As Sceptre has retired, this RfC serves no useful purpose any longer. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Consequently the circularity of "disendorsements" or "opposes" etc. is strongly discouraged. They mess up the proceedings, bring us closer to the dreaded chaos of threaded discussion, dissolve logic, and, well, are undesirable. See guidelines.
[1]. I have moved the "disendorsements" etc of MBisanz's, Neil's and LessHeard vanU's views to the talkpage. Feel free to indicate disagreement with any posted view here on the main page, but please do it by writing a view of your own, however brief. Use positive endorsements only.
Bishonen |
talk
14:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC).
reply
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
To quote Majorly, who has the same problem I do:
A lot of people have issues with my behaviour. I feel that some issues raised are important, but others not so much. The purpose of this RFC is to determine which areas I need to work on, and which areas other users feel are minor issues. The fact is, I know I am controversial at times, but issues raised are brought up in too many places for anything proper to be done about it. I'd like to see exactly what other editors think of my behaviour and what needs doing.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
I want to identify what problems people have with me, and for what reason this is preventing people assuming good faith in my actions. I am dedicated to the project; I'm an ex-admin, a vandal fighter, and the writer of multiple FAs, but the way I am treated at times annoys me and makes me question why I should edit Wikipedia. I am a bit uncivil at times, but the main point of the encyclopedia is to write, not to give people group hugs. I want to seek out why I'm treated in a way that known trolls get treated better than I am, and whether it is really warranted.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Will, I do not recall interacting with you directly, but I do see your name fairly regaularly come up in spats around the place . My impression from your posts is that there is an ongoing undercurrent of querulousness which is fairly offputting and antagonises people. You seem attracted to negative interactions and are quick to get in adversarial postings with your actions. You may choose to disagree with this or ignore it, but I am ttrying to think of ways to help. I don't have time to trawl around for diffs but it is more a chronic low-grade issue rather than any particularly bad clangers which caught my attention. Admittedly I am an atheist/scientist/doctor, and an arch-inclusionist, so I freely concede I am not partial.
You need to culture a more positive forward-looking attitude and try to keep interactions positive. foster the old adage of not saying anything at all if you can't say something nice and keep focussed on solutions rather than problems. This may be hard to do spontaneously but I suspect a mature mentor who is the modicum of civility would be a very good thing. Three civil mature people I can think of are Dweller, The Rambling Man, and MastCell. Anyone else is free to append this list with other examples of highly civil editors.
You have invested a huge amount of time in the project and are obviously committed, and have alot of experience and I do think it would be a shame to leave under a cloud and not seek to fix some issues. You also don't come across as a particularly happy person, and I hope I am wrong about the last bit, but maybe that is worth looking at (but not on WP) Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
I seek a couple things from this RFC
Users who endorse this summary:
Now that Sceptre cannot participate in this RfC directly (he can read, and undoubtedly use other avenues to communicate) that this RfC be redirected toward creating a raft of standards of behaviour expected upon, but not as a pre-requisite to, the lifting of any block.
Users who endorse this view:
People have been pointing out that they think Sceptre is just a kid, but he's 17, he should know better. I think some of my adoptees are younger and the one thing they never do is attack other users. (As an aside- I don't think Sceptre is linked to the wider sock ring of Jack Frost etc. but I've been known to be naive.) Sticky Parkin 20:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment:
As he has amply demonstrated, Sceptre can be prone to bouts of literary belligerence and outrageous stupidity. Yet in spite of these problems, I still value his opinions and insights more highly than those of many other editors. Sceptre's commitment to Wikipedia is beyond debate and his current absence, whilst justified, is extremely regrettable.
Users who endorse this view:
Sceptre has stated "I want to seek out why I'm treated in a way that known trolls get treated better than I am, and whether it is really warranted". There are a number of responses to this:
As Sceptre knows precisely what is and is not acceptable, his actions can only be viewed (I believe) as a breaching experiment. He sees people get away with actions he considers "wrong" (q.v. Kmweber, Giano), and is emulating such actions in an exaggerated manner, in order to get the community to react strongly. Once the community reacts to Sceptre's actions, they must then respond in a similar way to those more vituperative actions of Giano, Kurt Weber, etc etc.
What Sceptre has therefore been doing in the past few months, therefore, is the perfect definition of "do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT".
In my view, there are two solutions. Mentorship is next to worthless, as Sceptre is a long-term editor and knows the boundaries of conduct (and how to push them) more than most.
The two solutions are either 1) for the community to give Sceptre a very short leash (a strict civility parole - including snarky comments - and blocks for every further bout of pointy fuckwittery), or 2) for the community to actually act on his concerns.
As the second solution is untenable, as the majority of the community do not agree with Sceptre's view that editors such as Kmweber and Giano are trolls, then only the first is going to fly.
Users who endorse this view:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
Sceptre retired.