Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

As Sceptre has retired, this RfC serves no useful purpose any longer. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 29 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. . 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).

Statement of the dispute
''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."

Desired outcome
''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 certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Sceptre (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Waived. Sceptre (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 *  MBisanz  talk 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
''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:

Outside view by Casliber
''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)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) I'd add Cas to that list of civil, mature people.  Guettarda (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) With the exception that I am not a scientist or a doctor. — CharlotteWebb 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by MBisanz
I seek a couple things from this RFC


 * 1) That Sceptre stops committing abusive sockpuppetry as he did when using IP address.
 * 2) That Sceptre stops committing personal attacks and harassment as he did at Kurt's page.
 * 3) That Sceptre stops vandalizing Wikipedia policies as he did at WP:CIVILITY.
 * 4) That Sceptre stops abusing tools to win content disputes as he did here.
 * 5) That Sceptre stops biting new users as he did here.
 * 6) That Sceptre stops being uncivil and ceases to insult users as he did here.
 * 7) That Sceptre stops edit warring to establish his version as he did here.
 * 8) That Sceptre stops disrupting serious discussions to make a point as he did here.
 * 9) That Sceptre stops nominating articles for deletion merely because he doesn't like it and takes our XfD process seriously.
 * 10) That Sceptre stops going out of his way to annoy, disrupt, and test the patience of the community with antagonistic edits such as this.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  MBisanz  talk 15:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse all of the above. EJF (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse.  Syn  ergy 15:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Endorse, for the most part, but "and takes our XfD process seriously" in #9 is a dangling modifier (one where I could, personally, go either way). — CharlotteWebb 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Endorse.  Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Endorse. Although I don't think he'll be able to respond to the concerns in the near future. D.M.N. (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Erm...endorse..Yeah, those look pretty bad. I am particularly disappointed by 1, 5, and 6, and a couple of others. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Endorse.  I'm completely uninvolved.  |This was horrifically inappropriate.  I'm far from a CIVILity nanny, but that statement served only to toss jet fuel onto the fire.  Skinwalker (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) I'd reword #4 as "stops edit warring" rather than "abuses tools" based on the example given.  Ultimately, in my mind, the the use of huggle is less significant there than the fact that he broke 3RR (as did the IP editor) with 4 reverts in less than 10 minutes.  Supposedly Sceptre has been around long enough to know better - supposedly.  (This would merge #4 and #7 as issues.)  Otherwise, endorse.  GRBerry 21:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) "A list of this nature can readily be created on anyone with a contribution history as long as Spectre's.". No. I can rattle off lots of long time editors that have few or no of the items on that list. I'm very disappointed in Sceptre, he ought to know better. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 02:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Endorse. Here's a jewel comment too . He's had this coming for awhile. Charles Edward 02:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Recently he seems to be going out of his way to piss people off. It's sort of sad because Sceptre has loads of FAs, GAs, etc, and has a long history of writing good stuff, but this persistent drama seeking takes the focus away from all the positive aspects of his presence here.  naerii  06:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I endorse this view reluctantly. I have tried to communicate with this user repeatedly and have found him unresponsive. He has acted in ways that resulted in more useless drama than project improvements. We're not here to have an adventure, or an alternative life, we're only here to write an encyclopedia. The community's patience is running out. By way of 2nd/nth chances, what about an ANI ban? In other words, just encyclopedia building and relevant discussion?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Endorse; as I say below, I believe Sceptre's actions are a deliberate breaching experiment. Neıl    ☄   09:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Endorse Sceptre has gotten away with far too much for far too long, and measures are needed to stop it.-- King Bedford I  Seek his grace  22:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by LessHeard vanU
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:
 * 1) LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Sticky Parkin
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)

Comment:


 * 1) Endorse. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Let's not bring age into this, either as an excuse or as a reason. Focus on the conduct, not the editor. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 03:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm 18, have been editing for over a year, and have never considered logging out to make attacks on anybody.  naerii  05:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Endorse this. Will is old enough to know bette - he certainly acts like he knows better - and his age is no excuse. Neıl    ☄   08:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Endorsing this as it bares note that Sceptre is not some 12 year old Myspacer, but a near adult with a long term of service at the project.  MBisanz  talk 08:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Maturity is not directly tied to age, but there's an obvious correlation. Whatever our age, we WP editors take responsibility for our actions. I don't care if an editor is 8, 18 or 80; no age is an excuse for poor editing. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Endorse: Sceptre is a prime example of why many on WP do not want under-18 admins, and especially not those that think they should be, but clearly pro ve they should not be.-- King Bedford I Seek his grace  22:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by CIreland
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:
 * 1) CIreland (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with Sceptre, but he very often has useful input.  I hope is able to find a way to contribute without taking it so personally.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Neil
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:
 * Firstly, I believe Sceptre's view of who is a troll is not that of most editors. He has, for example, been very clear that he considers Kmweber a troll.
 * Secondly, trolls are not treated better than Sceptre. Known trolls (and I mean actual trolls) do not get the benefit of extensive block reviews on AN, they do not get away with the actions detailed in MBisanz's section, and th
 * Thirdly, I would hold Sceptre up to a higher standard of behaviour than your average common or garden troll. As he repeatedly points out himself, he is "dedicated to the project; an ex-admin, a vandal fighter, and the writer of multiple FAs".  He knows, therefore, exactly what is and is not acceptable.

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:
 * 1) <B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   08:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
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.

Summary
Sceptre retired.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.