Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This RFC is in regards to my block of ed g2s (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights)

[edit] Description

I had been on WP:AN3 due to me checking my watchlist, the most recent of which was the report against Ed. I had read it for twenty minutes, weighed the arguments, and had decided to block. This caused two groups, one containing MatthewFenton and Johntex, and another containing ed g2s, arguing over whether my block was valid or not. After emailing him, I had unblocked ed at his request. As the blocking admin, I am taking responsibility for causing this split.

[edit] Powers misused

  • Blocking (log):
  1. ed g2s (talk · contribs)

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. I had (over)blocked ed g2s due to a report on WP:AN3 due to his removal of images
  1. Ed used this to illustrate why he should not have been blocked.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. [1]
  2. [2]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Johntex\talk 18:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)


[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by Warrens

Ed g2s and MatthewFenton are still getting up in eachother's grills? Oh dear.

Back on July 10, the two of them had a short edit war over a gallery of non-free images belonged on the Windows Live Messenger article (that MatthewFenton had uploaded). After three reverts, Ed g2s employed full protection on the article to prevent this from continuing. In cases like this, it's really important that our responsibility as Wikipedians to eridicate bad fair use is very clear, and dealing with bad fair use is one of the few circumstances which administrators will take strong actions more quickly.

Anyways, MatthewFenton and Ed g2s are both good editors and have contributed much to the encyclopedia. If they aren't going to get along, they should just keep out of eachother's way and focus on writing a great, free encyclopedia. Revert wars and vendettas don't get us any closer to that goal... nor do non-free images. -/- Warren 04:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. With the caveat that we need to accept that unfree image cleanup sometimes means running into editors one might prefer to avoid. Jkelly 05:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Jkelly

Bad blocks are going to happen. Sceptre made the block thinking that there had been an egregious violation of WP:3RR, and it wasn't obvious that it was done upholding copyright policy. Discussion happened, the block was shortened, then lifted by Sceptre, and there was an apology. There isn't much else to comment upon here, and I don't know what might need further hashing out.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Jkelly 05:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Hashed out at ANI; no further action required. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ouside view by Johntex

The block was a good block. While Ed may have believed he was allowed to violate 3RR because he was enforcing a copyright issue, such was not the case. The images had been discussed on the article talk pages and found to be pertinent to the page. The main argument for their removal was that the page could get by with out them, which is a judgement call related to content and it is not a clear-cut copyright issue. Violations of 3RR are allowed only in clear-cut cases such as obvious vandalism, or potential libel in Biographies of Living Persons. Since this matter involved Ed's opinion vs the opinions of other editors, it was not a clear cut case and he was not entitled to violate 3RR. The block should never have been shortened, much less lifted.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Johntex\talk 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. MECU≈talk 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Further, the continuing seeking of punishment towards users isn't helping the issue. Whatever happened happened and pushing the issue further won't help resolve the fair use dispute. It will only make it worse.
  3. NMajdan•talk 20:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.