User talk:Sceptre/Archive 53

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

— Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Some handy links

I'm still around, pottering away, editing where I need to.

---

The current local time is: 22:02, 27 April 2024 (BST)

---

• .JS
• .CSS
• 1A
• AFC
• DW
• ESP
• ETP
• FAC
• GAC
• MATH
• PC
• PLUSING
• RC
• RM
• TSPACE
• USPACE

---

Only 50359 articles (0.739%) are featured or good. Make a difference: improve an article!

---

Sceptre's talk page: Archive 53

Archives

Current talk
Bot			IP				RfA
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50
51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65

What's up?

I was strongly considering blocking you for disruption (but I'd prefer it doesn't come to that.) It's been going on for days, at least. Will you stop, or will someone need to stop you? Friday (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Constructive suggestion?

Hey, thanks for your responsiveness about the "Stolen Earth" images. Now, let me genuinely try to be constructive for once, in return: how about that other old idea of yours about having an image from that climax scene of the doctor dying? It would be a bit similar to the "Last of the Time Lords" one we fought over so hard, but unlike in that case, here you'd actually have the "critical analysis" in place, because the scene is covered substantially, and not just in the sense of a renarration of the plot. How about one of those with Rose holding the dying Doctor in her arms, like here, caption along the lines of: "The climactic final scene, described as a "bitter moment of high emotion", as the Doctor is seemingly dying in Rose's arms. (bah, a bit long, but you get my drift.) (Trouble is, if you want it in the infobox, you'll probably want a longish caption to make the analytic significance transparent. In my opinion at least, it really helps if the caption refers explicitly to the analytic aspect, rather than just to the plot.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag at WP:CIV

Actually I had best intentions when putting that up, and was meaning it to be pointy. I apologise that it came across that way. However, when one person disputes a page, the tag should be applicable to one person. I don't see a reason to have the full tag on the page because it's not disputed, so I replaced it with one for an individual user. No other meaning was intended or implied, and I was reverted for being pointy (which I wasn't being), so I consider this matter concluded. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

heh. Is that first sentence Freudian? (was meaning it to be pointy ?) Keeper ǀ 76 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

*'t. Apologies. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

On the double man, on the double!

Well, maybe not on the double, but Jimbo and I would be pretty tickled if you could work some magic for him. :D —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:31 8 August, 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2008

Delivered by Grk1011 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you want to vent or talk, I have Windows Live, just email me your email address or post it here :) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Barry George

I've reverted this redirect as it was stupid thing to do, and whatever happens on other articles is no precedent for this sort of thing. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 22:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I have directly contacted members in the discussion about DYK directly on their talk page so that we can all come to an understanding. Many of the DYK people feel sensitive over abrupt changes to DYK because of recent history. I hope you can understand and respect that. There are strong feelings on both sides, and the action has been done. Ryan offered to allow another admin willing to change it to do so. However, its no longer on the main page, so I hope we can all move on without too much ill will and a mutual understanding of everyone's feelings and worries. How does that sound? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows Vista

Well, that was pretty dumb of you. "Criticism of" articles are not always POV forks... especially in the case of large computing articles, as Windows Vista certainly is, it's a simple WP:SUMMARY-style expansion. This is amply explained in the very guideline you attempted to hold up as a reason for its deletion. In the future, when considering whether to put up an article for deletion, do some research as to why the article was created in the first place. Also, reviewing a prior AfD to see what people thought of it then is useful research, too -- not a single person voted to delete the article then. Your future commitment to not wasting other editors' time will be appreciated.... thanks. Warren -talk- 08:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown

I, Cirt (talk), am honored to present Sceptre (talk · contribs) with the Imperial Napoleonic triple crown. In recognition of significant contributions to 6 DYKs, 6 GAs, and 6 pieces of Featured Content. Well done indeed. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all of your efforts on the Doctor Who stuff, I am having a blast reading through it all. :) Cirt (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TARDIS cake

		The Yummy TARDIS cake Doctor Who Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions to WP:DOCTORWHO articles, I award you this cake. Enjoy, Cirt (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Megan's Law

Please do not erase 2/3 of an article (Megan's Law) without consensus and discussion. I will continue to revert such edits and may report them to the administration as vandalism if you insist on wholesale deletion rather than helping to make the content fit the policies you cite. Deleting the content makes it unavailable to be repaired or re-worded to fit the policies. Feel free to rewrite or modify the text to fit policies, but simple removal of it all is not a solution to the problem. Daivox (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have received a third opinion, taken a long, hard look at the article's content, and determined that even if the policy violations were ignored, the content belongs in sex offender registration if it belongs anywhere, and it is also a spaghetti mess that isn't really worth repairing. Thus, you were right, I was wrong, and I've taken the steps needed to remove those sections cleanly. A little bit of the content was salvageable, but not much. Daivox (talk) 19:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Undid an edit of yours

I undid this edit because it broke the references. --Elliskev 18:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. I responded at my talk. --Elliskev 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You might...

...want to read through your comment again. I had a hearty laugh. :P Asenine, 07:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I finally get that range ban?

As this is the IP anon's 7th or 8th ANI complaint, targeting me and me alone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Music of the Spheres

Looking through the edit history for this article, I notice you have removed large chunks of this article without explanation either in the edit summaries or on the talk page. The sections removed cited numerous reliable sources and were written in the style of sections apparent on many Doctor Who articles. Please could you explain why you think these cuts are necessary, especially as I think they should be restored? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that break-down. I'm pretty sure that defences line is muttered by the Doctor whilst he's at the console, something like "I let the defences down for one second..." - I remember watching that bit back to make sure as I think it was another editor who added that originally and I hadn't noticed it myself first time around. As for IMDB, I think it's an acceptable source when used carefully. I'm aware people vandalise that site, but after a programme has been shown, IMDB's data can be verified. I might add a couple of points (like the defences bit) back when I go over this article and the Doctor Who Prom article. I've been meaning to add a few points to the latter and was going to transfer some points from the former to the latter that are more appropriate there now that exists. I think some other editors have already done much of this work though, so that's a help. P.S. I've pointed you in the direction of some useful reviews on the WikiProject discussion page. Wolf of Fenric (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tha Carter III

Why did you revert my edit to the talk page of this article? The information that I removed is inappropriate for inclusion on a talk page, including file-sharing links (Wikipedia is not a file-sharing service), irrelevant discussion about editors' feelings on whether or not tracks should be / should have been on the album, and other discussions best-suited for a fan site (Wikipedia is not a fan site). --Winger84 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why ask?

I've offered my opinions, and yiou dismiss them. When I offer some changes, you revert them. I am not sure why you sought my opinion if you are not willing to compromise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Will, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. I liked your question, even it was confusing at first. :) If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The WikiProject Doctor Who Award
		For the great work you did that helped promote The Stolen Earth to FA status, you deserve this Barnstar! SoWhy 23:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

yep good job! Fasach Nua (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Doctor Who Series 4.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:Doctor Who Series 4.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Q ^{T C} 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Max Mosley

Hi again. By way of illustration of why it's a bad idea to de-list GAs when there's little work to be done on them to maintain their status, Max Mosley is still not back at GA. Not because anyone doesn't think it's of high enough quality. The very small amount of work required to maintain GA status was done a month ago. However a combination of the GAR process, which seems now to be very confusing, the lengthy GA nom list for sports articles, and an argument that blew up out of nowhere (see talk:Max Mosley) means it's still at B-class.

A vast amount of energy has been expended over the last month by myself, Geometry Guy, Giggy, D.M.N, Resolute and Narson, in return for really quite small changes to the article. Because we all agree that it is of GA quality, with the minor changes, which I would have made if you had simply raised the issue at the article talk page or directly with me in the first place. Please, when you are considering de-listing articles in future, have this question in mind: "what is the most efficient way of mainting the quality of this article?" Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

There is a disagreement over the inclusion of Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg in the article in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany. For this reason a consensus is necessary and discussion is going on in Talk:Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany#Consensus_for_Image:AntiSmokingNaziGermany.jpg. Notifying you because you are involved in it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Trial of a Timelord

Can you please discuss your concerns on the template talk page Template_talk:DoctorWhoEpisodeHead rather than just removing work you believe is a CV? --Deadly∀ssassin 23:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Are you only interested in discussion when it goes your way? I see that you have decided to AGAIN remove the table from the Trial of a Time Lord article even though you don't seem to be able to make a very good case that it is a copyright violation. Do you want to let us know your reasoning please? --Deadly∀ssassin 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Sceptre/Archive 53, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse for nominating me and Wizardman for co-nominating me.
                                                  — JGHowes ^talk - 19 August 2008

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please delete my account

Can you please delete my account and all my files please

Thank you

Freakishmedia (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Early close on Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters

That was unexpected but appreciated - and thanks for the page move as well. I don't remember, but you may have been one of the admins to whom I talked to about these lists previously, and who helped me with restoring edit histories and such. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters‎ may not be heading for a snowball close though, but we'll see where it goes. BOZ (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe this was inappropriately closed. There was genuine discussion happening here and I don't see what is gained by closing it early. Perhaps you would like to reopen it? MSGJ (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be a shame to have to take it to DRV. There are several reasons why this was a bad close, as I'm sure you can recognise. Cheers, MSGJ (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed, Sceptre, that you decided to ignore my messages. Anyhow I have reopened this AfD debate and I would ask that you be more careful about applying speedy keep in future, as this one certainly did not meet the guidelines. Best wishes, MSGJ (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

+Rollbacker

 Done per a note on my talkpage confirming the off-wiki discussion with MBisanz. Rollback is no big deal, and after a week and a bit, and an acknowledgement of a genuine misunderstanding, I'm willing to return the tool, with the proviso that any admin may remove it without consulting me. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz

As someone who thought this article should be recreated, closing it early seems like a really bad idea given the massive history and strong emotions concerning this issue. Better to let it go for the full time and then be closed by an admin. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image resolution

Hi Will. I reverted the scaled-down Time Crash image, as it degraded the image in the infobox. I tend to use 512 as the default format which should meet NFC without problems. Each image I upload has the best attainable quality by using custom gamma- and sharpening levels during scaling. Simply scaling it down again caused the image to blur even more, and this particular frame was already suffering from considerable motion-blur that was very hard to supress. Hope you don't mind. — Edokter • Talk • 21:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Juan Luis Vives

Could you please comment on this? Thankyou. Srnec (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr Who table

Would you like to at least look like you want to work it out on the talk page or shall we go back to dueling fixes? At least until J smacks up side the head?

- J Greb (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hope you're feeling better. I removed a speedy tag from Shmuel Herzfeld. The article definitely contains some notability claims. You could try AfD? Anyway, thanks for tagging. --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Terracon Consultants, Inc.

I was working on the page and had just saved it so as not to lose all the research I was putting in; you nominated it for speedy deletion and I put a "hold on" marker on it. I had just pasted my rationale into the talk page when it indicated that it had been deleted already. This happened over the span of 3 minutes.

If you want to delete a page for lack of notability, and you want people to explain why it is notable, you need to give them a chance to do so. Otherwise, it's like that Mitch Hedberg joke -- "you know what I like? Mashed Potatoes!" . . . Dude, you gotta give me time to guess.

I'm going to recreate the page and hope that you give me 4 1/2 minutes this time because, I assure you, my contributions to Wikipedia so far have been nothing but constructive, positive, and worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJEagleHawk (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Sceptre. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removed

Having been the one to return rollback a few days ago, I have now removed the tool on the grounds that there are various examples listed by editors indicating that the basic tenant of WP:ROLLBACK, to revert only blatant vandalism has not been followed. Just as it is no big deal to have rollback, so it is no big deal to remove it. Since I am presently not very active on-wiki, any administrator may, of course, override this with good cause, so should you wish, please appeal to another administrator or at WP:PERM Fritzpoll (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Block

Unfortunately I am blocking you for the disruptive edits by this user, based on evidence from Checkuser. I find it highly unlikely that any of the usual possibilities might apply. To do so, you would have had to had a visitor or family member who, on multiple occasions far after midnight in your location, used a computer at your home that you were actively using (in some cases 2-6 minutes both sides), to post anti-Giano and anti-Kmweber disruptive vandalism on the wiki as an IP, following which your IP resumed editing as a logged in account.

As you are well aware, I and others are trying hard to get the message across to Giano, a respected editor, that if he doesn't act up with others, he won't have undue attention taking him away from things he enjoys. Your harassment, especially petty juvenile harassment/vandalism/disruption, is exactly what is not needed, and in posting those posts, you have made all our activites here more difficult without any positive benefit whatsoever, and wilfully stressed and harassed another editor. This was completely inappropriate, harmful, and antagonizing.

If you will affirm to the community that you will do nothing disruptive, and especially nothing related to Giano or Kmweber, then I leave it to the community to decide when, whether and on what terms you should be unblocked.

As an aside, I also noticed some rudimentary experimentation with IP cloaking when I was looking at this case. You edited from *.adsl-dyn.* and from *.no-dns.* in June and July. This suggests a possible view towards deliberate concealment of activities. Briefly: if you were thinking of it, just don't.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A note to the community: the checkusers and arbitrators looking into the main Frostie Jack sock ring, have quite a lot to look at on their hands, hence the delay. They're still sifting the evidence there. I had a quick look at this aspect, and feel this at least can be decided (and should be), rather quicker. It is not clear to me whether there is a connection between Sceptre and this large sock ring, or no connection. Any admin reviewing the block should be aware of both possibilities. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sceptre (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's boggling that, when evidence was sent to the arbitration committee about a month ago showing Kmweber wilfully harassing several prominent editors, it was ignored. While I do admit to the Kmweber vandalism (78... is my static IP) it is in no way harassment. It's just frustration over how much Kmweber is allowed to get away with. The Giano vandalism was for the same reason. I request the arbitration committee investigate the harassment claims and sanction him if necessary, regardless of whether their authority is seen as legitimate by him.

Incidentally, FT2 has a history of sanctioning users without offering to ask them for their defence; cf Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin. This block should not have happened without first contacting me, if only as a common courtesy to an editor who has shown dedication to the project and was just annoyed.

By the way, I've not used proxies or IP cloaking. Any checkuser on my account should resolve to BT (my school's ISP), Orange/PlanetOnline (my old ISP), or BeUnlimited/O2. I was in Belgium in late July-that explains the belgacom IP, and I assume that the keme.net IP was the internet cafe that I sometimes use. I have never even heard of Frostie Jack before today; that's just an unfortunate coincidence that he vandalised in Giano's userspace. Please overturn this block. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the below comments - appeal should go through the arbitration committee directly, I assume via their mailing list arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. — Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(edit conflict) A few minor corrections: 1/ While adsl-dyn is plausible, few normal locations have an IP of the form "no-dns" (the other one), though it's possible. 2/ I am unsure that being the user who posts for others, on a matter where the poster has recused, makes a "history of" claim viable. You'd do better to try not to attack the messenger, especially on inaccurate grounds. It doesn't usually work. 3/ Blocking is routinely used for harassment, vandalism and wilfully disruptive edits, on identical terms as above. But you know this. Ie, smokescreen. 4/ Block left to the community to opinion upon. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On first glance, it appeared to be as if you were doing this alone. Which, you know, you shouldn't do. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not. You're digging your hole deeper. Vandalism to harass, which you've admitted, is just not on. As for the big Frostring, do you really want that dug into further? Be careful what you ask for. I like you Sceptre, but I'm very disappointed. This is beneath you. ++Lar: t/c 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, those IP edits from here merits a long block. That's harassment sceptre - you harassed Kurt and Giano in those two edits, and logged out to obscure your identity. Regardless of the Frosty Jack case, this on its own is extremely serious in the communities eyes. I'll being it upto AN to see what the consensus is, but I'm not hopeful. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not harassment, it's vandalism. I expected to be reverted on the edits almost instantly; it was a stop-valve to stop myself blowing up on my main account. The community doesn't know what genuine harassment is, and so label actually harmless edits as a concerted effort to stalk someone. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, they are much the same thing. You don't get to make steam-blowing edits and expect someone to revert them, cleaning up your mess - I am frankly aghast that you would even make such a suggestion. You have stated that you made the edits via IP so as to not draw attention to the behavior with your normal account; you d realize that that statement clearly admits that you were trying to separate yourself from your comments, which is cause for being smacked by the blocking stick for an exceptionally long time. We can people for that sort of nonsense. Sceptre. Harassment is not a quantity issue; you either harass a person or you do not. Lastly, there is nothing harmless about harassment; suggesting it is such rather indicates your unwillingness to admit you were wrong which, i think is the only way to actually save yourself at this point. I have a lot of respect for you, but you are wrong, and your behavior is lessening that respect. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not harassment. Please don't dispute to me, of all people, what is. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Of all people"? Dude, I know you meant that as a kick to the chops, but you rather reinforce my point: I do know what harassment is, as I've been the target of such and have been accused of such. As well, its just common sense. If you aren't prepared to say something with your own account and identity, don't say it at all. Essjay, for all of his clusterfuckery, did suggest that before you hit the Enter key, ask yourself if what you are posting furthers the encyclopedia. Your posts didn't, and I think you know they didn't. When you need to blow off steam, go for a walk, play a video game, read a book: you don't post harassing comments. This is not rocket science, friend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There was a quote on Wikipedia Review that made me laugh when I mentioned a few weeks ago Kurt had been harassing: "SlimVirgin's idea of harassment, or actual harassment?" (inferring one isn't and one is). I know the difference, and this is the former. It's vandalism, but not harassment. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

While I fully endorse FT2's block, I suggest an appeal on this should go to the Arbitration Committee. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not clear to me why the community can't handle this - and probably far more satisfactorily? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The community can review the situation with the acknowledged logged out edits, as long as you don't bring Frostie Jack into it. If you want to include Frostie Jack, only checkusers and arbitrators can see the relevant IPs and evaluate the possibilities based on the technical details. Thatcher 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh.. okay, makes sense now. No, the point of mentioning it is, some users have connected the two, and I myself have no knowledge of that. Sceptre has been blocked by me, purely for his IP edits above, nothing more. Any communal review, or reviewing admin, needs to know the status quo, that some have made this connection to a sock case, and I cannot say it is, or is not, so. As far as I'm concerned I blocked only for the disruptive edits.

(So for example, an unblock might have to be conditional, or "wait and see what happens" or "deal with the IP edits now and if something else comes up deal with that separately".) It seemed important since some had drawn the connection, to clarify what exactly the position was as far as I know, for review, otherwise there might be argument over it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing admins might also consider the evidence at his RfC in deciding how to handle this request. MBisanz ^talk 16:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I do not see any technical evidence that Sceptre is connected to the Frostie Jack sock ring, other than the fact they all appear to geolocate within a circle of 50 mile radius on an island that is 150 miles wide. Thatcher 16:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thank you. I just checked the thread on Wikipedia Review... whoever Frostie Jack is, he's similar to, but actually not, me. For one thing, the Accrington Stanley and Mary Whitehouse references indicate someone in their 30s or 40s. Looking at edit pattern overlap here, I can distinctly remember editing 2008 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (rumour control), The Stolen Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FA), Dalek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (maintainance), Cyberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (GA fixes), List of Doctor Who serials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (FL), Gothic metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (mediation) and maybe Bonekickers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (I like the show). Any other is coincidental. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To anyone who's watching the page: I regret vandalising Kurt's user page. I was annoyed, and it wasn't the best thing to do. But I won't apologise specifically because I'm being requested to - any apology now would make it seem hollow and forced. If you want an apology, please don't ask for one. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing an apology with an unbidden willingness to admit you were wrong, that you lost it and acted uncharacteristically dunderheaded. If you cannot admit you were wrong, apologies indeed would ring hollow, and they would likely be the last thing we would ever hear from you, as you would be banned. We aren't here to prod you with Klingon pain sticks - we want you to walk the path yourself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I admitted that I regret vandalising Kurt's user page, but I won't say the word "sorry" because it would be forced by people. A forced apology is insincere, and I'm trying to be sincere here. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But dammit, I like Klingon pain sticks! But seriously, Sceptre, you fucked up, just admit it unequivocally and let us move along; it's not being forced if you're still doing it for proper reasons. I can't finish that Hugo featured topic with you blocked :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Linking this to MBisanz's endorsement on ANI: I know what I did was wrong and I won't do it again. I think the apology can be inferred from those two, without saying sorry. But if people want me to actually say the word "sorry", I'll do it now: I'm sorry for vandalising Kurt's userpage and it won't happen again. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll comment on this as a character witness. Sure, Sceptre made a mistake, all editors can lose it from time to time. I think that more should be weighed on what he has done on wiki. He does not seem to be the type that just vandalises and makes a mess for everyone else; he has done some fine work. Maybe a warning or loss of privlages for a short period would be a better option, we don't want to lose productive editors. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Support shortening the block based on Sceptre's commitment to "not do it again" and apology, which I choose to believe. Block's aren't punishment, several of those IP edits are old (but do warrant a block as they are deceptive and exceptionally cruel). Blocks prevent disruptive behavior/harassment. Sceptre says he won't do it again. I move for either a "time served" notation in his blocklog and unblock, or a continued block for no more than 48 hours total duration. We aren't "preventing" anything here, other than preventing Sceptre to keep true to his word to cease and desist. Keeper ǀ 76 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To save splitting of discussion, I suggest taking the relevant points to the WP:ANI thread, and then coming back here once a consensus has been reached. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the opposite, someone should close the WP:DRAMA thread, it should never have been opened. (for no other reason really than out of fairness to Sceptre - seeing as he can't respond to anything on the ANI thread...) This is an unblock request, an unblock/stay blocked discussion. It doesn't need to be on the drama-board. Keeper ǀ 76 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(crosspost to ANI, please) I think MastCell and Keeper have hit the nail on the head here. It was a terrible mistake and I regret it. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, editor to vandalise while logged out when annoyed. I think blocking me with no warning or defence, for a tenuous claim for harassment (four edits does not harassment make - my intention was to vandalise the page, not to harass Kurt). About 30 months ago, I did engage in harassment of another editor (which I regret as one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made, and consequently apologised a thousand times), and the matter was deferred to Jimbo. Jimbo considered banning me, but was courteous enough to contact me to say "please don't do it again" - if I promised, he would take no action. And I've been true to my word. I have not engaged in wilful harassment since. If a checkuser emailed me privately beforehand to explain myself in regards to the vandalism, I would've admitted to it and said I wouldn't do it again. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you look after my FLC until I get unblocked, David? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to have to repeat this again and again. This is not harassment. Personal attacks? Yes. Vandalism? Yes. Harassment? No. Harassment is constant and never ends. Harassment destroys people utterly until they have no trust left. Harassment leads to inconsolable depression and anxiety. Harassment drives people to self-harm and suicide. Don't equate two or three instances of name-calling to be the same as this. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, you've had issues with KMWeber for weeks, if not months. D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as a result of his harassment of other people, people I like very much. I don't have "issues" with people on a whim. I have issues with them because someone needs to say "what the hell?" Sceptre ^(talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That gives you no reason to vandalise his userpage. Anyway, in the interest of fairness, I've posted the comment about to ANI as requested. D.M.N. (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gone far enough with this, it sounds like Sceptre is coming around...I still think the behavior was wildly out of bounds and he seems to get that. FT2 wasn't acting alone, and with that in mind I think they should put their heads together and shorten the block (or reduce it to time served). But I think the unblock should only come from them, and if they have other reasons why the block should remain for now they should indicate that. But none of this reduces how completely inappropriate the edits were. RxS (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm missing why you think the block should be shortened? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I admit to be pretty conflicted about this. But he's indef'd at the moment so any adjustment would have to be one that would shorten the block. But that's just semantics. I think he understands what a offensive, terrible mistake it was. And, I'm guessing that he'll understand that he'll be under a pretty bright light for the foreseeable future. He does contribute to the encyclopedia, and Arbcom stating a way forward though all this would reduce whatever drama this is causing. I don't think anyone believes that he's going to be indef'd permanently, so Arbcom reconsidering this and saying what plans they have for this would be a good thing. But I'm appalled by his actions, and all this is based on a belief that he wouldn't repeat them. Now, if there's evidence that it's an ongoing issue, or he steps back from "getting it" then my tune would change for sure. RxS (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict x3) Good grief, Sceptre, this is not a happy situation to find you in. You do realize that whether or not it was sustained harassment or not, it was petty, abusive, and juvenile vandalism with intent to insult via personal attacks and smears, right? So why on earth do you think that's somehow not worthy of a very long block? As Arcayne has said above, if you're so irritated you "need to blow off steam" you go for a walk or something, you do not log out, vandalize in a thoroughly childish and nasty way, and then log back in with your innocence intact. I cannot believe you're even suggesting that, yet that's how "it was a mistake" reads. "Mistake" means "oops". Your edits were deliberate, and deliberately concealed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(aside) I'll take care of the FLC, don't worry. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Aww, I was gonna volunteer, but if it had been entrusted to me at least one dollar bill user would have shrieked like a baby with colic. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship

Mentorship has been mooted around a bit at AN/I and I think it would be a good idea if I'm being honest. It would be a good opportunity for you to have someone to turn to if you get overly stressed upset about things and they could lead you in the right path. Are there any people you'd like as a mentor? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like a good idea. I'll think about who I'd like, then get back to you. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think you should be able to pick your mentor. Synergy 17:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If no one else has any real issue with his pick (as in, it's an editor in good standing, obviously not trying to help Sceptre "evade" anything) I don't really think that's an issue. Let him offer some picks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I very vaguely "volunteered" on ANI, but Sceptre should have a say in it. Why would we force a mentor on him of "our choosing". Isn't that is some ways, setting up a failure, and an escape hatch if Sceptre continues to screw up for him to say "well, it was my mentor's fault?". Let him pick a mentor. Will, I volunteered, but I don't have email, I detest IRC and refust to participate in it. If I mentor you, it will be 100% exclusively onwiki, on a usersubpage. If that's not agreeable, I have other things to do, as you do to I'm sure. Keeper ǀ 76 18:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be up and willing to "help" Will (mentorship is overly draconian). I don't want him to turn into a "bad egg", which I know he won't. But it's best for the community as a whole to give guidance in times of trouble. We've all been there, we can empathise. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the most acceptable solution would be to take casp's suggestion on the RfC for three mentors. Those guys are almost perfect models of civility, and that one of the keep things here. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, those are three really good choices. Seconded! Keeper ǀ 76 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I'm delaying is that I've asked two admins privately if they'd feel like mentoring, and I'm waiting for a response from both of them. Though those three are good choices, yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the admins I've asked declined, and noted that they would be inactive for several days. By the way, must it be three mentors, or just one? My order of preference is MastCell, TRM, and Dweller; if they consent, I'm fine with it. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I must vehemently protest any movement towards an unblocking of Sceptre. Two or three years ago, he was found guilty of sexually harassing underage female admins and creating attack accounts in droves; he was nearly defrocked for this - and would have been if not for the intervention of Jimbo. (Perhaps the reason that this is being overlooked is that Sceptre's harassment predates most active admins' tenure as an editor.) If he's refused to modify his behavior after so much time, we must conclude that this is an untreatable behavior problem and show Sceptre the door. east718 // talk // email // 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You add two and two together and make seventy-nine... I did harass an admin. Singular. Which I have spent the last two years apologising to everyone who was hurt by it, including the administrator in question. I'm not sure if she totally forgave me-and I don't expect her to-but I think she doesn't exactly hate me for it either. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, unblock him. FGS he's only 17 - probably learnt a valuable lesson for life - he's had the scare, been shown he's not as clever as he thinks he is - didn't we all at that age? I say this with one proviso - he prove confidentialy to a designated and trusted Admin that he is only 17 - not a 48 year old wierdo - etc. Giano (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a mentorship would genuinely help. I'm not putting myself forward as one, as firstly I am too often busy to be consistent with it, and secondly, I'm not absolutely sure I'd be considered neutral as I tend to agree with Will on community debates more often than not. However I'm just registering that if he wishes to talk to me privately as he has in the past when he wants to write something, I'm happy to talk to him.

On past occasions (and I hope Will doesn't mind me mentioning this) he has discussed intended courses of action with me which, while with the best of motives, are likely to inflame drama or offend people. I have found he does listen to reason and will back away, and a lot of the problems we see manifested here are motivated by a drive to improve Wikipedia which, in its failure in a community environment to actually go anywhere, produces a form of frustration that his temperament doesn't allow him to easily ignore. I'm sure many people understand the frustration to which I refer, but have found more productive ways to deal with it. Orderinchaos 07:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with what Orderinchaos says. I think Keeper or MastCell would make excellent mentors in this context. The only serious concern I'd have about other possible mentors is that they really shouldn't be any admins who have serious issues with Giano or Kurt (which is a large fraction of the active admins). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

A message

Just stumbled across all this and thought I'd throw in my two cents. I've watched your featured topic aspirations with great interest, and am sure you'll achieve that goal. Don't let editors who can be greatly annoying get to you, as they're frankly not worth the effort. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Solidarity

Although the vandalism and the insults are very childish as you're well aware, I fully acknowledge and accept your point that it was never your intention to harass anyone, and that labeling those edits 'harassment' is far-fetched, to say the least. To put it more frankly: Imho, you're the one being harassed by The Real Drama-Mongers^TM for not accepting the "community's" decision, where "community" really means those self-appointed free speech advocates who don't know to value open discussion and who have managed to filibuster every suggested remedy regarding Kurt into oblivion. You have my deepest sympathies, and the block against you was certainly excessive, and applied in the wrong manner like you correctly assessed in the unblock request. user:Everyme 19:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre

Just a reminder: "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment." I do hope this punitive block is lifted soon as it's obvious you're going to cease any undesirable behaviour. Matthew (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Which would be now. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Until the community is convinced that you are "reformed" and "contrite", and not this frostyjack guy, your block will remain, however unfortunate you feel it is. I would unblock right now, but I don't need the grief of going against community consensus ATM. Keeper ǀ 76 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is due cause to right a wrong, right it. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It's ambiguous. Keeper ǀ 76 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In this case: if you feel this block is unwarranted now (being more punitive than preventative), overturn it. Indefinite blocks only last as long as there is no objection to the block. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All I see are a few users with a grudge against Sceptre wanting to punish him *shrug*. Matthew (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think those that have supported the block in the instant have a fair point, even to the extent that I disagree with it, and that they have acted in good faith and with the community's interests in mind. FT2 certainly has indicated he anticipates Sceptre being unblocked by the community once the point is resolved, and is happy to leave the community to deal with it. I do not believe it is beyond resolution, and certainly hope to see him amongst our number again very shortly. I don't think accusing his accusers of ill motives is helpful here. Orderinchaos 07:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Vandalism? Really? Didn't this whole issue, with you and reverting good faith edits as vandalism, just get discussed on a noticeboard? Avruch ^T 21:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Bedford is on that list of Wikipedians I revert on sight regardless of merit. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Why would you revert an editor n good standing regardless of merit? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Why do you do that to Bedford? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Because he's a sexist troll who causes more harm to people than I ever would. That's not incivil or a personal attack, that's a statement of fact; he's the only person that was permanently desysopped by Jimbo. That doesn't lend to his credibility> Sceptre ^(talk) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
          • So every word he writes is vandalism? Is being desysopped a reason to regard someone as a vandal? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
            • The circumstances are, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Your refusal to give an reasonable reply isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I revert anyone who I do not wish to be on my talk page as vandalism. Currently, that list has four people on it, and they know why they don't receive the luxury of discourse with me: because their actions strongly indicate that they are garden-variety troll. Bedford, for instance, is a sexist Confederate POV pusher who has used his POV to troll the main page and several rather nice Wikipedians, and get desysopped as a result. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • Just to clarify, you mean reverting solely on your talk page, not in general? (That's what I understand you to mean, but just making sure.) Orderinchaos 07:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • I understand that Sceptre means he just reverts Bedford and three unnamed users who post on his talk page. If that's all he means then it isn't critical - there's a general agreement that one may delete comments from one's talk page. However under these circumstances, Sceptre's assertion that editorial feedback is vandalism worthy of reversion is not the most helpful response. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• To Sceptre: I've made my point and opinion clear, that I don't believe you should be blocked "indefinitely", but at the same time nor do I think you should have "never been blocked". Your "IP" edits are disgusting and inexcusable. That said, you seem contrite, you obviously have been here a long time and know the "right" way to do things, and instead chose the "wrong way" to do things, which has manifested itself as several editors saying "good riddance, indef block". It isn't about grudges, it's about exasperation. It isn't about your age, its about your insistance that you think you are right, always, in every situation. It's frustrating! There are several editors-in-good-standing that are completely exasperated by you and your editing patterns. I'm not about to unblock you, because I don't want to be personally associated with the grief that you've caused or deal with the flames on my talkpage. That doesn't mean that you'll "never" be unblocked, I believe that you will be unblocked and should be unblocked, it simply means that I see a pattern of angry, immature, impulsive posts of yours (on and off wiki) that are furthering the belief that "underaged" editors are too emotional to be considered valuable contributors. I've seen your contribs. Your mainspace editing is terrific. You know what you are doing in mainspace, and your contribs are valuable, certainly. But your meta contribs are combative and divisive more often than not. You probably don't see it that way (yet), but you should. My offer of "mentorship", or whatever it ends up being called, still stands. It will be exclusively onwiki though, for both of our benefit. Take it or leave it. Keeper ǀ 76 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Again, if you think something should happen, make it happen. Don't let the community scare you. You will get a lot more praise for sticking to your beliefs and doing something right, even if you get shouted at at first. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  If you think that your post will get you unblocked, you are sorely mistaken. I support the block, based on your deceptive, admitted, and cruel posts to kmweber, et al, as an IP. You made a mistake, and I see it as a mistake, becaue you called it a mistake. The community should and will be able to move past it. It doesn't hurt that you admit it (which is the first step towards reconciliation with the community). However, you need to find someone, anyone, that is willing to mentor/guide you. It might be me, although I've personally been on-wiki 2 years less than you have, it may be someone else with moreexperience. There is a large portion of Wikipeidan editors that are extremely pissed/disappointed with you right now, Will, and I don't think you see that yet (but I do think you are smart enough, as a person, to see it, eventually). Keeper ǀ 76 22:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Sceptre, I think you're viewing it that if Keeper76 thinks you should be unblocked, and isn't doing it, then the only reason why not is due to his being cowed or intimidated by others. Please remember that we try to run this place with standards, yes, but arrived at by consensus - and consensus is anything but clear regarding your current position and attitude. It is far better to wait and discuss and adress concerns, than to start a wheel war or disrupt the community with yet more drama. IMO you are viewing Keeper76's position inaccurately. Please reconsider your view. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  Well said, murderdog. I'm not going to unblock you arbitrarily, especially with issues outstanding, including an arbcom investigation, a CU investigation, and other issues. I simply said you need to understand that not everyone is against you, and not everyone is railing for you to be blocked permanently., myslef included. You've done a lot of good here, but you've earned this block. I want it shortened, yes, but not "gone". You've unequivocally broken the "standards" of exceptable behavior in regards to your IP editing. I won't unblock you. However, I will help you, and I'm pretty sure at this point that others have offered the same. Keeper ǀ 76 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly consider unblocking you, but no doubt it would get added to the list of abusive things I have done list. Majorly ^talk 22:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To put in my own two cents (US$0.02, in the increasingly worthless US dollar), I think what Sceptre did was silly and immature, and I'm hardly a friend or ally of him in general (I've had my strong disagreements with him in the past), but in my opinion the indef block of him was grossly excessive and should be shortened. Many editors and admins have gotten away with various and sundry acts of incivility and vandalism -- an admin once even vandalized my user page, and retained his adminship and clean block record. The word "harassment" has been stretched to the breaking point from people claiming it as a means of getting the upper hand. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not all harassment is life-and-death stuff. To harass - To irritate or torment persistently, to trouble or annoy (someone) by repeated attacks, to disturb persistently, bother continually, pester... "Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances..." [1][2][3].

This was an ongoing campaign of annoyance, pestering, systematic repeated annoyances and attacks on two people, one of whom was known to react badly to it. It was performed by an experienced user and past sysop, over a significant enough time period to make clear it was not just one incident, and it was combined with evidence of two kinds of calculated deception - IP logging out edits specifically for the purpose, and apparent experimentation with IP masking.

The appropriate remedy is an indefinite block to prevent repetition, which doesn't mean "infinite" but means "until resolved to the community's satisfaction, if it can be". I thought that was widely known. (If not, then it's worth reading WP:INDEF.) Also note that the comment "If you will affirm to the community that you will do nothing disruptive... then I leave it to the community to decide when, whether, and on what terms you should be unblocked" also clarifies the intention of the block, as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, the issue is not reverting the user, it's using semi-auto tools which identify the reverted material as vandalism. You have every right to remove it, just do it personally. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what it is to me. And I will not deign to giving them legitimacy by removing it with personal effects. Sorry, but I won't. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Will, Wikipedia is by nature a collaborative project which requires negotation between users. Comments like the preceding are indicative of your issues WRT negotiating with other people and ability to empathise with their points of view. Thus, if you are unable or unwilling to do that, and instead continue to rate your own internal issues as more important than others, then that is not compatible with a collaborative editing environment, isn't it? I really hope that you are able to negotiate a mentor, as without one I do not see the situation changing very much. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Harassment" may be the wrong word (it tends to require an element of repetition beyond what we see here), but it's inappropriate behavior whatever the word used. I think here the block is "indefinite" not because everyone thinks Sceptre should be blocked forever, but because it needs to stay in place until an acceptable plan to move forward is agreed upon. Sceptre agreeing to mentorship would be one such plan, IMO, but it's a community decision.

Logging out to behave badly "without consequences" is completely unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Adding my name to the list of people who agree that what Will did was stupid, but that it's time to get a mentor and move on. —Giggy 02:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Concise and right on the mark. Orderinchaos 07:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well spoken. Youth and good content work earns another chance. Not an infinite number of chances, but some. Durova^Charge! 10:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't like edits being said as vandalism when it is clearly a constructive edit. I know Sceptre has some people that he doesn't like but to "blank them completely" in my opinion is unnecessary. The post in question didn't seem inflammatory, no personal attacks were noted, so it should never be labelled as vandalism. I don't like the feeling of Sceptre in the future marking edits as vandalism when they clearly are not. D.M.N. (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not that I feel any of the above is not constructive, but I believe it is best to hold off on discussions until the ArbCom gives us a ping. Until then, Sceptre's blocking can't be fully addressed, and so we are better off working on possible solutions at RfC than prattling on Will's page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Ncmvocalist removed the RfC from the RfC page citing some AN discussion that I had not seen, since I was one of the co-certifiers of the RfC, would a less involved party like to make a judgment call on if it should be re-added? MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your page, MBisanz. Bishonen | talk 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Hey

Hey, if you want to vent or talk, I have Windows Live, just email me your email address or post it here :) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you need to talk

...you can contact me over IRC. If you'd prefer antother method of communication, I'll see what I can do. Hang in there, and remember I'm here if you want to talk. Although I think you acted badly, I too am guilty of it, so I know what its like. Best wishes, Qst (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

One last thing...

The AN thread is really painting me out to be this guy when I'm really not. Yes, I was stupid two years ago in harassing an admin. I actually did learn from that and have been apologising profusely to everyone who mentions it ever since. Any notion that my vandalising of Kurt's userpage is "harassment" is woefully incorrect. Real harassment is much much worse and much more persistent than my simple name calling; if sporiadic name-calling in itself constituted harassment, half of the world's population would have criminal records before their sixteenth birthday. Additionally, I have only wilfully abused rollback once. The other two times were accidental misuse of the tools because I thought in good faith that the edits should be rolled back; labelling it as abuse of the tools implies that I used the tools in bad faith. But of course, good faith doesn't exist on Wikipedia any more... neither do standards either. Until those two return, I have no incentive to edit. Sorry. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)