Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ (/Fae/Ash), Quick, send a dossier to ArbCom and delete! Options

[carbuncle]

(mod note: "Conflicts of interest, paedophila images" subtitle added)
(mod note: See previous topic, 'Wikimedia UK's Fæ, A new name for an old face', for background)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

[mbz1]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Does not look like there's much activity. I bet it is going to be closed.

[Abd]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ.

Should we start a betting pool on how long it stays up and who closes/deletes it?

Does not look like there's much activity. I bet it is going to be closed.

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 27th January 2012, 3:20pm

[Peter Damian]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

As I understand, there were two editors on the user:Ash RfC who certified it. The RfC can only proceed on the assumption that Ash=Fae. The problem is that to acknowledge that is 'outing'.

'Outing' in an odd sense becaue Fae=Mr Van Haeften is not an issue, and is acknowledged. The outing involves admitting his past user account.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 27th January 2012, 7:09pm

[Abd]

It's utterly improper in form. RfC/User has some well-established rules, not followed. Carbuncle, is this display of incompetence deliberate?

You mean this rule?

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466962720

Yeah, basically. The issue I see revolves around what "the dispute" means. There was a prior dispute, with attempts to resolve it by the required users, who certified it. That could not be used in a future RfC as a certification. Otherwise a single person could keep opening new RfCs based on an old one!

If the old dispute was not resolved by the old RfC, by agreement with the parties, then the next step, procedurally, would be ArbComm. RfC was not intended as a process to generate sanctions, though I've seen that abused. It's a process intended to generate voluntary agreement, or, alternatively, to lay the due process foundation for an ArbComm filing. That's how I used RfC/JzG 3. The pile-in of users supporting JzG -- in a position where he was clearly out to lunch -- and calling for me to be banned -- simply had the effect of demonstrating a situation requiring ArbComm intervention.

ArbComm, unfortunately, didn't want to look at the real problem, that a faction could appear and call for the ban of a user who was merely raising an obvious problem with abusive use of admin tools while involved. And they could easily do this with a two-thirds majority, often adequate to get a noticeboard "community ban."

What later followed was quite to be expected, Durova predicted it. I'd be banned, in spite of following due process *exactly*. They merely needed to wait for a more believable cover.

This procedural problem has nothing to do with alleged "outing," and the alleged socking, if that's what it is, would not be handled by RfC. RfC cannot, by design, generate binding sanctions.

This post has been edited by Abd: Fri 27th January 2012, 8:10pm