "rotten process" after a lot of independent thought because I had no pre-existing guidance. From his comment on the project page, I note in the "golden age" of 2006, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's method was less exacting than mine and got no opposes, but that was a different time, with a smaller pool of editors, and no doubt he was a stronger candidate. In spite of the unsurprising amount of bad feelings on, I think, both sides (which I feel bad for causing, but don't think I could have prevented), I think this was one of the more transparent ways to do it. I relied on Alison's reputation as a straight-shooter, who would be widely viewed as someone who would never risk Wikipedia to "cover" for someone with skeletons in their closet. I knew going in there would be between 5% and 50% of people who wouldn't be willing to rely on that. The only thing I wish I'd done is come up with a way that someone that I didn't choose could have done this instead. I did email the 'Crat mailing list a few months ago, but never heard back, and when I saw Alison had returned, I blew them off and decided that people would be as comfortable with a CU/OS as with a 'Crat. Still, most opposes weren't based on Alison's lack of a 'crat bit, but on the specific questions I didn't want to go into. I was in the enviable position of not really having any major skeletons in my closet at all, so Alison, Majorly, and Pedro weren't in an awkward position and could say what they said. I very much doubt someone with a few minor skeletons in their past, even years ago, could use this method. I think that's a shame; there's at least one person in the oppose section who thinks that's how it should be; there are probably many others who are in between. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems an excellent idea. Standard criteria for an editor who has had previous accounts that cannot be viewed. Guess it won't happen often, but as the project goes on longer, it's more likely to come up again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you find it to be bullshit. I would like to know about overlapping accounts, and something close to my question 3 of this person. At the same time I understand the reasons to worry about the ever expanding list of questions causing privacy problems. Is this a user I would !vote against immediately if I saw their contributions and they've just been "laying in wait"? Does this user already have an admin account and so now has two? Did they engage in abusive sockpuppetting with the two accounts? I don't know. And next time I want to. Hobit (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hobit, if it helps:

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. No

WJBscribe (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Perfect, thank you! Hobit (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)