What is Admin and Arbcom Floquenbeam's old account name

[rhinoroars]

Floquenbeam had old account which he disclosed to Alison and Wcscribe .But he had run a previous RFA which was not disclosed [hyperlink]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... loquenbeam[/hyperlink]
Jhenry catches Alison here
The candidate's reticence about his previous account is down to genuine concerns for his privacy. It's not an indicator of some sort of 'shenanigans' or sordid past. There's really not much to know - Alison ❤ 05:49,13 January 2010 (UTC)
[hyperlink]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... .23Neutral[/hyperlink]
Jayhenry goes to Alison's Talk
So your comment here, that there's not much to know, means that there is no failed RFA under a previous account? Because I can't see how one could honestly make the claim that there's no information on whether or not someone is qualified to be an admin if the actions of the previous account caused them to fail an RFA. "Never failed an RFA on my previous account" tells us next to nothing about the past account, so I can't see why we can't have an answer on that. --JayHenry (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a damned if you do/don't scenario, really. I can't answer that either way without narrowing down the candidate's past account. What I have done, though, is let a Bureaucrat know the previous name, so at least they will weigh that up once the RfA ends. But, in fairness, it's beyond my remit to comment - I hope you understand - Alison ❤ 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
If the account never failed an RFA it's one of millions and there haven't been any lies of omission. There's no damned at all in that situation. --JayHenry (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

JayHenry is right millions never had a RFA no on say from that

[/center]

[rhinoroars]

Floquenbeam's RfA
The candidate's reticence about his previous account is down to genuine concerns for his privacy. It's not an indicator of some sort of 'shenanigans' or sordid past. There's really not much to know - Alison ❤ 05:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
But JayHenry catches her.

[rhinoroars]

Surely a Arbcom candidate should disclose his previous accounts.It is much better in my home Wiki.

[rhinoroars]

Back after a long time since I left Eng wiki seems Caspian Blue is no longer editing he would have raised it.Neither is JayHenry. Left about the same time I left.Been away for over an year and a half.

[EricBarbour]

So, what IS his old account? Why bring this up if you don't have any more information to add?

[Randy from Boise]

So, what IS his old account? Why bring this up if you don't have any more information to add?

This is a question that needs to be asked on Wiki, because after the Fae fiasco there is no way I'm not voting NUKE on any candidate hiding a previous user ID.

Asking now,

tim

[enwikibadscience]

So, what IS his old account? Why bring this up if you don't have any more information to add?

This is a question that needs to be asked on Wiki, because after the Fae fiasco there is no way I'm not voting NUKE on any candidate hiding a previous user ID.

Asking now,

tim

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

[enwikibadscience]

So, what IS his old account? Why bring this up if you don't have any more information to add?

This is a question that needs to be asked on Wiki, because after the Fae fiasco there is no way I'm not voting NUKE on any candidate hiding a previous user ID.

Asking now,

tim

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

I found a little with this from the ArbCom case, "Delicious carbuncle is severely admonished for posting another editor's non-disclosed private information on an external website and warned that should they do so again, they will face sanctions, up to and including an indefinite site ban from Wikipedia."

Wasn't someone just banned for posting another editor's disclosed private information on an external website?

[EricBarbour]

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

You don't know about that?? Damn.

He was the Chair of Wikimedia UK, and got banned from Wikipedia for being an abusive bastard. Socking, lying, manipulating, putting crap in biographies, etc.
You've seen the arbitration already. Plus:
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governanc ... _wikipedia

He continues to grind on Commons and seek adminship there.

[enwikibadscience]

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

You don't know about that?? Damn.

He was the Chair of Wikimedia UK, and got banned from Wikipedia for being an abusive bastard. Socking, lying, manipulating, putting crap in biographies, etc.
You've seen the arbitration already. Plus:
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governanc ... _wikipedia

He continues to grind on Commons and seek adminship there.

No, I don't really know who anyone is. I tried to find out who Daniel Brandt was, but just got a link to a joke site. I think the problems with Wikipedia are much bigger than the individuals, so, although I am often curious, I'm not going to waste the time I could instead spend writing my long-winded convoluted and boring analyses of en.Wikipedia's bad science.

[Zoloft]

So, what IS his old account? Why bring this up if you don't have any more information to add?

This is a question that needs to be asked on Wiki, because after the Fae fiasco there is no way I'm not voting NUKE on any candidate hiding a previous user ID.

Asking now,

tim

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

Fae cannot be covered adequately in briefs.

Link to our discussion. Get a bag of snacks and a beverage first.

[enwikibadscience]

"He was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) of the English Wikipedia on 8 July after being accused of deceiving the community, posting inappropriate material and launching personal attacks to discredit other users, ... false insinuations about other users, and badgering responses...."

Sounds like most of the editors on en.Wikipedia.

Get a bag of snacks and a beverage first.

"The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a Trustee of the charity. His work at Wikimedia UK has always been enthusiastic and diligent."

You wanted to make me barf on a full stomach?

[Zoloft]

"He was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) of the English Wikipedia on 8 July after being accused of deceiving the community, posting inappropriate material and launching personal attacks to discredit other users, ... false insinuations about other users, and badgering responses...."

Sounds like most of the editors on en.Wikipedia.

Get a bag of snacks and a beverage first.

"The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a Trustee of the charity. His work at Wikimedia UK has always been enthusiastic and diligent."

You wanted to make me barf on a full stomach?

I think I owe you some Pepto-Bismol. My apologies.

[dogbiscuit]

"He was sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) of the English Wikipedia on 8 July after being accused of deceiving the community, posting inappropriate material and launching personal attacks to discredit other users, ... false insinuations about other users, and badgering responses...."

Sounds like most of the editors on en.Wikipedia.

Get a bag of snacks and a beverage first.

"The Board is united in the view that this decision does not affect his role as a Trustee of the charity. His work at Wikimedia UK has always been enthusiastic and diligent."

You wanted to make me barf on a full stomach?

Not long after they were united the view that he was a nightmare to work with.

[Poetlister]

Fae cannot be covered adequately in briefs.

Pun intended?

[Cedric]

Fae cannot be covered adequately in briefs.

Pun intended?

"Quite."

[The Devil's Advocate]

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

See this and see this. Both involved previous incarnations. During the RfC he became Fæ, which caused the RfC to be closed as people thought he had retired per his userpage, and only after he became a Wikimedia UK trustee was it discovered that he had just changed to a new account.

[enwikibadscience]

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

See this and see this. Both involved previous incarnations. During the RfC he became Fæ, which caused the RfC to be closed as people thought he had retired per his userpage, and only after he became a Wikimedia UK trustee was it discovered that he had just changed to a new account.

So, he had a few sockpuppets, and WMF knew? Or he didn't reveal?

It does seem that Floq is and was required to reveal alt accounts.

I don't get this obsession with secrecy on en.Wikipedia, coupled with the aggressive and bad slam dunk block of me for allegedly sock-puppetting a user whose had no edits like my content edits.

If sock puppets are so bad, then Floq (don't remember the name) should not be allowed to run for ArbCom as one; and Ash/Fae/Etc. should not have been given a paying position with his.

[lilburne]

If sock puppets are so bad, then Floq (don't remember the name) should not be allowed to run for ArbCom as one; and Ash/Fae/Etc. should not have been given a paying position with his.

Ah Fae faeled to get a paying gig. A few trips abroad paid for and a 4GB pen-drive was the extent of it. The problem with Fae is that in his earlier incarnation he was running about as a sidekick of Benjiboi adding BLP errors here there and everywhere. Accusing anyone that questioned the edits of being homophobic, regardless as to whether the questioner was gay or not. Then as chair of WM-UK went swanning up to the Palace of Westminster to tell the MPs how much WP respected the privacy of BLP subjects. There was other stuff like the pederast photo on his old userpage as a NOTCENSORED V sign to the world.

[rhinoroars]

Floquenbeam has refused to answer .link.한국어 위키백과 is much better Caspian Blue also used to edit it.
He has a failed RFA which he concealed and became an admin last time around.

[Randy from Boise]

Fae cannot be covered adequately in briefs.

Pun intended?

Fucking hilarious either way!

Good joke and/or good catch!

RfB

[Michaeldsuarez]

Floquenbeam cares about sysops who abused sockpupppets in the past. He or she had ArbCom investigate Good Olfactory. It also sounds as if Floquenbeam had to create a new account in order to escape harassment:

SSP: [[Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snocrates]]
note that there was an "enemy" that brought up the sock accusations first;
it appears they did a lot of socking too. If I thought the socking was only
to escape this person, I wouldn't have said anything (been there). However,
Snocrates and Zoporific voted together on several CFD's, and tag team edit
warred to get an opponent blocked.

Emphasis mine.

Floquenbeam seems to be fairly good and friendly admin:

*I respond to [[User:Floquenbeam/Policy-violating blog#My username|Floquenbeam]], Floq, Flo, FB, any other nickname you can think of (as long as it's not rude), or even "hey you", as long as I know from context you're talking to me.
*I don't go around correcting people when they guess wrong (hardly their fault), but I'm a "he".
*I'm easy to get along with (at least in real life), so please give me any ''constructive'' criticism you want; I'm aware that I'm imperfect, and usually quite willing to admit it and apologize when I screw up.
*I try my best to turn the other cheek, but I'm evidently ''not'' so great getting ''unconstructive'' criticism, particularly when my good faith is questioned, or if I think I'm being patronized.
*I instinctively side with the underdog, so I tend to react poorly when I see other people (particularly newbies) bullied or patronized. I'm not convinced that's a defect, but I'm trying to make more of an effort in not going immediately into attack mode.
*I'm an [[WP:admin|admin]] here. If you think I suck and shouldn't be, go here: [[User:Floquenbeam/Recall]].
*Sock declaration: [[User:Floquensock]], [[User:Floquenstein's monster]], and [[User:Floquenphone]] are me.
*FWIW, I used to have another account before Floquenbeam, but abandoned it; so I've been here longer than it looks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANight_Ranger&diff=481955762&oldid=481383746:

Please stop adding tags to blocked users. It helps no one, and can cause problems. In particular, don't add tags that are incorrect, but even tags that are technically correct, like the one you added to [[User:DeFacto]], are not helpful. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 01:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exhibitionism&diff=552182837&oldid=533596587:

I think the new editor removing these images has a point, and I'd at least like it discussed here first, rather than treating them like a vandal. This isn't a "censored" argument, but I find it hard to believe that this woman wants her picture on WP, and I don't think we have a right to show her because of a momentary indiscretion in a public place. If a similar picture of someone we know is OK with this can be found, I won't fight its inclusion. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I also like this frank, personal essay, this frank, humorous essay, and his or her bold frankness. Although Floquenbeam is afraid of revealing his or her past account, he or she isn't afraid of revealing his or her feelings, even if that means offending others. Floquenbeam isn't a bullshitter.

I trust Alison, and she says Floquenbeam is alright. Some other users here have said some nice things about Floquenbeam. Floquenbeam doesn't seem to be another Fae. I examined the top articles and talk pages that Floquenbeam participated in. I don't believe that Floquenbeam is a manipulator, liar, or POV-pusher. Floquenbeam done some stupid things, but his or her heart is in the right place.

An issue for Floquenbeam is that he or she is afraid. I'm not exactly sure how this fear came into being, but Floquenbeam should learn to trust the Wikipedia community with his or her name, even if it hurts him or her a little. Arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad learned to overcome this fear. As long as this fear exists, Floquenbeam will feel the desire to keep secrets from the community (i.e. the fear will prevent Floquenbeam from having complete faith / trust in the community that he or she wishes to serve). As a result, don't expect Floquenbeam to make ArbCom more transparent (he or she says that he or she isn't a "candidate for change" anyway). Hopefully, Floquenbeam will change his or her mind, break free of his or her fears, and share his or her past with the community before the election starts.

[Randy from Boise]

Good old Floq's previous username could have been Jesus H. Christ (T-C-L), editing from a Comcast account in Nazareth... I don't care. As a matter of principle, no Arb candidate should be allowed to conceal the edit history of a previous account, per [[WP:FAEFIASCO]].

I also was pissed off at the thoroughly snotty tone of the answer to me.

Fuck him.

RfB

[Zoloft]

Seems to be a nice guy. Hides his identity. Might have a good reason.



Might not.

I can't support him in any position of influence.

[Versus]

I trust Alison, and she says Floquenbeam is alright. Some other users here have said some nice things about Floquenbeam. Floquenbeam doesn't seem to be another Fae. I examined the top articles and talk pages that Floquenbeam participated in. I don't believe that Floquenbeam is a manipulator, liar, or POV-pusher. Floquenbeam done some stupid things, but his or her heart is in the right place.

Remember Pastor Theo (T-C-L)? Passed himself off as a trusting priest. People believed him. Some said nice things about him. He became an admin. Turned out to be a former banned sockpuppetmaster, <redacted>.

Don't do that. --Zoloft

[rhinoroars]

The discussion then focused on this link PrestonH RFA.He even gets his Talk page knocked off and leaves.link.He was one of the few who had a RFA and quit in mid 2008 with a similar editing style.

Floquenbeam open his account on 13 August 2008
PrestonH closes his account on 29 June 2008 making just one more edit 26 August 2008 knocking off his talk page.
PrestonH was opposed because his userpage mentioned him as a 13 year old.But it appears wrong Floquenbeam states he is decades above 18 years.

Support It's taken me five days to come to a decision here, but I've decided to support based on the rationale that the candidate's edits as Floquenbeam look great, and even if the edits on the other account weren't so great, they ended in mid 2008, so that's long enough of a gap for me to ignore. And I do believe Flo when he says that he's only trying to hide his identity, not an embarrassing edit history. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Statements must:

(i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 10 November 2013 and before 23:59 UTC on 19 November 2013;
(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words[note] (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);
(iii) confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data;
(iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

if he does not declare his other account to the Arbitration Committee by 19th November will he get disqualified can anyone who edits regularly contact the election coordinator on this?

[rhinoroars]

But now think is not PrestonH is something else

[Poetlister]

Remember Pastor Theo (T-C-L)? Passed himself off as a trusting priest. People believed him. Some said nice things about him. He became an admin. Turned out to be a former banned sockpuppetmaster, <redacted>.

Don't do that. --Zoloft

I certainly found him to be a good chap and a far better admin than most.

[Michaeldsuarez]

But now think is not PrestonH is something else

Dah. If you had done your research properly instead of merely looking at account creation dates and retirement dates, you would've known Floquenbeam and PrestonH could never be the same person.

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:

# The previous account had a pristine block log.
# There were no ArbCom clashes that I can find, nor any sanctions ever imposed.
# Editing was uncontroversial and largely wikignomish. Plenty of janitorial work was carried out.
# 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-[[WP:BITE|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 - [[User:Alison|<span style="color:#FF823D;font-family: comic sans ms">'''A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is</font>o</font>n'''</span>]] ^{[[User_talk:Alison|❤]]} 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

[Michaeldsuarez]

An issue for Floquenbeam is that he or she is afraid. I'm not exactly sure how this fear came into being, but Floquenbeam should learn to trust the Wikipedia community with his or her name, even if it hurts him or her a little. Arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad learned to overcome this fear. As long as this fear exists, Floquenbeam will feel the desire to keep secrets from the community (i.e. the fear will prevent Floquenbeam from having complete faith / trust in the community that he or she wishes to serve). As a result, don't expect Floquenbeam to make ArbCom more transparent (he or she says that he or she isn't a "candidate for change" anyway). Hopefully, Floquenbeam will change his or her mind, break free of his or her fears, and share his or her past with the community before the election starts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582200061&oldid=582160880:

Amidst all the silliness there, someone did make an interesting point: I haven't identified the name of my previous account (from 5 years ago) to ArbCom. I provided it to [[User:Alison]] and to [[User:WJBscribe]] during my RFA. The ArbCom mailing list has been leaked in the past, and any email I send there is available to current '''and future''' Arbs, so I can't know who will have access to it in the future. I am not going to provide the name to the whole list. I would be willing, if necessary, to provide it to one of you, and/or to one or two arbs that I trust a lot. Is this necessary for my elegibility? Is it sufficient? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 13:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated above, the main issue that Floquenbeam has is fear and distrust. If he or she doesn't trust the mailing list, then he or she is bound to have secret discussions off the mailing list. Unless Floquenbeam overcomes these fears, he or she could never become the great Arbitrator that he or she could be. He or she doesn't trust the community with information, and he or she doesn't trust the whole of ArbCom with information.

[Triptych]

The discussion then focused on...

And I do believe Flo when he says that he's only trying to hide his identity, not an embarrassing edit history.

Statements must:

(i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 10 November 2013 and before 23:59 UTC on 19 November 2013;
(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words[note] (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);
(iii) confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data;
(iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

if he does not declare his other account to the Arbitration Committee by 19th November will he get disqualified can anyone who edits regularly contact the election coordinator on this?

I think I recall Chinese-paid administrator Tparis is among those managing it. He's on duty at his simultaneous USAF job right now, so should be available to answer all his Wikipedia questions.

The last rule there I actually disagree with. It's another non-policy "we get to know everything" Arbcom 2013 power grab. WP:CLEANSTART says the editor who abandons an account for privacy reasons and switches to a new doesn't have to tell anybody. Arbcom 2013 says "but you must tell us." Arbcom 2013 places themselves entirely above policy, it is a board of tin-can dictators. But although I disagree with the rule, it is the rule for this election. Should Floquenbeam be elected, with the rule brushed under the carpet, how does that treat all the other might-have-been candidates that refrained from self-nominating because they were unwilling to meet that eligibility criterion?

[Vigilant]

So, what IS his old account? Why bring this up if you don't have any more information to add?

This is a question that needs to be asked on Wiki, because after the Fae fiasco there is no way I'm not voting NUKE on any candidate hiding a previous user ID.

Asking now,

tim

In brief, what is the Fae fiasco?

Fae cannot be covered adequately in briefs.

Link to our discussion. Get a bag of snacks and a beverage first.

The mean girls version of Cliff's notes.
https://encyclopediadramatica.es/Fae

[rhinoroars]

'''If only I had an active account,I would have posted myself on Wiki.'한국 중대하다.But with no active Eng wiki account it will be called socking no point posting there.''

Do not Cleanstarters also inform Arbcom before returning to editing.
But point is clear iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

[Triptych]

'''If only I had an active account,I would have posted myself on Wiki.'한국 중대하다.But with no active Eng wiki account it will be called socking no point posting there.''

Do not Cleanstarters also inform Arbcom before returning to editing.
But point is clear iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

No. The longstanding text in WP:CLEANSTART policy says "f you are not under Arbitration Committee sanctions, you are not required to notify anyone of your clean start."

Nor should any contributor in good standing with privacy concerns have to go to Risker, the ten obnoxiously abusive dweebs, and that creepy c#^&%^$%*#r Silktork Steve Pereira for permission that is then stored on their little list forevermore.

You are right though that the eligibility text for arb self-nominations is pretty clear. Floquenbeam is onto it right now, that the only way to wiggle out may be to tell a single arb, who then vouches for the prior account to everyone else, and then Floq. can possibly assert "I told Arbcom."

[rhinoroars]

Randy from Boise Is the arbcom Candidate saying Arbcom is not trustworthy not even just let them know his old username. .

[Triptych]

Floquenbeam has switched gears and now argues that his or her merely disclosing the existence (but not identifying specifically) the prior account meets the eligibility criterion as written. That criterion of course says: "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee."

I happen to think this is a decent argument. There are many who read that, probably the majority who read that, including probably those that wrote that, that will say "oh no, that is not what that text means, that text means *name* the account(s)." But that is not clearly what that text actually says.

I am in favor of Floquenbeam (and others!) being allowed to run on the basis of this rules interpretation. His or her opponents can highlight the matter all they like, but let the voters decide.

[Hex]

Welcome to Wikipediocracy, Park Young Sam-ssi. (Did I get that right?)

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582543857&oldid=582489660:

==== Commission ruling ====

The election commission has carefully considered the issue of Floquenbeam's disclosure of previous accounts and determined that the requirement set in the 2013 Request for Comment on this election has not been met. We have also considered the request to disclose the alternate account to the Electoral Commission and determined that this also does not satisfy the requirement.

We therefore conclude that Floquenbeam is required to disclose their previous accounts to, at least, a single standing current Arbitrator from Tranche Alpha, of Floquenbeam's choice based on personal trust, for the chosen Arbitrator to conduct a full review and confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters.

For the election commission, [[User:Happy-melon|<b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>]]‑[[User talk:Happy-melon|<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b>]] 16:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I recommend simply spilling the beans. The consequences of revealing your previous account will probably not be as bad you think it'll be, and I'm sure that you'll be able to live with people knowing after a while. If you decide to keep it a secret, you'll be missing out on a great opportunity. Push fear aside.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Floquenbeam, I recommend simply spilling the beans. The consequences of revealing your previous account will probably not be as bad you think it'll be, and I'm sure that you'll be able to live with people knowing after a while. If you decide to keep it a secret, you'll be missing out on a great opportunity. Push fear aside.

**sigh** Floquenbeam still insists on secrecy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582547781&oldid=582543857

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=582552215&oldid=582475902

[Vigilant]

Floquenbeam, I recommend simply spilling the beans. The consequences of revealing your previous account will probably not be as bad you think it'll be, and I'm sure that you'll be able to live with people knowing after a while. If you decide to keep it a secret, you'll be missing out on a great opportunity. Push fear aside.

**sigh** Floquenbeam still insists on secrecy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582547781&oldid=582543857

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newyorkbrad&diff=582552215&oldid=582475902

This is a good thing.

The minions watching this should be driven to the truth that anonymity on wikipedia is a facade and prevents you from succeeding at hat collecting.

[Michaeldsuarez]

The minions watching this should be driven to the truth that anonymity on wikipedia is a facade and prevents you from succeeding at hat collecting.

I believe that you're underestimating Floquenbeam's chances of being elected. If NewYorkBrad vouches for Floquenbeam, then Floquenbeam's chances will increase substantially. The vast majority of voters love NewYorkBrad according to past election results. They'll respect Floquenbeam even more if NewYorkBrad vouches for him or her.

[enwikibadscience]

If sock puppets are so bad, then Floq (don't remember the name) should not be allowed to run for ArbCom as one; and Ash/Fae/Etc. should not have been given a paying position with his.

.... There was other stuff like the pederast photo on his old userpage as a NOTCENSORED V sign to the world.

Damn.

[Michaeldsuarez]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2013/Candidates/Floquenbeam&diff=582611194&oldid=582569319

Code: Select all

====Analysis of prior account====
I am a current arbitrator in Tranche Alpha (that is, my term does not expire this year). In conformity with the Electoral Commission ruling above, Floquenbeam has confidentially shared with me the name of his prior account, and I have reviewed its editing history. I state as follows:
*As requested by the Commission and the candidate, I have conducted a full review and I confirm that the previous account holds no history that would be of current concern or criticism by eligible voters.
*In particular, the account had no block log and no ArbCom sanctions.
*My overall evaluation of the prior account is consistent with [[User:Alison|Alison]]'s evaluation [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam#Alison.27s_review_of_my_previous_account|here]].
*The prior account was abandoned for legitimate privacy reasons, and has not been used in several years.
*In my opinion, the community has sufficient information based on Floquenbeam's editing under his current account that each voter is able to make a fully informed decision on his candidacy—whether support, oppose, or neutral—based on the Floquenbeam account's editing history and without regard to the prior account. 

I hope this is helpful to the voters. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 01:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

[Zoloft]

That is sufficient for me. Despite kidding Newyorkbrad from time to time, I see no reason not to trust him on this.
Junior detectives can do what they like though. I ain't the boss.

[Randy from Boise]

Randy from Boise Is the arbcom Candidate saying Arbcom is not trustworthy not even just let them know his old username. .

[tarantino]

That is sufficient for me. Despite kidding Newyorkbrad from time to time, I see no reason not to trust him on this.
Junior detectives can do what they like though. I ain't the boss.

You are a wikipedian, after all.

[Zoloft]

That is sufficient for me. Despite kidding Newyorkbrad from time to time, I see no reason not to trust him on this.
Junior detectives can do what they like though. I ain't the boss.

You are a wikipedian, after all.

I'm one of the crankier, low-value ones, but I won't resist the label. If I weren't editing, I'd disagree.

[rhinoroars]

I have nothing against Floquenbeam whether he becames an ARB or not.Cannot vote in arbcom elections nor do plan to edit in English Wiki.Nothing personal if he is reading it.

[Anroth]

I shall be writing entirely in italics from this point.

[The Joy]

I shall be writing entirely in italics from this point.

Source: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/11/03