Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:12, 27 January 2012

Is this page properly certified?

The link to the previous RfC is a bit weird. Can't the editors sign their name to this one, if they think another RfC on the same (albeit renamed) user is needed? ASCIIn2Bme (talk)

This isn't "another RfC", this is the aborted RfC re-opened. It has already been certified. I would have preferred to simply re-list the original, but the change of name and the time span involved would have made that even more confusing, I think. I should have signed it, though, and I have done so now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I've read the (interesting) AN discussion on the topic of on-hold RfCs. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Even if it is a re-opening, we're going to need some signatures in that space for the formal assignment of responsibility for the process. MBisanz 18:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we" and why can't "we" follow the link to the original? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The community and because things break over time as pages get shifted around which makes it annoying to try and go back and document stuff in the future. MBisanz 21:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do not understand what the issue is. Do you want me to copy the original section over to the new section? If you have a suggestion about how I can do this in a less confusing way, I welcome it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Copying probably is fine; it makes things clearer to simpletons like me. But like I say below, people (specifically the person who is the subject of the RFC), will probably complain that since an original certifier was banned, you need a new second certifier as the banned user can't consent to re-opening it. MBisanz 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, because clicking around now I see one of the original certifiers is now banned, which I don't care about because I don't quite know what is going on here, but sounds fishy to me because obviously the banned user isn't around to say he also agrees with its reopening. MBisanz 21:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That previous RFC was almost two years ago. Do we even have clear evidence that this user is the same person as that user?   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz, I am reopening a dormant RFC/U. You may find it helpful to read this recent AN discussion on that specific topic. Reading over your comments here, it seems clear that you do not like it, but I am not sure what your objections are. I started the original RFC/U and I am re-opening it. I assume that anyone would be free to do so if they saw the need. The fact that the person who certified the original RFC/U is no longer editing here is not relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

However, the point of RFC is to permit comment and dialogue with the user violating norms so that they can change their behavior. The reason two certifiers are required is, presumably, to ensure there is an actual violation of norms; not simply a personal gripe and show the accused user that multiple individuals see a problem and desire to help resolve it. Without Jack around to confirm there is still an issue with Fæ's behavior and to discuss that issue with Fæ, a key part of the dispute resolution process is lost. MBisanz 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument might have more weight if the original RFC/U had concluded. It did not. It was closed prematurely because User:Ash claimed to leave Misplaced Pages, but actually had already begun editing as User:Fæ. The original request for comment was certified. I have provided additional, current evidence that a problem remains, so that this cannot simply be sloughed off as "stale". I suggest you start a discussion on WP:AN or the WT:RFC/U if you have concerns about the process itself so that a wider range of opinions can be heard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Nah, not worth the effort; I just think it's a violation of process how you're doing it. And, I'm now involved anyway. MBisanz 21:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a violation of what you assume the spirit of the RFC/U process is, but I have been unable to establish what the actual process is for cases such as this. I had hoped for a wider discussion in the AN thread I started about a similar situation, but it didn't generate much interest. I'm sure this won't be the only such case like this, so if you have thoughts on how best to do this, please consider starting a discussion somewhere (either now or later). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My thought in the past and now is that if a discussion has been delisted/closed/suspended and a user returns, whomever certified the first dispute creates a new RFC_2 and re-files, with re-certification and re-endorsement of viewpoints. It ensures finality to the process that once an RFC is delisted, it's gone unless a new one is created. MBisanz 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This needs to be treated as a fresh RFC, with fresh certifications. The idea that ancient RFCs can be restarted at any time is unsupported by past practice.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never interacted with Fae directly so I don't think I can certify, but I can vouch for the seriousness of the conditions on which Ash left the other year. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Fae=Ash?

I can't find any definitive link connecting the two accounts. If the user has self-identified or if there's been a CU then that would be adequate. Whatever the evidence, it needs to be specified for this RFC to continue.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have not time to search for the link but as I remember it was declared by Fae after comments on wiki review and here. Youreallycan 23:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to track down that edit and post the link.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive729#User:Fæ = User:Ash (and was previously User:Ashleyvh and User:Teahot). I suggest you contact ArbCom about any questions regarding Fæ's self-identifications on-wiki. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see any evidence on the linked thread that the two users are the same. user:Bali ultimate says, "Well, now I know who the previous account was. It was User:Ash who departed Misplaced Pages in April 2010 during an RFC " But he never says how he learned this. If an ArbCom member would like to make a statement here or elsewhere that might clarify things. But either way there needs to be clear evidence that the two accounts are the same person for this RFC to proceed.   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are missing something. Again, I suggest that you contact ArbCom about this matter. If they wish to make a statement or shut down this RFC/U, I'm sure they will do so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's your responsibility as you're the one making the assertion. Evidence that the two accounts are the same person needs to be added before the deadline.   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Harrassment by Delicious Carbuncle

This request is simply an extension of harrassment by some other vile characters on Wikipediareview. Fae has undergone some unadulterated harrasment by various users on WR, and a lot of it is of the homophobic variety. DC, IMO, is very close to going over this line of harrassment, if they haven't already.

Editors should know that DC posted Fae's home address and phone number on WR, on a thread which was discussing Fae in a manner which can only be construed by any reasonable person as harrassment, so their claim here that they are only interested in Fae's Misplaced Pages activities is absolute and clear BS. (Whilst the posts in question by DC on WR have conveniently been deleted, this does not mean that a webcitation copy wasn't conversely conveniently made before these posts were deleted by WR, so if DC is going to deny ever having done this, they might want to think very carefully before responding to this).

In relation to:

In a piece of sourcing remarkably similar to those in the original RFC/U, Fæ sourced the statement "The beach is considered friendly for naturists and gay tourists" in Voidokilia beach to a guide in the back of a gay tourist advertising magazine. The complete text of that section is "Situated after Pylos and a a gulf with a big lagoon of murky water and is suitable for nudists" (in both English and Greek)

His sourcing in this instance is pretty much OK, it is in a section of the magazine which is giving details of gay-friendly resorts, hotels, and beaches in Greece. There are obviously doubts as to whether this is legitimate or part of homophobic harrassment directed towards Fae. It is obvious it is, because they made a point of including a photo which Fae had taken at this beach in their statement; obviously hoping to play in homophobic feelings which some editors may hold. It is absolutely atrocious and disgusting behaviour to be engaging in.

As to anything on Commons, DC should not be importing disputes from Commons to enwp. If there are issues on Commons, Commons is the correct place to raise them; rather than using it as cannon fodder on enwp. Y u no be Russavia 23:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who's "in the right" on this ongoing debate - maybe all, maybe none, or a bit of both. But I don't see how a 2-year-old comment by a since-banned user has anything to do with a current RFC. I have raised this question at WP:ANI. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Russavia, please strike your comments which suggest that this is "homophobic harassment" I regard to the posting of Fæ's home address on Misplaced Pages Review, I suggest that you post the link so that others may see it in context. Otherwise, please strike that portion also, as it is otherwise an unsourced accusatiion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting that someone link to a website engaging in outing is really inappropriate.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Merridew's certification

I propose that the certification of Jack Merridew be reviewed. Bugs has raised some valid questions, as has a few others above. In the interim, the certification should be left in place, but with a note indicating it is being reviewed. Manning (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: The certification of Jack Merridew be allowed to remain.

Support

Oppose