Future Perfect at Sunrise, what's he about? Options

[Abd]

There isn't a lot here about FP. There is In the Tar and Feather Barrel, which never got to the supposed "sins," at least not much. There is this checkuser request, which gives hints about former WP identity. That's not important to what I'm doing yet. I'm not here to toss mud, but to find out more about this administrator who blocked me, because I'm preparing to go to RfAr, it being clear to me that he was involved and shouldn't have personally blocked, to say the least, and that FP isn't about to discuss the matter seriously, and he's got a coterie of supporters that will definitely disrupt any on-wiki process. If someone has allegations of administrative misbehavior (or other serious editorial behavior), I'd like to see it, but he's got a long history, and I assume anyone will have some gaffes in that time. I'm especially, but I'm not interested in editors simply describing how awful he is, unless they point to where actual evidence can be found. Nevertheless, this being Wikipedia Review, surely some of those might appear.

So far, no serious dirt have I found, glancing over older stuff. Some questionable use of tools with respect to, shall we say, personal interests, near the end of 2009, not enough for even a troutslap. But somebody doesn't like him, for sure, there is a spurious public profile at google. He looks like he's pushing forty, serious academic (professor). I've called him "stupid." Probably, instead, naive. Not paying enough attention, incautious. Happens to lots of adminstrators, they start to burn out and become impatient. I'll know more when I review block logs now and compare with older.

The RfAr could be pretty simple. He made some mistakes recently, but, hey, he's got a long and glorious history, and all that's needed is to point out the errors. What happens then would largely be up to him. Or maybe I'll find something else. I prefer the truth to any possible agenda.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Mathsci]

There isn't a lot here about FP.

Abd seems to have forgotten that before RfAr there is RfC/U.

It isn't clear whether Abd will be around long enough on wikipedia to participate in either.

[Enric_Naval]

There isn't a lot here about FP.

Abd seems to have forgotten that before RfAr there is RfC/U.

It isn't clear whether Abd will be around long enough on wikipedia to participate in either.

Abd should first ask Arbcom if he can file a RfC/U about FP, because such a RfC will be filled with stuff where he was not an originating party.

P.D.: hum...let's see.... if Abd restricts the focus of the RfC to only the two blocks performed on him, then there would be no problem.

This post has been edited by Enric_Naval:

[Abd]

Abd should first ask Arbcom if he can file a RfC/U about FP, because such a RfC will be filled with stuff where he was not an originating party.

P.D.: hum...let's see.... if Abd restricts the focus of the RfC to only the two blocks performed on him, then there would be no problem.

Without the tendentious involvement of the cabal -- which includes Mathsci and Enric, cabal simply meaning "set of involved editors" -- it would be correct that RfC would come first. However, the cabal's activity shows that RfC would simply fail to find a consensus. I'd probably prefer RfC myself, first, but precedent is that when there is this level of prior community review (i.e., an AN report over the block that shows no resolution on the issue of involvement), ArbComm will accept the case.

As it was with JzG, I consider it an open and shut case. The cabal will try to confuse it, if history serves as a predictor, with hosts of irrelevant arguments. With WMC, I made the mistake of responding to this crap. I do try not to make the same mistake twice. (There was value in that response, in itself, but I still won't do it again.)

ArbComm, unless it prevents it, will be presented with a clear case of admin recusal failure, and while it hates to face these issues, historically it does finally and reluctantly say, yes, the admin shouldn't have blocked the editor, but should have gone to the appropriate noticeboard. FP is correct that going to the noticeboard is not a general requirement. It is if there is any hint of involvement. There is here much more than a hint, there was a big red flag waving.

Even Sandstein consulted the noticeboard over the AN filing, which I myself considered the most clearly arguable violation so far -- that is, I knew it would raise an enforcement issue, which is unlike all the other alleged violations. But I did it anyway under IAR, considering it necessary. Simply being blocked under the sanction, anyone following IAR is taking that risk, which is why I have the slogan I do, you'll see it below. I just saw Malleus' comment to Unitanode that he doesn't trust any editor who has not been blocked. That's the reason. When you ignore rules, people block you, it's part of the process. There is nothing wrong with being blocked. Short blocked.

But it's not necessary to make the IAR argument, which is moot now, because Sandstein closed that AE request. I was not ignoring rules or the sanction in what I did that FP blocked me for.

But that, as well, is irrelevant. Even if my action had been a sanction violation, FP should not have made the decision, he should have gone to AE and allowed someone else to make it. If the decision had been made by an admin without some clear involvement -- and there are plenty -- there would be nothing ready for ArbComm here. I'd still have a dispute with SamJohnston, and, because of the asserted clarifications, still a need to get clarification from ArbComm, etc., but nothing ripe for ArbComm, at all.

Recusal failure is highly disruptive, in many ways.