Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel

Wouldn't Wikipedia:Editor review have been a better place to put this? John Carter (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or maybe WP:RFAR. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments

I'm not sure how people can say he has never used multiple accounts inappropriately - during his block in November, he used multiple IP's to evade this block which is clearly abusive sockpuppetry. The problem is that there's been problems with different accounts in the past (don't forget, two are still indef blocked) and yet again, we've seen a new account from Dorftrottel - per my reasoning on the main RfC page, creating yet another account isn't a good thing - we have another account to check through when problems arise like this.

My second point is in regards to Dorftrottel filing RfC himself. I for one was planning on filing this RfC myself today, as were two users who have emailed me - I think it was clear that someone was going to file one. I see this as Dorftrottel getting in a self certified RfC before somone else had chance to file one a proper RfC that was created by an independent party. Self certified certainly looks better than an enforced RfC - I think this should be seen as a forced RfC because I'm positive that we'd be here now, even if Dorftrottel hadn't created this himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Forced" RfC? This isn't a court or a punishment, Ryan. Naerii 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it is, but people see self RfC's differently to forced RfC's. A self RfC is more like an editor review, where one that is created and certified by others is a step along the dispute resolution process - hence why this shouldn't be seen as a self RfC - this was coming one way or another, unfortunately IMHO, Dorftrottel got in first because there would certainly have been a better evaluation of the problem with the opening statement if this had been done by someone else. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky situation. I am just trying to figure out how we can go forward from here as it is more complex than some others.. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the blocking and unblocking admins be made aware of this RfC as well or would that be canvassing? Anyway, they are User:Centrx, User:Dppowell, User:east718, User:El C, User:Jayjg, User:Kwsn, User:NonvocalScream, User:Picaroon, and User:Prodego if anyone thinks they should be notified. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

during his block in November — November 2006, for the record. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- November 2007 actually.[1][2][3][4] Ryan Postlethwaite 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was when I was still drunk, so if you want to intentionally create the impression that those are unrelated to my main account's block from back then, it's a very weak shot. And I didn't conceal who I was. Instead, I evaded the block e.g. to malicously vandalise like this and this. Clearly a bad guy, right? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]