For information - the concerns over some of these issues have headed to Arbcom, and are being looked at. Shouldn't be too long but also dealing with a separate case and time's pressing. I will try to expedite some information asap on this, if anything comes of it. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 01:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you clarify please: has my behaviour been brought to ArbCom, or has the response to my behaviour been brought to ArbCom. If it's the former, could you please inform me privately of the issues? Sceptre ^{( talk)} 02:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I asked FT2 on his talk page. Syn ergy 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Just a note that when I shared my draft comments with some other individuals (not FT2), they asked me to hold off for a few hours before posting, so I assume that is somehow related. MBisanz ^talk 08:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

After re-reading my draft a couple times, I think I see why people asked I hold it, very well, I can wait some time before posting. MBisanz ^talk 08:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Okey, in light of User_talk:Sceptre#Block I think I can post my comments now. MBisanz ^talk 15:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse. The circularity of "Disendorsements" 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 three such sections to this talkpage, see below. Feel free to indicate disagreement with any posted view on the main page, but please do it by writing a view of your own, however brief. Use positive endorsements only. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC). P.S. This page looks rather odd now. Perhaps the first person who posted above (FT2) could supply a header for his post? reply

Users who do not endorse MBisanz's view

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Oppose A list of this nature can readily be created on anyone with a contribution history as long as Spectre's. This type of demand list does not remedy the situation and only serves to acts as a checklist for future blocks. Other editors have recently made far more detrimental actions to the community and the community has effectively said 'move on'. This can only lead me to believe that this editor is being railroaded. Spectre has already accepted responsibility stating what he did was wrong and that he regrets the edits. Signing statements such as this will only add to an already tense situation. Let Spectres behavior be observed by the community, measured and managed by the same policies and procedures that apply equally to all members of the community. The notices of other sockpuppet farms both here and on his talk page are circumstantial evidence that while being investigation can not be linked to Spectre at this time. As such any mention of it in relevance to his current block is defamation. We simply can not allow some members of the community to use long term and disproportionate contribution scanning combined with the gotcha style of policy enforcement to mount a fishing expedition; intent on robbing us of one of our most ongoing and most active contributors. For the encyclopedia anyone can edit (or at least talk about) I am 167.181.12.95 ( talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose much of the above is sensible, however the suggested standard we are putting Sceptre too is only going to cause more drama. Everyone should be hewing to WP policies and guidelines, we don't need to create a bulleted list. As for the "annoy, disrupt" bullet, he can erase whoever's comments on his talk page. You may disagree with it (I do), but getting annoyed by it is your issue, not his. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose MBisanz's doesn't adequately summarise the situation, and furthermore, he has added his own personal opinions on his summary to deliberately distort the truth. When MBisanz says "stops going out of his way to annoy, disrupt, and test the patience of the community", I'd like to know who he thinks nominated him as spokesperson for the community. Each community member can speak for themselves, and don't need a self-nominated spokesperson thank you very much. That goes for everyone who thinks they can allegedly speak on behalf of the community at a whim. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 02:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
4. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Comments:

1. A couple? :) NonvocalScream ( talk) 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

   Ok, maybe several would be a better word. MBisanz ^talk 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Users who do not endorse Neil's view

Users who comment this view:

1. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC) - I am not so sure he does, I feel he has a pretty subjective view and maybe genuine in his (incorrect) belief he is treated more harshly than others. In which case, mentoring may be feasible )after return from a block and with a short leash). reply
2. anyone who has dealt with Giano knows that some users are more equal than others. Sceptre is frustrated by what he sees as inequalities and harassment that isn't noted or punished. His outlets were inappropriate, but that doesn't mean the root cause is false. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Users who do not endorse LessHeard vanU's view

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Oppose LessHeard vanU's stated opinion suggests he feel Sceptre should be permanently blocked, a position I am vehemently opposed to. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 02:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Can we reopen this RFC when he unretires? Thanks-- SashaNein ( talk) 15:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) reply

He is already back. Closing this RFC was very premature. SashaNein ( talk) 19:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC) reply