User talk:Coemgenus/Sandbox5

I would suggest he acknowledge the prevailing views on presidential articles that space is a premium and requires that he submit a proposal on the appropriate talk p. prior to deciding to place stamp images on the president articles. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my pov

Should be like this imo.

to observe the one-revert rule when editing articles;
to adopt a strategy of minimizing conflict between himself and other editors on article and talk pages;
to recognize when his talk-page posts are becoming repetitive or combative;
to observe consensus and the common-sense interpretation of applicable rules;
may only place one stamp image per article and post additional images if applicable on the talk page for discussion.

It wasn't just biographical articles that have been disrupted; plus it leaves a hole where he could claim his behavior didn't take place at a bio article. I don't think the "neutral mentor" thing would work out very well. An editor would have to be very dedicated and be available during that time. Since Gwill is denying every point of the current RfC I'd be more inclined to just let the RfC run its course. Brad (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little reluctant to go for the stamp issue so directly. RfC/Us are supposed to be about behavior, not content. That's a fine line to draw here, since his behavior involves certain content (stamps) almost exclusively, but it might be best to make the fifth point generic to all images. You're right about the biography thing; I wanted it to be a narrowly tailored proposal, but he's enough of a wiki-lawyer to see a loophole there. The mentor thing I took from another editor's RfC. It's unlikely to work, I know, but I thought it would be a chance for GWill to show good faith and possibly to turn a bad editor into a good one. How about this:

to observe the one-revert rule when editing;
to adopt a strategy of minimizing conflict between himself and other editors;
to recognize when his talk-page posts are becoming repetitive or combative;
to observe consensus and the common-sense interpretation of applicable rules;
to consult on an article's talk page and achieve consensus before adding any image to that article; and
to consider engaging with a neutral mentor for at least six months.

I think it incorporates Carmarg's idea, too.

--Coemgenus (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with placing an image in an article; it just may improve it after all. Requiring Gwill to gather consensus first is rather defeating because it's likely no one will respond to the post as many articles for the most part are essentially ignored. What I want to see prevented is the insertion of stamp galleries like he did over at Daniel Webster or the amount of stamps that were in American Civil War. But there again no one has protested over the insertion at Daniel Webster. So I think may only place one image per article and post additional images if applicable on the talk page for discussion. Brad (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own practice now is to raise the issue of removal or addition of an image first on the talk page, where I know it may be controversial. Maybe that qualifier could be put in there. It is apparent that stamp images , which are his primary focus, fall into this category, at least on biographical articles. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing the fifth point to:

to consult on an article's talk page and achieve consensus before adding more than one image to that article; and

--Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my suggestion:to consult on an article's talk page before adding an image which may be controversial. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're forgetting that Gwill adding one image to an article also falls against the one revert rule as stated. If he adds an image and it gets removed he cannot replace it again unless talk page discussion decides the image is worthy of inclusion. There again he wouldn't be allowed to leave a wake of destruction during any such conversations about the image. Brad (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. Do you think the fifth rule is superfluous then? Should we just leave it out and rely on the 1RR rule? --Coemgenus (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

>Maybe restate the 1RR as your 5th rule? Carmarg4 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's duplicative, I'd just as soon leave it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC talk page post

Based on the post that Gwill made today on the RfC talk page I don't believe that any peace offering will work for very long. Neither do I believe that Gwill would accept it. Neither do I believe the effort would be worth it. Brad (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we've circled back to mostly the original idea. I've revised it to match our discussions here. I also doubt there's any spirit of self-awareness or repentence in him, but I think it's worth a try. Assume good faith, and all that. If neither of you objects, I'm going to propose this solution on the RfC page. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done

Ok, I posted it to the RfC. People seem to have stopped paying attention, and GW has been laying low. I hope concerned editors don't forget about him, because he'll surely start up again when the rest of us have moved on. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key will be consistency in response. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]