Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


This has been open for sometime now, and we've reached a stage where Kurt has been unblocked and nobody is suggesting a reblock at this stage. Per Kurts unblock agreement, he is not allowed to edit in the Wikipedia namespace at this time. This restriction can obviously be looked at as time passes and I would expect that it will be reduced as time goes by, perhaps by introducing one new area that Kurt can work in within Wikipedia space at a time (it was actually Kurt that suggested this). I would suggest that Kurt lets the dust settle first before requesting this, as I suspect emotions are still high. It would be good if Kurt could post to or email an uninvolved administrator on his behalf should he wish to request reduction in his restriction. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked

I'm bringing this proposal back out here, a indef block on a long term user needs more input than it'll get hidden away on a subpage. RxS (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought the rest of the conversation out then.  We should really refrain from breaking up discussions onto multiple pages.  Why leave only half the block discussion on a subpage?  It's wildly confusing. --JayHenry (t) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was very confusing. Thank-you for fixing that. Carcharoth (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kmweber on WP:AN

On a recent AN thread I removed an uncivil comment directed at a new user from User:Kmweber.  This comment was replaced by Kurt afterwards.  I won't remove it again, but I stand by my original decision to do so.  I'm asking for some more eyes to look at the comment itself, the context it was made in and the decision to remove it as well as to replace it.  Thank you. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comment was inappropriate; it was not relevant to the question asked and it was a violation of WP:BITE. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone help me understand how or why this is offensive to people.  To me, it looks no more or less offensive than if an editor were to express their opinion that public schools should not waste taxpayer money or support Red Cross blood drives.  His comment certainly does not look any more bizarre than Kurt's "prima facia" RfA opposes.  --Kralizec! (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of editing away other people's comments, though, always causes more harm than it cures, and never achieves the desired result. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's rude.  It's rude to someone who is new to Wikipedia and asked an honest question without expecting to be insulted. WP:AN is a place to discuss administrative actions that make the encyclopedia better; if Kurt wants to discuss his general feelings about educational philosophy, he should find a web forum somewhere.  Personally, I think the community has put up with Kurt's bad manners and bizarre edits for far too long already, but that's not specifically relevant to this question.  In my opinion, editing out this comment is necessary- this is a new user who will not understand that Kurt does not speak for the administrators when he's speaking on the administrators' noticeboard.  I feel strongly about this.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly appropriate and perfectly relevant.  The following comment I wrote on my talk page is germane:

He should feel unwelcome. He's attempting to use Wikipedia for a totally improper purpose. I fail to see how this is any different from attempting to use Wikipedia to advertise one's company or product. Keep in mind that, according to his own remarks, he's not using it for a class research project or anything like that. He's trying to use Wikipedia to promote a certain ideological viewpoint to his students. Wikipedia should not be accomodating the misuse of taxpayer funds to proselytize for a particular ideology.

I get the impression that you didn't bother reading what the guy said.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get why this is seen as offensive. Why do the students need usernames, anyways? A blocked user can still view Wikipedia. I think we just need to drop this issue. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so they can edit articles and improve the encyclopedia?  Why should we care.  We aren't that school.  It isn't our job to tell the guy "What you are doing sucks, we won't be a part of it".  He asked for help for a legitimate purpose and the first response he got was some unrelated ideological screed. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point is that he wasn't trying to use Wikipedia for a legitimate purpose!  He was trying to use Wikipedia for a totally illegitimate purpose, and we shouldn't be accomodating that.  This isn't about what schools should or should not do; it's about what Wikipedia should and should not accomodate.  What's so difficult to understand about that?  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to understand that you feel that way at all.  It is phenominally hard to believe that your response was civil or within the realm of WP:BITE.  If you don't think teaching kids about free software is correct, then don't do it.  Don't let it in your classroom.  Make sure your school board doesn't talk about it.  Whatever.  Don't come on wikipedia and treat new users like scum.  That's the problem.  I don't care about the propriety or impropriety of free software or free software evangelism in the classroom.  That wasn't the issue.  The issue was you inserted your opinion into his business in a manner that didn't actually solve anything and didn't relate to the question at hand.  He didn't come to wikipedia to hear your opinion about free software.  And he doesn't need it.  New users deserve to have their questions answered honestly and helpfully.  If you can't do that then the least you can do is not answer them at all. Protonk (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously still not paying attention?  This has nothing to do with what the school in question should be doing and everything to do with what Wikipedia should be accomodating.  I made my remark because I did not believe Wikipedia should be accomodating someone with a stated intent to abuse Wikipedia.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm paying attention.  Sorry.  Let me be more clear.  It is unfathomable that this new user's request could be construed as an intent to abuse wikipedia in the sense that wikipedia would suffer.  Unfathomable.  You may imply that OSS evangelism shouldn't be in the schools but that is a curriculum and instruction decision.  The use of wikipedia as a tool for that instruction, unless they plan to disrupt wikipedia, cannot possibly be twisted to represent a damage to the encyclopedia.  Full Stop.  Your opinion of their motives for editing the encyclopedia is totally irrelevant. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are totally relevant.  If I see someone whose motives, as evidenced through his statements and actions, I believe to be abusive and malicious and not in the best interests of Wikipedia, then I most certainly will speak up and try to do something about it.  If you want to discuss my assessment of his motives, that's one thing.  But don't tell me my assessment is irrelevant, and certainly don't try to stifle a discussion of it.  I had a problem with what he was doing, and believed it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia and not something we should be endorsing.  Instead of discussing my reservations, you removed my statement.  That is absolutely not acceptable.  You are the one who acted inappropriately, not I.  To say I shouldn't speak up when I believe someone's actions are harmful to Wikipedia is absurd.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify just a bit more: I had a concern that what the individual was trying to do was not in the best interests of Wikipedia.  I'm a reasonable guy; present a superior argument and I can be convinced.  But instead of addressing my concerns, you instead chose to suppress them.  And that is a major, major, major problem.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I unreasonable (see below) for supposedly assuming that your comment was uncivil but you are reasonable in assuming that a school sysadmin is "abusive and malicious"? Don't bring this back to censorship. You get a lot of leeway around here because you conflate your actions with your positions on subjects. Your comments were rude and unjustified. Any context you felt was implied was totally missing from the words you left there. This was a new user. I felt that a new user's impression of wikipedia immediately before they decide to use it as a teaching tool was more important than your sense of righteousness, so I stepped in. If you want to express your feelings about how this user might intend to disrupt wikipedia, then you are of course free to do so in a manner that isn't insulting or condescending. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, he shouldn't feel unwelcome. Your opinion of what schools should and should not be doing is completely 100% irrelevant. Nobody cares, and I'm sure he didn't either. If a school wishes to teach its students about open source projects, they can. As part of his demonstration/lesson plan, he was hoping to register students and introduce them to the project. Kmweber's comments were off topic and irrelevant. - auburnpilot talk 01:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess this is more clear.  They shouldn't feel unwelcome.  Your opinion is your own.  Not everyone wants to hear it or needs to hear it, especially new users.  I used to support your being granted the ACC flag, but after this, there is no way I would. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree entirely with Kurt's thinking and approach, I also don't believe it's necessarily in the best interests of the project--OR of the students--to have 60+ middle-schoolers placed into the highly-confusing, politically-charged environment of en:WP without assurance that they will be suitably monitored, supervised, and guided. Unfortunately, my concerns regarding these issues were removed by WilyD and dismissed as "trash", which was far more unCIVIL than ANYthing I'd written. This is the same conversation we've had about classes of college students sent to "learn about WP"; how it's less-relevant to middle-school students, or more-BITEy, I fail to see. I agree that they should not feel unwelcome, but neither do I think we should accept their project plan with no reservations or questions at all.Gladys J Cortez 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Gladys, that she has a right to voice her concern. Since it was civil it should not have been removed and certainly not with "trash". — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to know what Kim was referring to when he accused them of "proselytizing" (i.e. religious recruiting). I didn't see any hint of that, so I'd like for him to explain precisely what he was getting at, instead of talking as if everyone already knows what his point was. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming he meant it in the colloquial sense--i.e. "proselytizing" of the open-source "religion". Doesn't matter; it was meant as a cutting statement, regardless. (Oh--and thanks, Rlevse. You're one of my more-respected Wikipedians, so your reinforcement means a lot.)Gladys J Cortez 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I think what he means is that the school is touting the inherent goodness of Open Source. Whereas someone (like China?) might disagree. Of course, socialization and indoctrination is actually one of the main purposes of public education, which is why governments pay for it. Pledge allegiance, respect the police, all that sort of thing. So I don't see why Kurt feels it's not within their purview to advance other agendas. OSS isn't a religion as far as I know.
I do think it would be smart to make it clear to the school that they need to watch the students carefully because one bad apple will spoil the bunch. An autoblock of one user will encompass all the rest of them. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I dig. And you're right, that school officer should be advised to keep an eye on them... as with the other OSS. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Protonk did the right thing in removing the whole messy chunk, and that was quick thinking. As far as everything else? Well, I don't expect very much out of WR contributors, so I'd say that everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, but the way it was put out there would probably have been fairly off-putting to the guy who made the request -- but was it bitey, eh, not really. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 02:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there may be concerns about letting sixty-plus middle school students loose on Wikipedia without a measure of guidance and supervision, but I'm not comfortable jumping to the conclusion that their teachers and sysadmins are totally naive about the environment here, either.  We should offer our support and guidance, not the cold shoulder.
If an educator wants to introduce the kids to Wikipedia as part of Software Freedom Day, it's no more harmful than cleaning up the schoolyard and encouraging recycling on Earth Day, discussing HIV and safe sex on World AIDS Day, or even teaching a lesson about the history of piracy on International Talk Like A Pirate Day.  Kids desperately need teachers and mentors who are willing to acknowledge, and encourage interaction with, the world outside the classroom.  Exposing kids to Wikipedia under controlled, supervised conditions is the online equivalent of a field trip to the zoo.  Sure, some of the kids might screw around, but we hope that most will gain an appreciation for our environment and the unique ecosystem we've built.  A few might even grow up to be veterinarians admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That public education is currently used towards those ends does not mean that it necessarily should be used towards those ends.  But it's not about whether or not this is a proper use of public education, really; it's about what is and is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia--it's about what Wikipedia should and should not be accomodating.  I saw someone expressing an intent to abuse Wikipedia, and I called him out on it.  I don't see the problem here.  If you contend that this is not an abusive use of Wikipedia, that's one thing.  But I saw what I consider to be an abusive use of Wikipedia, and I tried to put a stop to it.  What else am I supposed to do when I see someone who I believe is out to abuse Wikipedia?  Please, stop being absurd.  Stop building strawmen, and pretending I said something I didn't.  Pay attention to what I'm actually saying, rather pretending I said something that would give you a convenient excuse to attack me and silence me for daring to help Wikipedia.  Are you here to make the encyclopedia better, or to cause problems?  I know why I'm here.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse wikipedia in what way - and compared to what? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody put words into your mouth, Kurt. You said, "Public schools should not be in the business of proselytizing." And that's all you said. Nothing more, nothing less. No mention of abusing Wikipedia, or of Wikipedia at all for that matter. You didn't call him on his intent to abuse Wikipedia, you called him on his intent to abuse the public school system. Too late to change the subject now. FWIW, I don't think your statement was BITE-y or inappropriate, just misplaced. Kafziel Complaint Department 02:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable person's thought process, upon seeing my comment, would not have been "Hmm, let's see how I can twist this and make assumptions to make him look like a bad guy."  Rather, a reasonable person would have thought, "Hmm, there was obviously a reason for him posting this...Kurt's a good guy, who always does his best to help Wikipedia, so obviously he wouldn't have posted this unless he had a problem with Wikipedia being involved in this," and would have gone from there.  I do not need to state every last detail when a reasonable person can easily infer them on his own; it's absurdly inefficient.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say having to go through all this at ANI is a helluva lot less efficient. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't if people had chosen to behave reasonably from the outset.  I am not responsible for others choosing to behave in an unreasonable manner.  Yes, people generally do behave unreasonably, but experience has shown that my batting average, while still pathetically low, is nonetheless higher if I assume people behave reasonably than if I assume they behave unreasonably--because, after all, there are usually only a small number (if even more than one at all) of reasonable ways to act, while there are so many unreasonable ways to act that the reasonable way is chosen more often than any particular unreasonable way.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.. I've already made the request privately of one person in this little kerfluffle, but I see it's continuing. Can we have a bit more light, and a lot less heat in everyone's comments, especially when aimed at another person? The topic should be discussed, but without all the personal attacks. (not saying any particular comments crossed the line, but it got close) SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the spring of 2007, a number of students from a composition class at the University of Minnesota, taught by 1013-josh (talk · contribs), had a group project to write and edit articles on Wikipedia.  (I think he was doing so in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination.)  A list of their contributions can be found at User talk:1013-josh.  Just looking at their contributions to Itasca State Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which went from this stub to this much more complete version, I think they did a heck of a job.  They also learned something about working with other Wikipedia editors in the process.  I wouldn't call that abuse, or proselytizing -- they did some good, constructive article development. I can't guarantee that a bunch of middle school students, with characteristic middle school attitudes, would be able to produce anything similar.  However, knowing that a teacher is going to be taking a look at their edits, and grading them on how well they perform, they'll be less likely to abuse Wikipedia than most anonymous school students.
If you want to talk about what schools should or should not be teaching their students, that's a decision that the school administrators and parents should be having.  Given how many school districts have arguments about intelligent design, creationism, abstinence-only sex education, and other hot-button issues, promotion of open-source software is unlikely to raise any eyebrows.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt's comments were most likely a little soap-y and bite-y, and entirely failed to answer the question of the newcomer completely unversed in the culture of the place.  But the situation is now entirely resolved without harm. There's no particular need to argue over it. WilyD 02:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're all being trolled by the way. John Reaves 04:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By whom? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 05:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent]Kurt, perhaps you can explain to us exactly what you mean when you say that you feel this person wanted to abuse Wikipedia? I'm not exactly clear on that since it seems like a good faith request, at the very least, and "abuse" is a pretty charged word. As for your original statement, it doesn't feel bite-y to me (although some of the things said afterwards have been colorful) just... misplaced maybe. Unless you're willing to elaborate on why you feel the way you do in some way that could convince the rest of us, it would probably be advisable to remove it. L'Aquatique[parlez] 07:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's either talking in riddles or he's trying to be funny in some obscure way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would we go out of our way to accomodate someone who wishes to use Wikipedia to promote his own company?  What about his preferred political candidate?  His church?  Of course we wouldn't.  This is someone who wishes to use Wikipedia to promote his own ideology (that it's one I happen to agree with is beside the point).  We shouldn't be accomodating that.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having read the thread in question, I would like to observe that one of WP:AN's functions is to help people better edit. If the question is not on the right board, we can point them to the right board. A new user came there looking for help. One response was particularly helpful. One response was beyond the Pale in terms of not being helpful. Moving on and leaving that behind, I have just deleted a page that looked like it was created by a middle school student that was totally lost as to how to edit constructively. My question is this-- do we have a guideline or essay to help orient teachers and their students so they can contribute constructively?  If so, would someone please point me that way? This is a recurring problem that I could deal with better. Cheers, and happy editing.  Dlohcierekim 14:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such a page exists at Wikipedia:School and university projects, which advises people who want to set up school projects and tracks what schools have such projects in progress. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow your logic, Kurt. From what I know of the situation, he wasn't planning on using Wikipedia to promote open-source software, per se, but to teach about it which is a completely different thing and altogether more admirable (though promoting open source is hardly a crime, knock on wood). Knowing what I know- that many of our vandals are young'uns- I would much prefer that a kid's first experience with Wikipedia be under the guidance of a teacher or responsible adult. Some of them may stick around and become valuable contributers. That doesn't sound like something we should be passing up because someone doesn't agree with the ideology of the teacher's lesson plans. L'Aquatique[parlez] 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, L'Aquatique. thanks, Fisher.   Dlohcierekim 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on AN?  I don't get it

The comment on AN is perhaps debatable but I don't see why it's all of your priority instead of something like "Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass of the rest, whose sole contribution to society is deleting something someone else did. Wikipedia rocks. It's too bad so many people are dedicated to pissing all over it."  And I say this as someone tending toward the radical inclusionist end of the spectrum.  I don't think the well, I'm quoting someone else so I can quote whatever I want defense holds up here.  If this were a reasonable excuse for flagrant attacks, well... fill in your own reductio ad absurdum: _____.  I just don't see how this sort of behavior is compatible with building an encyclopedia, nor do I see any other contributions indicating a willingness or, more to the point, a capability to work in a fundamentally collaborative project.  As far as I can tell, there's nothing here besides playing provocateur, and seeing how far the limits can be pushed.  That's traditionally defined in stark terms, but it seems that if one pushes the envelope slowly, the editors who defended in early stages, rather than admit they were wrong or that circumstances have changed, will end up defending things like "deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass". --JayHenry (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (shrug) Doesn't really matter.  After all, as soon as you use the word "deletionist" as a pejorative you instantly lose the argument anyway. It's like a Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law. Black Kite 00:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm officially lost. What do deletionists have to do with this!? Are you sure you're not posting to the wrong thread? L'Aquatique[parlez] 00:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is from his user page.  I added a link.  Most editors are requested to attempt to work collaboratively, refrain from attacks, to work on the encyclopedia, etc.  For reasons I don't really understand this user has been granted an exemption from the general expectation. --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoo, that's [Kurt's comment, not Jay's!] so far past uncivil it's potentially in a different area code... L'Aquatique[parlez] 01:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having just encountered this user on an AfD, I'd have to agree he's rather abrasive and doesn't really seem to want to work with the community. His position seems to be if it exists its good enough for wikipedia which flies well in the face of long established consensus here as there are numerous guidelines for inclusion on various subjects etc, and doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of several colorful metaphors that he left out, hence showing some restraint. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you're right..why have policies and guidelines... someone should give him a barnstar and a pat on the head right?--Crossmr (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a really firm pat. Three Stooges style. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[un-indent] Obviously, that sort of commentary is unacceptable. I've posted a message on Kurt's talk page asking him to be more tactful. Hopefully he chooses to do so. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's probably a bit excessive...when I get around to it I'll remove it.  But remember that deletionism is incompatible with building an encyclopedia, and that therefore upsetting them so they leave is a must if Wikipedia is to survive.  And frankly, anyone who has bothered to understand deletionism realizes that that is a pretty accurate description of the mindset of the typical deletionist.  

Also, I should add that people need to vent.  So-called "civility" is taken way too seriously, to the point where it actually gets in the way of constructive interaction.  The fact is, intelligent people are passionate people, and passionate people can get upset.  Shoving it under the rug, like we have done in the past, does nothing to solve the problem--it only creates deeper resentment that eventually blows up in one big conflagration.  It's much better to let people vent on their userpages; it gives them an outlet without letting it get in the way of person-to-person interaction.  This insistence that "Everyone put on a pretty face and pretend that we love each other all the time" is not conducive to building an encyclopedia.  We need to let intelligent, passionate people be intelligent, passionate people.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And failing that, don't rule out the nuclear option. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
passion here, as in the outside world, can be a wonderful thing--but it depends both on the nature of the passion and -- in  some cases -- how it's expressed. DGG (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh I see, very clear. If you want to vent do it off wikipedia. Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide you with an avenue to express your anger/frustration. Your threshold for inclusion at that which the community has decided is appropriate are not in sync. Deletion is a big part of wikipedia and frankly the project is far to big for you to change with a little hostility.--Crossmr (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short, "naughty" or "nice" makes no difference, as the deletionists will win either way. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"So-called 'civility' is taken way too seriously, to the point where it actually gets in the way of constructive interaction." I absolutely cannot disagree more strongly with that statement by Kurt.  The idea that a contributor cannot be both passionate and civil at the same time, or that being polite and respectful is somehow counterproductive, is utterly and completely untrue. I appreciate Kurt’s passion as much as anyone, but I urge him to reconsider that attitude. — Satori Son 16:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber - Arbitrary section break

To be honest, it's faulty logic because it assumes that the best users are intelligent users, and also that all intelligent users are so passionate that they cannot contain their opinions or at least state them in a way that isn't borderline offensive. We're not conducting research here, intelligence is not necessarily a prerequisite to be a good Wikipedian. Patience, civility, and humility, however, are. L'Aquatique[parlez] 20:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patience and civility be damned, this is, to me, bloody disgusting. With that comment, Kurt states that two editors who have a myriad of contributions - WBOSITG has four FAs!, for pete's sake, and MBisanz is a long-time contributor! - are "lazily deleting the hard work of others because you can't be bothered to do anything positive for the encyclopedia." That's one of the more condescending and rude comments I've read in a long time towards two excellent editors, and does nothing but continue Kurt's record of tilting at windmills. I couldn't give a damn about his AfD self-nom campaigning because I know that the bureaucrats are intelligent enough to filter the noise out of the signal there, but now he's moved on to blatantly attacking editors. We have to start looking at the whole here - the "Arbitrary Committee" things, the "deletionist vandalism" garbage, this - and see exactly what we're dealing with. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to understand why this rude, uncivil, belittling and condescending troll is still allowed to edit here. Why are we all tiptoing round him? Someone block him, and let's end this drama. Majorly talk 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a some respect for this user (Kmweber, not Majorly) untill reading this thread. His opinions have always been unpopular, sure, and there's no problem with that, it's his blatant insults and labelling of other users that's appaling. He doesn't appear to have contributed significantly to the mainspace, and I'm sure there are plenty of users who have been blocked for less than this. His behaviour is completely immature, and he brings politics onto wikipedia.--Serviam (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Majorly's comments calling Kurt a rude, uncivil, belittling and condescending troll is not rude, incivil, belittling and condescending trolling? After all, saying that one does not like self-noms is far more uncivil that advocating that an editor be blocked for holding unpopular views and fierly defending them (ironically, Majorly, that block would serve to cool Kurt down. Who's advocating for CDB's now?). We all know how much Majorly hates Kurt. Can't we community topic ban Majorly from attacking Kurt? Especially after Majorly's previous incidents with Kurt? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Majorly is just addressing Kurt's talk page edits. At some point, hes (Kurt) going to end up being blocked over his trolling. Its getting excessive. Synergy 23:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this about Majorly? In this case, he is in the right, and pointing to past disagreements won't change that. Giggy (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, please read the thread.  None of this is about an unpopular opinion about self-noms.  It's been about comments like, "deletionism is incompatible with building an encyclopedia, and that therefore upsetting them so they leave is a must if Wikipedia is to survive" or "Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass".  That's obviously less civil than anything Majorly's said, but don't make this about Majorly.  Make it about me if you want.  I agree with his inclusionism and as for the rest, if you'd asked me a week ago what I thought of Kurt, I'd have told you quite honestly, "but I don't think of Kurt."  And don't make it about civility.  I'm not part of the civility police.  Fuck the civility police, okay ;)  The point is: it's not acceptable to spend all your time at Wikipedia spewing insults, provocations, tilting at windmills, and trying to irritate anyone who disagrees with you until they leave.  I'm not advocating a ban, but look, we've banned many, many people for much, much less provocation (and people with much, much better contributions for that matter).  I'm opposed to this idea that we should grant Kurt a permanent exemption from any possible standard of behavior, because he has an unpopular opinion at RFA.  I don't care about his RFA position.  I care about him pledging to irritate others until they quit, and doing so with apparent infinite impunity. --JayHenry (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jay. Don't forget the many AfDs hes disrupted to promote his ideas, and the many threads on either AN or AN/I in which he interjects just to point out that arb com needs to go away (not to mention his counterproductive talking points about policies and guidelines). I'm just saying, there is much more that goes ignored. Synergy 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, if Kurt starts out tomorrow with more crap like this [1] then I will most likely block him myself for trolling. See if he's calmed down by tomorrow, if not then he needs an enforced timeout. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that 100%, especially given that he's been making similar statements on other AfDs. sorry, but why have we put up with him even this long?--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second this opinion, and note that it is an intention that I also hold. Kurt's conduct is now a serious concern for me, and I think his views and contributions in/to certain areas of the project to be very disruptive. Anthøny ✉ 00:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur.  Stop showing him courtesy and instead show him the door. —Animum (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely support blocking him. It's about time he learned that trolling is not accepted here, no matter who you are. --Coffee // talk // ark // 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness there are some sane people left here. He should have been banned ages ago. I agree with Crossmr - why has it taken this long? He's pushed off numerous good editors in his time here; it's time he left for good. He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too. And I'll repeat what I said several months ago - his damage is vastly outweighing his good. Majorly talk 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Too many ANI/AN threads, too many times just barely slipping by being blocked, too many RfA's disrupted. It is time to make this one the last. Tiptoety talk 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Tiptoety, 110 percent. It was funny while it lasted, but now it's gone too far. It needs to end without, "one more chance." iMatthew (talk) 00:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is time for this user to leave. In his time here, he has merely caused disruption, and has continually acted inappropriately on the English Wikipedia. A block, or even a ban, is long overdue. We need to stop giving leverage to people like this and instead force them to bend down to policy and accept the consequences of what they've done. It's time the community embraces the adequate and necessary action that needs to be taken against these editors. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A wise man once said, don't feed a troll. Unfortunately, constantly discussing whether to ban him does just that. Now, either ban him, or ignore him and don't - just for goodness sake stop feeding him threads on ANI.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, don't feed it. Block, someone? Majorly talk 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber blocked

Moved to subheading by —Animum (talk) at 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Archived - based on the section below, this whole section is apparently moot now. Mr.Z-man 17:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I moved this section back out to the mainpage, an indef block on a long term user needs more eyes than it'll get hidden away on a subpage. RxS (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the above is talking about the indef block, the section you moved was talking about a topic ban. Talk about confusing matters... D.M.N. (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize what appears to be a very boisterous endorsement of a full ban from Wikipedia. However, I would like to propose a slight amendment. It seems that most (if not all) of Kurt's contentious/disputatious edits are to the project space (e.g RfA, AFD etc..etc.) Would the community be willing to seek a topic/project space ban in lieu of what is currently being suggested? Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Let's focus him on mainspace for a while. Everyking (talk) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I doubt such restrictions would appeal to Mr. Weber.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he wouldn't really have a choice in the matter. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I am confident he would choose not to edit at all or try to circumvent the ban rather than abide by restrictions on his  freedom to edit the topics that so fascinate him (RfAs, etc).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an incentive, we could let him back onto project-space after a few weeks or months of productive, uncontroversial work in mainspace. Everyking (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were similar suggestions that other editors be given restrictions like this. The general consensus on the case I'm thinking of is "It's unfair to tell a contributor that he may contribute FA's, but be unallowed to voice himself in the running of the site." I imagine that Kurt would be of the same position, though you're welcome to ask him if he'd abide by it, knowing that it's not a promise from the community to implement that if he does agree. Fair enough? Kylu (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I doubt it would have any effect whatsoever. He's been given enough chances and has ignored them all. This is simply an attempt to allow him to continue the sort of abuse he has been blocked for. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would never be a proponent of somebody abusing the system. If his problem is the project space..and it appears that a preponderance of his edits are to said area, then we cut it off at the hilt. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I sincerely hope Kurt wasn't blocked for his thoughts on RfA's, AfD's and ArbCom.  If he was blocked for that then I would support a reversal of the block immediately.  If he wasn't, and he really was blocked for gross incivility and trolling (which seems more likely), then I don't see the point of offering him a compromise to keep contributing to mainspace. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's not so much the thoughts or the philosophy, but the execution. I believe a majority of the users here feel that he is incivil and "a troll" in select areas. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and if it is the "execution", rather than the positions, then I can't really imagine supporting a topic ban. I also wouldn't feel comfortable supporting a topic ban big enough for him: the Wikipedia/Wikipedia talk: namespaces. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose he's had too long to change his course here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Kurt needs to go, topic bans aside. This kind of tolerance and softness is what allows this behavior and its proponents to fester. Enough is enough, this user has had umpteen warnings and has disregarded them continually. It's not like this came as any surprise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Checking Interiot's tool:[2]

Total edits: 6239
Mainspace edits: 1970
Most edited articles
29 edits: Princeton, Indiana (C-class)
26 edits: List of counties in Indiana by population
17 edits: Indiana State Road 62 (start-class)
17 edits: List of counties in Indiana by area
13 edits: Gibson County Courthouse (start-class)
13 edits: Buehler Foods (start-class)
13 edits: Brumfield Elementary School (stub-class)
13 edits: Indiana State Road 64 (start-class)
13 edits: Lyles Station, Indiana (start-class)
12 edits: List of State Roads in Indiana
165 total edits to top 10 most edited articles
Most frequented noticeboards
91 edits: WP:ANI
34 edits: WP:AN
125 total edits to ANI and AN

Make of this what you will. DurovaCharge! 05:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that in his last 50 edits he has only had 1, 2, 3 in the mainspace. --Coffee // talk // ark // 06:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A topic ban would be too wide and would include the entire project namespace talk pages. That's way too large and I don't want to propose I know what Kurt would do, but I highly doubt he would accept this. Synergy 05:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would at least give him a window to further participation. He might not accept it, but the opportunity would be there. Everyking (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then by all means, ask him. Then we will at least know... Synergy 05:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if you've noticed or not, but only a small minority of people want him to have a window for further participation. The community has had enough of him. We shouldn't be bending over for people who can't have the common courtesy to respect the project and people in it.--Crossmr (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not what concerns me. The point, is that if I am correct and he wouldn't deal with a topic ban, then there's nothing more to discuss. And even if he was willing to accept it, we have a consensus that won't allow it. Either way its moot (but it never hurts to ask him regardless). Synergy 06:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just realized you weren't talking to me Crossmr... :) Synergy 06:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless it's a proper block it won't do anything.--Serviam (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose At this point anything less than a block is ridiculous. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides the fact that you'd basically have to ban him from every other namespace (Project namespace and every talk namespace except user talk), which is just completely ridiculous and likely to cause more drama than its worth, he's been given too many chances already. Mr.Z-man 16:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just siteban per my above. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse we need to decide what to do with longtime disruptive users, and have seen few that top Kurt. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal II

It seems like the consensus is, "Leave the indefinite block in place."  If the editor wants to edit again, they can offer suggestions how they might behave differently.  Voting is not needed, and should be discouraged.  Is any administrator willing to unblock them at this time?  If not, they are banned.  To get the ban lifted, a discussion should happen here with a consensus to give the editor a second (third?, fourth?, ..., umpteenth?) chance. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned enough that the discussion took place on a subpage, with a possible bias in participants, that I would ask whether the discussion can be re-run. Obviously it can't without annoying the people who took part in the original discussion. Was there a link from AN or ANI to the subpage while the discussion -> block -> de facto ban discussion sequence took place? I would have totally missed this if this notice hadn't been placed here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion for the block took place totally on this page. There is no point whatsoever in having yet another discussion about it. There was a link posted in a section here, so any interested person could have easily seen it. Anyhow, it's back here now. What's the fuss? Majorly talk 14:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin seems to have taken several hours to 1) Post a block notice on Kurt's talk page and 2) to mention it here. This could well have distorted the discussion - certainly, I was following this discussion well after the block was actually placed, and saw no notice of it. DuncanHill (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several hours? No, the block occurred at 01:58 and the notice of the block appeared on ANI at 01:59 (as part of a long discussion already taking place on ANI). The note on Kurt's talk page was placed at 02:18. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the notice of the block (on which I was relying) it occured at 21:58 on the 19th. "21:58, September 19, 2008 Hersfold (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Kmweber (Talk | contribs)" DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was Hersfold's local time, not UTC. Hersfold did post here immediately after making the block. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 15:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification - and for the reminder of the importance of using UTC on a site edited from all around the world. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point, Majorly, is that your comments are all over that page, and now here. You are asking what the fuss is? For someone who has  made 14 comments to that thread, either here at ANI, or while the discussion was on that subpage, you for one seem to be making a big fuss about this:
Majorly's comments during the block/ban discussion

All quotes taken from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion:

  1. I'm failing to understand why this rude, uncivil, belittling and condescending troll is still allowed to edit here. Why are we all tiptoing round him? Someone block him, and let's end this drama. Majorly talk 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  2. Thank goodness there are some sane people left here. He should have been banned ages ago. I agree with Crossmr - why has it taken this long? He's pushed off numerous good editors in his time here; it's time he left for good. He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too. And I'll repeat what I said several months ago - his damage is vastly outweighing his good. Majorly talk 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  3. [In response to a comment calling Kurt a troll] Yes, don't feed it. Block, someone? Majorly talk 01:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  4. [In response to the block] Thank you so much. Majorly talk 02:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  5. This block has been a long time coming. He's been on the verge of it for months. This latest series of events was pretty much the last straw. Enough of his ridiculous behaviour. Majorly talk 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  6. Weber had an RfC. Nothing productive came of it. He's not changed his childish behaviour, so something needs to be done. Are you attempting to have us believe Kurt here for constructive purposes? What dream world are you living in, suggesting he's done "great things"? Majorly talk 02:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  7. Yes. As I say, nothing productive came out of them. Majorly talk 02:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  8. How many discussions/threads are there going to be before something is done? Majorly talk 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  9. It was needed though. Any reason for opposing the block? Majorly talk 02:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  10. No, he said the way he was blocked was bad, not the reason. Stop making this personal whoever you are. Kurt is much more of a troll than me. Majorly talk 11:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  11. Why? Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. Majorly talk 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  12. Yes, well most banned users have as well. It's irrelevant. Majorly talk 03:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  13. Don't be mean to Erik the Red! He'll start calling you a troll! Majorly talk 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  14. [In response to this] I don't see any problem whatsoever with that comment. Majorly talk 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those comments are fine for the discussion at hand, but some are really over the top and unacceptable (I'm primarily thinking of "He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too." and "Block, someone?"). What I see on that page is a strong consensus for a block and possibly a ban, but while reading that page the other impression I got was that you were cheerleading the block and encouraging it and debating with those opposing it. I'm putting my quotes of your comments in a collapse box to prevent them being too obtrusive, but please, read them and try and gauge the overall impression they give. Can't you see, stepping back for a moment, the impression that the page gave me when I, as someone who was reading it for the first time, arrived there? There were other people's comments that raised my eyebrows, but it was your contributions to the thread that really stood out, and not in a good way. I'm also concerned that people exaggerated the case to get the result they wanted. For example, compare the block log comment "long, long, long, history of incivility and trolling" and the blocking admin's assertion: "This has been going on a really really really long time, and about every third ANI archive has a threat [sic] on Kurt alone" How does that square with Durova's contributions analysis that showed that Kurt's made 125 total edits to ANI and AN? I'm also concerned that some of those supporting a ban in this discussion were those that tried to get him banned over the RfA 'prima facie' opposes. Though I realise that some were clear that this ban discussion was because of recent behaviour, I think that some may have let their irritation at the RfA business sway them. I obviously can't prove that, but the possibility and its implications make me very uncomfortable about how this block came about and how the discussion was conducted. Carcharoth (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the subpage started today. No administrator objected to the ban there. Unless somebody objects here within a couple days, then a community ban takes effect. I personally take no position on this.  I'm just shuffling papers here and trying to make sure we get a clear decision and have a fair process (most important). Jehochman Talk 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To assess the fairness of the process, could the following be determined? (1) When did the ANI thread start? (2) Was Kurt notified of it and did he contribute to it? (3) Has Kurt edited since that point? (4) When did a ban or block first get proposed? (5) When did the discussion get moved to a subpage? (6) When did the block take place? (7) How long was the discussion running for before the block took place? (8) How long has the discussion been running for in total? The issue of relatively-quick ban discussions (less than a day) has been mentioned before. The issue of discussions shuffling around from page to page might not have been mentioned before, but I would have thought that was obvious (even with a note left here on ANI). The other point is a more general one that I've raised elsewhere on the page? Why is ANI being appropriated for ban discussions, and why are ban discussions being allowed to evolve from previous ANI threads? To make things less of a 'heat of the moment' reaction, it would be better if ban discussions were started afresh on AN, supervised in some way, and allowed to continue for a set period of time. Too short a disucssion and you don't get a broad cross-section of the community (some of them may be asleep, for one thing). I'll now try and answer my eight questions above. Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The thread began 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC).
  2. Kurt was aware of the thread and did post.
  3. He also edited several times to several other pages since then.
  4. Things began running downhill about halfway through the first subsection (that it, text right under the main header), and really got ugly in the next subsection. The first person to actually say "Let's block him" was Majorly, third comment in the Arbitrary section break, at 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC), however I think both L'Aquatique and Tony Fox were trying to steer the conversation that way just prior. Kurt did not post at any point after those comments were made.
  5. The subpage was made at 02:58, September 20, 2008 (UTC) by MBisanz, and was moved back here at 16:01, September 20, 2008 (UTC) by JayHank - 15 hours later.
  6. The block was made at 01:58, September 20, 2008 by Hersfold (me) - I should note the block log quoted above in in Eastern US Time, and thus four hours off.
  7. The discussion was running for two days before the block; four hours had passed between the first block suggestion and the block itself.
  8. The discussion has been running for approximately two days and sixteen and a half hours. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those answers Hersfold. JayHenry has also given some answers on my talk page:

"The ANI thread started with Protonk's 00:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC).  Kurt responded to this (defending his attacks on a new user) and responded to the second thread, begun by me, at 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC) in which I raised concern about him calling deletionists a "fucking retarded subclass".  He responded acknowledging the comment was over the line, but pledging to irritate all deletionists until they quit.  The first explicit call for blocking was 20:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC) although he is a long time user who has been warned ad nauseam about his civility.  He was blocked at 01:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC).  The conversation remained on the Main Page until Sticky Parkin's 02:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC).  At this point, MBisanz moved onto a subpage..." - JayHenry (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't realised the pre-block discussion had taken place here at ANI, so that's cleared up that point. And the link left behind did say "ban discussion", but still, that doesn't really address the concerns that at least two or three other people here have raised beside me (and JayHenry has also agreed with me on my talk page that it is difficult to judge situations where someone has clearly made enemies, as Kurt has). Maybe a link to the previous ban discussions is needed as a reminder to people of what happened there. I also want to ask if anyone heard of this discussion through IRC? Majorly said during the discussion: "He's already banned on basically every IRC channel, let's remove him here too." That completely unnecessary comment has the feel about it of someone using IRC. If people came to the discussion after hearing about it in IRC, that would be a hopelessly skewed situation.
Looking at the actual block/ban discussion. Hersfold, as you say, you blocked four hours after the first block suggestion. Do you honestly think that four hours of discussion is enough to decide the outcome of a community ban or indefinite block discussion? That does not give time for much of the community to become aware that the thread had moved from an ANI thread about a dispute, to a block and then ban discussion. I agree with what Ultraexactzz said above:

"...this thread, this subpage, and this incident have to be one of the most concentrated amalgamations of bad faith and grouphate I've seen on this project, and it's utterly appalling to see. I mean, sure, maybe a block was justified - I can understand that. But this feels very much like it has gone too far, too fast." - Ultraexactzz 12:55, 20 September 2008

The ban discussion is continuing now, and I'm not disputing the present consensus (though consensus can change or be made moot by new developments) but doesn't anyone think that the disjointed nature of the discussion (yanked back and forth between two pages), the outgrowth from a heated ANI thread, and the block enacted by you (Hersfold) after only four hours of discussion, has affected things or unduly prejudiced the outcome? Think back to other times you've seen this sort of things happen or thought things were moving too fast. Step back and honestly ask yourself if that has that happened here? If the answer is yes, what do we do about it? Carcharoth (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the block was fast, there is overwhelming consensus here it was the right thing to do. Do you think he should be unblocked, or are you process wonking for the sake of it? My very necessary comment, regarding IRC is simply pointing out that he is banned long term from many channels. Hardly any users are banned like that. He's a problem there, and is a problem here. Due to the overwhelming consensus that he should be banned, is it really necessary to go over things over and over again, just because you weren't here? Majorly talk 18:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said several times that, yes, there is overwhelming consensus for a block (not sure about for a ban, a few people are sitting on the fence over that), so you don't need to keep emphasising that. I would personally support an indefinite block, with possible unblocking at any point if Kurt makes some assurances over future behaviour (not the RfA stuff but the other stuff), but I wouldn't blame him if he just retired now anyway. There was no need to rush to block, or for you to ask several times, pleadingly, for someone to block, or for you to mention IRC at all. The discussion could have been started less prejudicely, have been conducted far more calmly, had less of a running commentary or unacceptable comments from you (or others), and concluded in a few days with a dispassionate appraisal of the consensus. You know, like happens at WP:RfA and WP:AfD. If this was you, Majorly, on the receiving end of an indefinite block after a 4-hour discussion with the same history, I'd be saying the same things. Unless I happened to be asleep, of course. I may be in a minority here, but some people agree (see comments by RxS below), and your comments of "look at the consensus" and "process wonkery" should not stop people from saying that if they wish to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The block was rather fast, in terms of time between the request and the block, however there was (as Majorly points out) an overwhelming consensus. Kurt has been blocked for similar misconduct multiple times before, and asked to stop even more times before. He has not. Now that the block is in place, there is an even greater consensus to not only support the it but instate a site-wide community ban, including from many administrators who were unwilling to block Kurt themselves. I'm not saying this hasn't happened before; hasty blocks are applied infrequently, but often enough we hear about them regularly. In each case, they are subject to a review (usually here on ANI or on AN). This is happening, and the majority of the community supports the block. I don't think there is anything else to be done. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the heavy consensus came well after your block - From what I can see and recall, only a handful of editors (if that) requested a block, the most vociferous of which was majorly. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether the consensus came before or after. Hersfold did the right thing, as is demonstrated by the overwhelming agreement here. Majorly talk 19:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Majorly, things don't work that way, as you well know. We don't shoot first and ask questions later, except in severe cases, of which Kurt is not one. However, in this case, I felt there was enough consensus to block beforehand, as there were many comments from almost (if not, more than) a dozen editors calling for the block of Kurt. There were also (as we see now after the fact) several other admins who also supported a block but were unwilling to do so themselves because of the very drama we're having now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I support limiting him to mainspace, consensus for an outright block seems overwhelming. As Jehochman suggests, the only way Kurt might be able to reduce the severity of this now is to make some promises and apologies. Everyking (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think it's a low point in Wikipedia. A indef block rush through and then hidden on a subpage, accompanied by some pretty outrageous personal attacks and widespread misinterpretation of the history of this debate (especially the meaning of Kurt's last RFC). A vengeful, agenda driven mob cloaked themselves in righteousness and bullied a long term editor out in what, 4 hours? Majorly, Hersfold and several others have conducted themselves with an extraordinary low degree of judgment and thoughtfulness. When I saw this come up last night I wanted to say something but there was no way I was going to jump into the middle of an irrational mob. Bluntly speaking, I'm disgusted. It's clear that it's not what you say or how you say it, it's who you piss off. RxS (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who invented the idea it was "hidden" on a subpage? It was moved there, with a prominent link, to remove traffic away from this page, as what happens with numerous long threads. You complain of personal attacks, when you yourself make them "vengeful, agenda driven mob". Bullied? What? Where? And Kurt has been completely innocent of the same has he? How about concentrating on the subject at hand, instead of attacking the people bringing this to discussion. It's no one's problem but your own that you didn't want to leave a comment. Are we suddenly not a mob anymore, that you can leave a comment? Stop assuming bad faith of people. Majorly talk 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's hidden when it's taken off of people watch lists. Which is what happens when a subpage is created. A high profile editor in good standing is indef blocked and then the discussion is removed from watch lists is hiding it. Period. We assume good faith until there is evidence of the contrary, which in this case is plentiful. As for the rest I'm not going to get further involved with some electronic Lord of the Flies bizarro world. RxS (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A long thread got moved to a sub-page. How in the hell is that sufficient evidence to break WP:AGF? Where is your "plentiful evidence" that it was moved in bad faith?--KojiDude (C) 20:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I subpaged it, ANI was 440K and the thread was already 60K and likely to grow.  For users with dialup it is already near impossible to view AN or ANI and some browsers won't even display 400K+ pages.  There was a clear note left here showing it was an open issue, as has been done for several similar pages in the past.  MBisanz talk 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RxS, when asserting that people have acted with bad faith or in an abusive manner it's better to provide specific evidence up front--and really best to withhold judgment and invite good faith explanations before reaching a final opinion. And Kojidude, please help lower the temperature on this discussion by removing the italicized epithet from your post. To someone who's already inclined to believe the worst, a heated reply may appear like confirmation even if it isn't intended that way. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 21:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a compromise.  Right now the subheading is User:Kmweber on WP:AN & Kmweber blocked.  How about creating a fresh section stating the fact that this thread is about a full ban discussion that will be both on peoples watchlists and at the bottom of ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a pointer to that effect at the bottom of AN or ANI should have the intended effect of bringing more voices. MBisanz talk 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not understanding why people are complaining about this discussion occurring on a subpage. It was done for access reasonings, nothing more sinister. It was linked from ANI, one of the most visible pages on the entire site, under a descriptive section header. Where's the fire? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a common debate technique. If you can't win the argument, try to deflect the focus. There is nothing anyone can say to genuinely advocate for kurt. The fact remains that he's been here for years, acting like this for years. He's been blocked many times, had RfCs, AN/I threads, been told to shape up and failed to do so. After this long of a time there is zero indication and nothing anyone could provide that would show he's going to change. Since they obviously know this and are too stubborn to admit it, they'll try to get the foucs off kurt, and try resolve the situation by putting the focus on bad procedure or something else. I've noticed some focus going on Majorly's behaviour/comments etc, and frankly its completely immaterial to this discussion. If they want to discuss that they can take it to its own thread on another page. There is nothing that Majorly can do that would excuse Kurt's behaviour and justify and unblock of him/allow him to edit the encyclopedia again.--Crossmr (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another common debating technique is one adopted by Stalin when delaing with a person posing a problem: "No person, no problem". (Note the deft sidestep of Godwin's Law there) :) Constant and sustained denunciations of a person are another hallmark of Leninism/Stalinism - exemplified here by Majorly's multi-postings and the sweeping and blanket statements of Crossmr in support of the now supposedly victimized Majorly, with the incidental but broad swipe at Kmweber. Very impressive technique - unfortunately lacking in substantive points, but 9.6 for artistic impression! Franamax (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry did you have something to say in there to defend Kurt? or are you just trying to again make the debate about something other than him? If you have something to say about his grossly violating policy for years, please bring it up.--Crossmr (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I have something to say. "His grossly violating policy for years" - bullshit. Bring on the diff's. "Grossly" "violating" "policy" for "years" - put up or shut up. Let's make it fair - if I can find analogous "violations" in your edits, you'll crush your keyboard to rubble, right? Franamax (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again you call for diffs. I'd adivse you re-read this page, there are numerous pieces of evidence here. Also, review his RfC. Do these things instead of making these heated accusations, and cease making aggravating remarks to other users. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, again I do. Hateful isn't it? Seems like if it was all so obvious, you could just spill it forth. How many times do I have to re-read the pages? Kurt has unpopular views, they bug people. How is the encyclopedia being damaged? In fact, how is the collaborative environment being damaged? It's not - you just have to look the other way. It's your (collective) own hysterical reaction that's causing a problem. Transferred now apparently to me, now I'm the problem, making heated accusations and aggravated remarks. Do you see how easy it is to turn on the people who don't submit to consensus? Franamax (talk) 08:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, hateful isn't the word. Taxing is. Taxing on the Wikipedia servers every time you increase the pagelength with your angered and needlessly pointed remarks. If you'd actually take the time, you'd see that the block here isn't being enacted for Kurt's fringe views. It's his incivility, his harassment, his trollish behavior. I suggest you review these things before you make further unbased comments, because they themselves are becoming trollish. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been stepping through the diffs on this page since the last time I checked. There were some constructive comments being made, even if Franamax was being outspoken. I was going to add more, but in the last few diffs the tone went downhill again, culminating in this accusation of trollish behaviour. If the way things are going is anyone who steps in to try and point out problems with the way this went down, is to be accused of trollish behaviour, then it's hopeless. I'm not thinking here of people who still have the guts to speak up, but of those who read Anonymous Dissident's comment and decide not to post in case they get accused of trollish behaviour. Ironic, really, given your user name: do you think people who dissent should do so anonymously? This has left a bad taste in my mouth again. I was going to just walk away from this, but that would be quitting. Let's try and make some constructive comments here. Some people (including me) have linked to old threads trying to demonstrate the scope of the problem, the way in which previous cases were not as clear-cut as people are making out here (i.e. revisionism is alive and healthy - the RfCs in particular have been grossly misrepresented), and pointing out that many people are saying "long [trolling]" and "past [behaviour]" without being specific. It's not easy to accurately assess someone's past and it is always much simpler to use a throwaway, vague statement, or go with a gut feeling. Just as an example, it would be much easier to assess things if everyone participating here had to: (a) quote at least one diff in their own statement of behaviour they found unacceptable; (b) disclosed prior involvement with the user; and (c) in some cases wiki-ideological (for want of a better word) position (if they have an openly declared one). That would make it so much easier for uninvolved people (and indeed those participating) to dispassionately assess what is going on. Carcharoth (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dissent can be constructive and lead to an overall positive result, but systematically requiring everyone who makes a comment to supply revisions is not a sampling of constructive and well-reasoned dissent, but rather is POINTed and counter-productive. You make a fair point where you request people to add diffs when they make a claim, but, if you'll see the discussion above, Crossmr, the user critiqued for not having diffs, made no such claim. Despite not making an outrageously controversial or contentious comment, but rather one that the entire premise of this discussion and the initial block is and was based upon, Crossmr was met with an aggressive remark that was just unwarranted and unhealthy to the good continuation of the discussion, namely: ""His grossly violating policy for years" - bullshit. Bring on the diff's. "Grossly" "violating" "policy" for "years" - put up or shut up.". Sure, Crossmr made a broad enough remark, but it would be ludicrous to assume that he could dig up diffs over several years to support such a mundane comment; in fact, what he said was simply an aside. At any rate, the evidence is all over this page; re-supplying the same revisions is pointless and, at this point, so deep into the details of the conversation, constitutes an expenditure of time that is superfluous considering the volume of evidence that has already been presented earlier in this forum, and in forums for which links have been given here.
I agree that discussion here is becoming impossible. I'd argue that this is only partly because assessment of the genuineness of individual remarks is so difficult. I'd assert that part of the difficulty of making discussion here is the pointless bickering between parties. Such is demonstrated above. The road to finding a solution here does not come through the critiquing of every person's comment, and this is also true of needlessly truculent jabs. This kind of thing serves only to convolute an unreadable discussion even further, and make the discussion more choppy with bifurcations like this one. We need to stop arguing every point and instead logically approach an ultimate solution here. Asking diffs may be a good idea when a point made is pivotal and rests on the truth of the content of the remarks made, but categorically and continually demanding such evidence for every single comment is exactly the kind of thing that is going to prevent us ever finding absolution of a problem that looks as though it is about to bring about wheel-war. This is all I have to say. Take it as you will; it is merely an explanation of my position on the matter for which you have taken me up. Cheers, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His talkpage

Anyone want to semi his talkpage to stop things like this from occuring? D.M.N. (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem whatsoever with that comment. Majorly talk 12:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't Majorly, your premature blanking of his user page suggests that you are unable to maintain a detached attitude on this. DuncanHill (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think any comment by Majorly should be tossed out as idiotic and meaningless. Hm, I remind myself of someone commenting on a user's RfA opposes... Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a little rough, Erik. I'd strike that ASAP if you want to stifle the on-coming trouble it's going to start.--KojiDude (C) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, though. I've had enough of Majorly's hypocrisy. I might go and pull a Kurt and break conformity- oh, wait, that would get me banned, wouldn't it? Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It very well might if your incivility continues. Majorly is being perfectly reasonable in this discussion; you are not. Please review WP:NPA and stop at once. Calling people idiotic, meaningless, and hypocritical is offensive and will stop now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hersfold and Kojidude: please strikethrough.  It should be possible to express the truth as one sees it without stooping to insults. DurovaCharge! 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I have semi-protected Kurt's talk page. While there was only the one instance, it seems reasonable to assume that won't be the last. If he doesn't want it, any admin is free to remove it. (Hurrah for the new protection form!) Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that both Majorly and Erik the Red 2 are contributing significantly more heat than light at this point.  I would encourage both of them to think very carefully about any further additions to this or any related threads.
  • Majorly: Insulting, anonymous taunting is unwelcome everywhere, even on the talk pages of blocked or banned users.  You should know better than to endorse such petty, cowardly, mean-spirited attacks.
  • Erik: Adding in your own personal attacks is an ineffective dispute resolution strategy.  Not only is it likely to get you blocked, but it undermines your credibility.
I will consider blocking one or both of you until the Kurt matter is resolved if you make any more unconstructive edits.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c.) Thanks for the semi-protect. D.M.N. (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reserve comments like this for the talk pages of the individuals in question? Everyking (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, because Majorly has started commenting again (I actually think he should be allowed to do so, but just to think a bit more carefully about what he is saying), such a warning should (talking to ToAT now) go on Majorly's talk page. Majorly might not have seen this part of the thread yet. Carcharoth (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions

Mainly because some people in the ban discussion are mentioning (or implying with "looong" type comments) Kurt's RfA behaviour, as they are free to do so, I'm providing links to an old AN discussion, the RfC and the RfArb. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive108#User:Kmweber, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber and the RfArb (rejected). Even if it is a bit late, hopefully that will reduce inaccurate comments about the past history here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But people in the ban discussion are more often citing civility and trolling that is not necessarily related to his RfA behaviour. Some past discussions include:
Those are just a few, before I got tired of searching... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, don't stop searching. This is good (I slightly redid the layout of your post to improve readability, hope you don't mind). This is how a ban discussion is meant to work. Actual links to past threads and diffs and evidence. Not spleen and opinion and drama and cheerleading from the sidelines. Some of those threads are recent ones that I missed, and others are years old (December 2005?). At least one of the threads explained some strange features in his block log (some old software glitch), and I've also realised I forgot the second RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2. See also the talk page of that RfC (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2) for an insight into how people's opinions got so entrenched and why some people (maybe not commenting here, but I can guess what they are thinking) will be sad or angry at how people have popped up with the "RfA argument" again to support this ban. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some more old threads (from around the time of the second RfC) here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally (there is undoubtedly more), we have the recent RfArb thread. I'll link to that again below because I want to make some points about what was said there and ignored here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is really yielding some classics here:
  • Archive460#Personal_Attacks... - here Kurt is being called out because an IP suggested he was "lazy", didn't "assess the sources", made "no effort" - [3] Kurt responds calling the poster a troll. And in this very thread, it's pointed out that Kurt told some other AfD commenters [4] they shouldn't "lazily" "avoid the hard work" with "lack of sources". Yet KMW gets the official state-sanctioned label of troll? Am I reading those diff's right?
  • And I have to say, it's heavily ironic that this rampant thread(s) is the result of Kurt objecting to a brand-new user attempting to toss his middle-schoolers en-bloc into the Wikipedia editing environment. So they're going to learn - what?
  • Also, I'm not too impressed that a long-time user as well-expressed as Kurt would not be unblocked and given the opportunity to participate in their own ban discussion. Shouldn't he get at least as many posts as Majorly alone has made? Franamax (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • He can be unblocked the moment he posts to his talk page requesting so. Majorly talk 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't necessary to unblock him in order to let him participate in the ban discussion; the transclusion template could be used. DurovaCharge! 23:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with that. I wouldn't want to risk him being unblocked again, it might give him ideas about returning. Regardless, there is overwhelming community support for his indefinite ban. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that such an experienced user could comprehend that the unblock was only to participate in relevant discussions and would govern themself accordingly. If they failed to do so, the situation would become much clearer, would it not? I'd be happy to see a transclusion (though I haven't seen it work effectively in my (limited) past) if some wizard could achieve it. A more effective solution would be to enact a parole, so the user could properly interleave their responses. It's not like Kmweber's contribs will be overlooked just at the moment. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is a good workaround for a Catch-22: if the community doesn't unblock for the purpose of participating in the discussion then the minority who oppose the ban claim the ban is invalid because the editor in question couldn't defend himself/herself, and if the community does unblock for that purpose alone, then no matter how overwhelming the consensus to ban actually is then those same editors claim the limited unblock itself is evidence that no ban exists per the a block that no admin is willing to undo clause. DurovaCharge! 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, take your pick of my responses: yes, good point; or, Oh ps-shaww! Where have all the rouge admins gone?! Unblock him for the specific purpose, reblock on transgression. Guy? LessHeardVanU? Neil (or loaves'n'fishes)? Viridae? (just to piss Guy off). Giano? let's have a snap RfA. I bet Durova would temporarily unblock (oh, right :) What is the preventive rationale that keeps Kurt from participating here? Franamax (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) He hasn't asked for it.  2) It's not necessary even if he does ask for it.  3) Similar requests have been gamed politically.  (Franamax, usually I agree with your reasoning when you spell it out, but I really don't see how that would reduce the drama level). DurovaCharge! 00:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'll outline a little more:
    • To 3) Why should drama be reduced? This is a long-time editor who acts on principle to support his idea of what makes a good Wikipedia. His unpopularity results precisely because he raises valid points. You and I (and seven thousand others) may not agree, but he reasons his points out, and sticks to them. That's made quite a few people angry and resulted in multi-threads aimed at "won't someone rid me of that troublesome priest" (supposed to be a Thomas á Beckett reference, or whoever ended up whipping himself) - now if I'm reading right after my happy-time away, Hersfold has taken on that role of "shoot first, ask later" - and the community is endorsing the assassination - that stinks! There should be drama - where was the block to prevent imminent damage to Wikipedia? When did experimental blocks become policy? This is worthy of drama. This concerns the nature of the project.
    • Kurt persists in his views and sufficiently presents them that no-one is able to give a satisfactory refutation. Believe me, if I could find a way to blow his points out of the water using pure reason, it would have long been done. There's a difference between grudging acceptance of the possibility that we may all be wrong, and flaming anger that someone would dare to suggest it. I'm seeing here, not any great decision that Kurt's viewpoint has been proven wrong, only that many people wish to no longer consider whether those viewpoints might actually be right.
    • And I see four themes here, any and all of which are unsatisfactory to even make the block: Kurt opposes RFA's, using cut/paste rationales - so what?; Kurt opposes AfD's, using cut/paste rationales - so what? Kurt refers to ArbCom as the "Arbitrary Committee" - so what? And Kurt can be selectively shown to have violated the requirements of "civility" - examine my contribs to see how scrupulously I try to adhere to that ideal, which I do believe in (but maybe I'm just sneakier at being mean, I can show you lots of examples where other people do it!), but selective application of the civility standard to individually selected edits and phrases is getting a little old. As does selective application of many of the more nebulous WP:XXX-isms. I'm flabbergasted that Kurt would be singled out for a comment to an off-site sysadmin egging on "his" students, as compared to the massive discourtesy dished out every day by (some of) the deletionists (and I do understand the need for deletionism, and the jaded attitudes thereto - but let's keep some perspective).
  • Summarizing, Kurt is now the subject of a community discussion, pre-emptively raised to a discussion of a fait accompli block, with the stakes raised to a ban discussion. Wolves baying throughout (majorly being Majorly) - this got raised from "what to do?" into "oh, it's done, all we have to do is agree?" - sorry, I don't buy that for a second. I think Kurt should be here speaking as an equal. Not stuck in a sandbox, speaking as an equal. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Franamax, it would be helpful if you made it clear who that long statement is addressed toward.  You're pretty astute, so it's fair to suppose it isn't meant for me because I haven't supported the ban or referred to Kurt's AFD theories. DurovaCharge! 04:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an expression of dismay at going away for a few days then seeing this apparent fait accompli - I dunno, the deal's gone down, where else can I say "this feels wrong"? You are not the target (though you presented some ucontribs evidence that was not necessarily helpful, as they may not have given the complete picture). After making my main posts here  though, I noted that Carcharoth is pursuing some of the same themes below, which gives me heart. My main point would be that the pre-emptive block of Kmweber was inappropriate, an admin should conditionally unblock so that Kurt can participate in (and only in) this discussion, and (per elsewhere) if Kurt sinks his own ship in so doing, then so be it. Franamax (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as an equal from what I've seen of kurts comments on various things and about other users, Kurt had no respect for the community and the project. Why should they go out of their way to give him any special treatment? his contrib history is full of evidence both recent and old of his disruption. Give us something besides its not fair--Crossmr (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In a discussion of whether to implement a topic ban instead of a siteban it is customary to review an editor's contributions to determine where (if anywhere) the editor has been productive and collaborative.  If one set of data collected via an established and neutral bot might fail to provide a sufficiently accurate picture, the appropriate solution is to seek supplementary data rather than denigrate the existing data and/or the individual who supplied it.  That would be censorship. DurovaCharge! 04:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm certainly not denigrating the individual. I do have my own software that can reach deeper into an editors contribs, but all it proves (so far) in this and almost every case I've examined is that there is a long tail of contributions. FA/GA-stars or grinders, it turns out we're all wiki-gnomes. It's very difficult to attribute anything in particular based on "top-10" assessments. I'm not faulting you for presenting the data, especially because you made no attempt to draw conclusions from it. I'm just being blatantly incivil to the data. :) I'll issue a stern warning to my own data, and caution their programmer to whip them into better shape. :) Franamax (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Kurt feels the need to participate, I see no reason why his talk messages cannot be relayed. Unblocking him would just cause more drama, especially when it comes to re-blocking him. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage

Should his userpage be replaced with the block template? iMatthew (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be left until this is fully resolved. Scream tentatively closed it, but we should wait and see if anybody objects. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone will object, despite the obvious consensus here. It seems to me we're discussing this for the sake of discussing it now, with nothing useful being added to the discussion. Majorly talk 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A //very// tentative close.  NonvocalScream (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is still active (or was until this thread was removed from ANI) and so no, it should not be replaced. DuncanHill (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I expected to be reverted. :) It is that we are in discussion now for the sake of discussion... Consider that there is overwhelming consensus here for the block and ban.  Additionally, consider this now a coffeehouse or parlor where we can endlessly discuss this. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all want black, or with cream and sugar? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer for myself to have some sugar in me. --Coffee // talk // ark // 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just skimmed milk of course.:) Sticky Parkin 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, let's not rub salt in any wounds. Everyking (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From failed RfArb to community ban and no RfC inbetween

Seeing as I've (ironically, given the way I called him out for it) probably said far more than Majorly now in this, I really will stop after this, but I wanted to make one final set of points. I've been reading the recent RfArb thread (from 4-6 August). Could people read that and consider what has changed since then?

I read it through just now, and apart from Sceptre and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles no longer being here either, there are some points there that might have been helpful here. In particular, User:Neil said there: "...the two RFCs were focussed on his RFA / AFD voting patterns, not his behaviour, and I would suggest an RFC aimed squarely at his behaviour would be wholly more accurate." Why was this route not considered, and why was a community ban discussion spun off a heated ANI thread instead? User:Barneca said there: "Civility - getting worse, but keeping in mind that he takes a lot of unjustified crap from a lot of people, I don't think we're at RFAR or RFC levels. The best solution would be if some of his friends had a discrete word with him to dial it down a notch or two." - did that happen at all? One of the arbitrators (the bainer) agreed with Neil and said: "As Neil observes above, there is no indication here that there have been prior efforts to deal with any other behavioural issues, if indeed any exist, and as such arbitration with respect to those would be premature."

So can I ask here what prior efforts were taken prior to the community ban discussion above to attempt to deal with any other behavioural issues (ie. not the RfA views deemed by 2 RfCs as safe to ignore as noise)? As I've said on my talk page, what I see here is the following: an intrinsically unpopular editor with eccentric but ultimately harmless views (unless you think people use Kurt as a role model) being pressured over the years to conform, refusing to knuckle under to peer pressure, becoming more and more cynical and incivil, still arguing some vallid points here and there, but eventually crossing some invisible cost-benefit analysis line in the sand, and getting booted out by the community, with the spectacle of some editors cheering from the sidelines and putting the boot in. I don't usually get that worked up, but there is a long history here of certain types not really fitting in here, and Wikipedia actively driving away editors who are "different".

There, I've said my piece, and I hope people will take it in the spirit in which it was intended - to try and handle this whole sorry sort of thing better next time. There are more people like Kurt out there, and we (the Wikipedia community) need to work out how to deal with them without this sort of drama. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No other steps were taken - a borderline incivil comment (depending on you interpret it) spiraled downward and Kurt was blocked mid discussion. That about sums it up. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I have not said much just because it seemed clear to me where this is going and what peoples views are, but yes it does seem a bit wrong to me that none of his blocks have lasted over a week, and we're going straight from that to indef/ban. Maybe we could try a month or three or some other intermediate length? Sticky Parkin 02:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It spiraled down only because the participants remembered all the past times where Kurt had been uncivil/unconstructive/trollish and demanded that he got blocked to end the increasing disruption to the project that Kurt was doing. That last comment was just the detonator of a situation that had gone on for months. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carcharoth: I agree with some of your points, but I believe that labeling Kurt's behavior as "different" is inaccurate, and that a good deal of his behaviour has been something that could only be ascribed the adjective of "trolling". While there has never been any formal request instigated regarding Kurt's behavior in general, I believe that he has been warned for his incivility and poor form on multiple occasions, in contexts that are merely extrinsic from any structured format such as RfC or RfAr. I would agree that this particular ban was administratively poor in that the original thread did not originally call for a block or ban of this user, but rather such came as a runaway product of a discussion which seems to have broken the camel's back, as it were. So, in summation, you make a valid point when you say that the ban came in an inappropriate discussion, but, at the end of the day, I think your complaint constitutes one of technicality, rather than true consequential substance, because I doubt the community would have reacted much differently in any other forum, whether it was one not geared towards the discussion of a ban at its instigation, or one that was. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AD makes a pretty valid and astute point. However, it begs the question (at least for me), would the conversation have reached the same outcome had Kurt actually been present and actively participating instead of being effectively silenced? Without his input, a massive number of people flocked to pile-on endorse the block. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the point, but in the past Kurt has usually responded to community concerns by lashing out with invective; and since what self-control he had appeared to have vanished of late, I expect there is little he could have done besides help dig his own grave.  We need to make an allowance for the fact that, perhaps, there are problems affecting his mood in real life and that he may be able to return with a cooler head some time from now — an extra opportunity to alienate more people would be the last thing he needed.  — Coren (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. 1) In the past... - diff's? Self-control...vanished - diff's? 2) "Problems...in real life" - that is either a. the very definition of forming a theory of mind; or b. a clumsy way of imparting personal information you are in possession of; or c. a weird accusation? Coren, can you either clarify or retract those personal speculations? Franamax (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) moot, (2) hypothetical; I'm not saying he's having any, but we need to remember that this is a possibility and might explain his having gone off the deep end— hence whatever has cause his behavior to have gone overboard might subside at some point in the future and he might return his usual abrasive, but civilized, self.  Defensive much?  — Coren (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well how magisterial of you Coren. No need to have any actual discussion at this point, is there? Evidently, you wish to suggest to the community that Kurt is in a delusional state. Can't be a personal attack in there, it's for his own good after all. I go sleep now. Franamax (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was free to contribute from his talk page, but as of yet he hasn't. Again, do you have anything to defend him or do you just want to argue procedure as the defense because you can't?--Crossmr (talk) 04:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think systematically requesting diffs from users for every single statement they make at this point is pointless. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's and WilyD's comment at the RfAr linked above especially insightful. I'm not surprised they've been completely ignored. Giggy (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yah, that was the clue I needed, I found it. I was most impressed by Keeper76's comments. Maybe Keeper has changed mind since then, but I found that to be a most insightful post. Franamax (talk) 04:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An injured hand and work have kept me from contributing in several months (so if things / people /etc have changed, I missed it), but I wanted to add one minor thought before shuffling back to semi-retirement.  Are we sure here that we've separated the editor's editing from his views?  If his editing was becoming objectionable (e.g. rudeness, failure to AGF, etc.), then, yeah, blocking or banning is appropriate.  If the block/ban is, however, mainly motivated by his distasteful or unpopular views, and we've just found 1-2 behavior lapses to serve as pretexts...then that's different.  I think I missed the editing issues that motivated this, and so worry about whether any of this is spill-over from the old RFA debate or a reaction to his...umm, "different" views on deleting material.  But, like I said, I've been (and will likely remain, at least for a while) totally out of the loop, so there may be significant issues I just don't know about. --TheOtherBob 05:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about Kurt's views

This wasn't about his views.  Don't make it about his views.  People who came by the discussion post block said things like "Yeah, Kurt never did support in an RfA" or "Kurt always said keep in AfD's".  Those people didn't make the block.  They also didn't force Kurt to undertake the pattern of behavior that invited the block.  The reason we are talking about "Kurt's views" is twofold: One, they were idiosyncratic, so they stand out.  Two: Kurt made it his business to conflate discussion of his conduct with discussion of his views.  Whenever someone had the temerity to tell Kurt that he shouldn't be a jerk, Kurt made some big production about censorship and thoughtcrime and cabals and what-not.  The result was that people who observed the event had trouble fishing out the real issue.  Was Kurt being "punished" for his views, or was he just flopping?  Often, what happened with Kurt is the same thing that happens with inflammatory articles at AfD.  A marginally notable (but controversial) article will be defended ardently on the basis that Wikipedia is not censored, ignoring the fact that the article isn't being nominated for its controversial subject, but its notability.  If, instead of Encyclopedia Dramatica some marginally notable article like Terra Nova (blog) were nominated, the discussion would proceed on the merits.  This is an important analogy because it has a flipside.  The flipside being that the non-controversial article/editor will likely never get noticed.  There is and should be a real worry about editors whose views "selects them" for scrutiny.  We should be always on the lookout for unexamined bias.  But we should also be aware that Wikipedia is an organization of humans.  Our lives are governed by social conventions and actions.  We can try exceedingly hard to suppress the urge to more closely examine editors who make themselves heard, but we can't make that impossible.  That fact does not pull the teeth out of policies like WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.  Period.  We can't just declare "bias may exist" and void blocks.  

It isn't against any rule to have an opinion at variance with any policy.  It isn't against any rule to feel that most people aren't suited for adminship.  It isn't against any rule to feel (or express to that end) that ArbComm is something foisted on the community.  We have gentle suggestions on our policy pages that disagreements with certain policies might mean that wikipedia isn't the place for some people, but even then that isn't really the case.  I know several people who disagree with parts of WP:NOT, others who disagree with WP:CON, still others who disagree with WP:RS.  The list of people who disagree with WP:NFC is probably enormous.  Even when that disagreement is vocal and constant, those editors remain.  Most of the time, editors who hold an opinion at wide variance with policy simply stay out of that policy realm.  Many of the GA nominators I have met are strong inclusionists but barely ever work on marginal content.  The issue here wasn't throughtcrime.  It wasn't annoyance with protest votes.  It was civility.  Kurt has ~1200 Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespace edits and I bet I can go through more than half of them and find comments whose sole purpose was to inform the reader that Kurt was smart (or, freethinking, honest, etc.) and the reader was dumb.  I bet I can find ~20% of them where this wasn't even subtext, just plain out in the open.  If, on my first few edits, I wrote "Deletionists especially are a fucking retarded subclass of the rest, whose sole contribution to society is deleting something someone else did" in an AfD to characterize my opponents, I would have been blocked indefinitely, without protest.  We have to consider the fact that we may be protesting this block/ban because he held controversial opinions regardless of the impact those opinions had on the ban decision.  

Looking at the most recent RFAR, people can be excused for feeling that Kurt was blocked on the basis of his votes at RfA and AfD.  Those appeared to be a big focus of discussion.  I'm not going to defend that RFAR because I didn't file it.  The responses given there are to be expected.  We should (and did, given the responses there) defend his right to make those views known.  I personally don't care if he participated in every AfD of every day and every RfA out there.  I don't care if the answer was always the same each time, keep and oppose.  It doesn't bother me in the slightest.  What bothered me (enough to remove that comment) is the history of incivility and contempt.  How we treat each other is a big part of how this place operates.  This is especially important when it comes to new people.  We in this thread don't make Wikipedia.  We help it run.  Anons and new editors make wikipedia grow.  Our policies are in place to ensure that this is an environment in which people can introduce contributions and ask questions without being attacked.  Kurt made it a habit to ignore those policies.  After a particularly salient occurrence, someone pulled the trigger.  That block has been resoundingly endorsed.

The long and short of it is pretty obvious for me.  Kurt behaved way, way, outside community standards for a long time and showed no intent to respect them when it didn't meet his needs.  I don't think his strong opinions factored in to the ban decision so I can't support a decision to dredge them up for a discussion now. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. What a long point. A fair amount is valid, although pre-established; I think it has been made clear plenty of times that Kurt was blocked for some reasons outside of his fringe views. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't about his RfA and AfD and Arbitration Committee views? Really? I'm not disputing that many people (including many of the quotes below) did make clear they were endorsing a ban or the block on the basis of his incivility or "trolling", but there were lots of RfA and AfD and anti-"Arbitrary Committee" comments as well, and that indicates to me that people are still bringing that behaviour, which was previously discussed and no sanction imposed, into this discussion:
Selected comments from the block/ban discussion
  • "...too many RfA's disrupted. It is time to make this one the last." Tiptoety talk 00:32, 20 September 2008 (my emphasis)
  • "take a look at this [link is to a breakdown of Kurt's RfA voting], which clearly didn't happen overnight. The oppose-to-support ratio is practically 13:1, which isn't a very good sign for anyone, let alone someone with a reputation for these kind of things." —Animum (talk) 02:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis - see also point 4 below)
  • "...here's one [link to an "Arbitrary Committee" comment] for right now. Going over his contribs makes me nauseous. He has a history of entering into a conversation to make points such as these, and I think you know this." Synergy 04:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Sorry, but 153 opposes versus 14 supports and neutrals? (These are not including those votes that the tool could not decipher due to nonstandard formatting.) That clearly shows that something isn't right. Also, let's be honest with ourselves: we all know the bulk of, if not all, those opposes votes were based on flawed reasoning. But hey, it seems like hardly anyone at RFA greatly cares about superb logic anymore." —Animum (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis - see also point 4 below)
  • "His RfA votes aren't why I want him banned; the only reason I mentioned them was to point out as an anecdote the astounding incongruity between the amount of users he supports and those he opposes, not as any sort of premise for a ban. He's been uncivil, a troll, and he's known this to be coming at him for months, yet he has stubbornly refused to shape up." —Animum (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis - see also points 1 and 3 above)
  • "Endorse block, possible ban. Kurt has shown bad behavior, poor judgment, incivility, and most of his comments, posts, and RfA !votes are solely to prove a point. We welcome good-faith contributors, but Kurt was anything but, and was clearly not here to build a better encyclopedia." –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Despite the comment above that states this is people "holding a grudge" against Kurt, I certainly don't; he's never voted against me, we've never clashed, or anything. I've seen him way too many times in RFAs, on the admins' noticeboards, and other places where he's done little more than stir up shit. Two requests for comment have come and gone with little effect, plenty of threads on the noticeboards, and still he's doing things like attacking a teacher for trying to show his students the way Wikipedia and sites like it operate, takes egregious potshots at good editors because they felt an article of his was not notable, and continues to cause disruption. Endorse until he tones it down a mile or so. (If I was feeling benevolent, I'd suggest a shorter block and mentoring or something, but I doubt that would pay off with him.)" Tony Fox (arf!) 02:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Support ban and editing block Kmweber's contribution to RFA and AFD have been disruptive to normal editing process, and I've warned him before. His editing is not conducive to collaborative editing." NonvocalScream (talk) 03:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • Endorse block. This user has a long history of of borderline – and not-so-borderline – personal attacks and trolling, particularly on AN, AN/I, RfA, and AfD. If the community at some point in the future decides to lift his block, I would recommend (at minimum) a ban from the Wikipedia: and Wikipedia talk: namespaces. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Support - I am confused as to why this is even being discussed. This user needs to be blocked, unfortunate as this situation is. This is even true when one disregards his comments at RfA, a facet of his editing that is, perhaps, questionable in its legality. His incivility and absolute disregard from the warnings the community has given him are enough." —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "The moment he says that people should vent and be incivil, I think he has more or less exhausted the patience of the community. This ain't a military base where fist-fights and exchanges of vulgarities is seen as progress. I know he has been quite a maverick at RfA, but I believe there are editors who can fill in his "check-and-balance" role without all the drama. Endorse block and ban." - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Strong endorse block and ban - After being endlessly harassed by this guy, I see no other alternative. For someone who concentrates more on RfA and causing trouble then actually positively contributing to the mainspace, I've been questioning his reasons for editing the project for a while now. He's only here to cause a ruckus which in my book, is the definition of a troll. Thanks" —— RyanLupin • (talk) 08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • Endorse block Having only been active again on Wikipedia around March, I was suprised Kurt was never penialized for all the trouble he caused around RfA. I almost never poke my head around AN/I anymore, but to see now that his history stretches there too makes me wonder how this didn't happen sooner.--KojiDude (C) 13:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Have to concur with this one, too much trolling at AFD and RFA for my, or anyone's, liking." Stifle (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "His recent AfD comments about how verifiabiltiy is all that's necessary to get him to support a keep, and his repeated attacks on the ArbCom are pretty much necessary. [sic] I remember the Everyking ban on any AN pages, and I think that that Kurt's block is much the same. If he would admit that he's going to try to be civil and stop trolling, then I would support an unblock." Corvus cornixtalk 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
  • "Werdna, have you read his recent comments, in which he has !voted keep on AfDs based solely on the fact that the subject exists? He has even said that if you can prove that your cat exists, then there should be an article on your cat. He has also repeatedly contended that the ArbCom is illegitimate. What do you think should be done in such instances?" Corvus cornixtalk 04:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC) (my emphasis)
This doesn't even begin to address those who supported with no more than a vague "trolling" accusation. That accusation might even be true, but I would have expected people to treat the banning process with more respect than simply name-calling and labelling the person concerned a troll. Some had the courtesy to say what they considered trolling behaviour, while others didn't. Maybe they realised it was best not to specifically mention RfA or AfD but just keep it vague? Anyway, I don't think anyone can read the above selection of comments and truthfully say that this was not about Kurt's views at RfA and AfD and (on a minor level) on his views on the Arbitration Committee. I do get the distinction between stating minority views civilly and calmly as opposed to doing so in a disruptive manner, but if he was a troll, then his aim was likely to get banned for his behaviour and to be able to say "look, I got banned for !voting keep at AfD and for !voting oppose at self-nom RfAs and for opposing the Arbitration Committee". In that sense, the whole ban discussion (rather than continuing to ignore him, or focusing tightly on the incivility and not getting distracted by the dissident views), means that we've all been trolled into enacting a ban that provides trolls and critics of Wikipedia with ammunition for their criticisms. Some people above were careful to focus on the incivility. I do wish that everyone had done that  - it would, IMO, have made the whole process much fairer and legitimate. Carcharoth (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not kid ourselves. I know I said I would refrain from comment here, but this is just so ridiculous that I need to say something. To pretend that this isn't about his unpopular views and instead is about his "long history of trolling" (since when?) is just flat-out lying to ourselves. This was solely a move to get rid of an unpopular iconoclast, and we all know it. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't kid myself that people piled on to the block/ban discussion because Kurt was an iconoclast, or because they felt upset by his RfA/ArbComm position.  I don't have enough time in my day to ask everyone who chimed in with "Yeah, he thinks that everything should be included" to refrain from commenting.  But that fact doesn't change why the block was made at the moment of decision.  I would say the post that marked the "end" of it was JayHenry's, who explicitly said he shared Kurts inclusionist views.  I don't want to glos over the fact that Wikipedians are very capable of groupthink.  We are.  Most organizations where "power" is devolved to charisma and decisions are results oriented are.  We should always be on the lookout for the tendency to ignore marginal views.  But the fact that we are capable of groupthink doesn't mean that al blocks of iconoclasts are based on that myopia. Protonk (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the move to ban was inevitable once Kurt suggested a community ban for Jimbo. Sooner or later, an excuse would be found. DuncanHill (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of that, so I'll just have to take your word for it.  Look, isn't it much simpler that he just acted like a jerk to too many people for too long?  Isn't it really complicated to have a group (lets call it a cabal) of editors working in secret to remove Kurt but waiting until he says some fantastically unpleasant things just because he suggested that Jimbo be banned?  Why is that the simplest explanation? Protonk (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never suggested that a group of editors were working together. What I do say is that several editors have been trying to get Kurt off Wikipedia for a long time, motivated primarily by their dislike for his expressed views about how certain aspects of Wikipedia works, and I am not surprised that when this opportunity cam up, it was leapt at. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is a kernel of social truth there.  As much as we wish we were dispassionate, we aren't.  People sometimes get frustrated by opponents and so seek them out, waiting for them to make a mistake.  I just think that it is wrong to suggest that the primary motivation for this was his views. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Kurt actually know about this block?

Kurt appears not to have edited since Friday evening which suggests to me he hasn't logged in since and therefore has no idea about this block. Has anyone e-mailled Kurt informing him about this block? Trying to AGF, I think someone should of e-mailled him telling him that he has been blocked indefinitely as he's not likely seen it on Wiki. D.M.N. (talk) 07:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or he's seen it and decided not to comment. The question is who should e-mail? A close acquaintance, or the blocker, Hersfold? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed him. Giggy (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Remark: It has become evident that the consensus here is to retain the block on Kurt. I suggest closing this discussion (keeping it open would not in any way help the project to move forward); tagging his userpage, as per standard procedure; and prodding everybody to go back to some article-writing. I think we've spent plenty of time debating a block that is not going to be lifted. Anthøny ✉ 11:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my view that ban discussions should have a set period of time. Not to be ended when it seems everyone has said their bit. That way lies the "ban after four hours" madness. If we allow 7 days for RfA, and 5 days for AfD, the least we can do is allow a similar period of time for ban discussions. Location (though too late here) should also be considered: see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Location of ban discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having said that, I see that you are talking about indefinite block, not a ban. I agree that indefinite block, with the use of the historical parameter to avoid deletion of his user page ({{indefblockeduser|historical}} - if someone who has edited since 2004 is not a historical user, I don't know who is), and an archiving of his user page with a notice summarising what he needs to do to edit again, and not putting an entry at WP:BANNED, then yes, I would support this way to move on. Presumably, if Kurt wants to, he can then post an unblock request at some point, and with suitable assurances and apologies would be able to return to productive editing. A new discussion would only be needed if the consensus if for a ban on top of the block. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carcharoth: A community ban is an indefinite block that no admin is prepared to undo.  I think there are a lot of us who would be prepared to unblock Kurt if he pulls back on the trolling.  He can !vote against as many RFAs as he likes, be as inclusionist as he wants, and carry on his holy crusade against ArbCom too, but there is unquestionable inflammatory and divisive comment too and a lot of people think his constant "keep, it exists" at AfD is disruptive and calculated simply to annoy. He seems like a bear with a sore head right now, when that passes I am sure that a much more rational discussion can be had. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. More generally, is it me or is it an AfD (deletionist-inclusionist) and RfA factional thing happening at the moment? I can't believe it's a coincidence that the Kurt, Sceptre, and Le Grand RC things all blew up over such a short space of time. You can stick Majorly's RfC in there as well, and maybe some other things I'm not aware of. Sometimes the bigger picture can help pinpoint what is causing some forest fires. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions thus far

It would be forgivable for an editor joining the fray at this late stage to be at a loss as to where we currently stand in this matter. To that end, a brief summary may be in order.

Consensus supports
  • The block on Kmweber (talk · contribs).
  • The theory that Kurt, whilst currently constituting a disruptive presence on the project, was once a constructive and helpful editor (most especially through his willingness to place into the forum the difficult questions that need asking and that nobody will ask).
  • Kurt's block is a response to his being a disruptive presence on the project, and, as per standard block procedure, was made in order to prevent Kurt from further disrupting the project; the block is purely preventative, in light of his disruption to date (and his apparent unwillingness to cease disrupting), and is not intended to be a punitive one.
Consensus does not support
  • Kurt being a banned editor. Although a consensus may yet emerge, at the present time Kurt is not considered a banned user.
Areas for discussion
  • Should Kurt be banned?
    • If not, it may well be that Kurt should be considered banned per the "no administrator is willing to unblock" principle.
  • No other aspects of this matter need discussing: to reiterate, Kurt's block has been upheld by common consensus.
Procedural notes
  • As an indefinitely blocked editor, it does stand to reason that Kurt's userpage be tagged with {{indef}}; I believe it important to not treat this matter as a "special case," but to handle Kurt's block as we would any other: with identical procedure, and with the least fuss possible.
  • In that Kurt is not considered banned at the moment, he is welcome to continue to edit the project, so long as any new account he uses contributes in a way that does not practice the same forms of disruption he did on the Kmweber account. That is to say, if he creates a new account, he will be blocked if he resumes the disruptive behaviour detailed in this thread, but otherwise, it does not necessarily follow that he will be blocked.

Anthøny ✉ 11:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great summary. I would agree with that, with the addition of the historical tag to Kurt's talk page (otherwise it goes in a queue for semi-automated deletion), and retention of the history behind the tag. I would also say that the process stuff (which I've said a lot about) needs to move to different venues and not be continued here. I've moved to other venues to discuss those aspects of it, and I'd encourage others to do so too. Oh, one final thing. No triumphalism. No snarky comments over the coming weeks and months. No slagging off someone who isn't here to defend himself. No more jokes about Kurt. And please, no sockpuppet dramas. Let things settle for a while, and if you have serious concerns try and raise them privately first or keep requests formal and drama-free.   Carcharoth (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, absolutely. As I said to Guy below: a little dignity in our handling of this matter going forward would go a long way. Anthøny ✉ 12:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that indef block means you aren't allowed to edit. If you do, it's block evasion. Let's not start bending the rules. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation of the rules: I am willing to not slam a block on a user that is editing constructively with one account, yet has been indefinitely blocked on one account. Anthøny ✉ 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that's not your decision to make. It's long established that if you get indeffed on an account, you can't circumvent your block by starting a new account. It's evasion of scrutiny and block evasion. See what happened here. We need cohesion. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Though the "new account" bit is important. If Kurt, or Sceptre for that matter, were previously using an undisclosed alternate account to actively edit in completely different area (not just a sleeper account ready to use if blocked), then if the alternate account stayed in its separate area, there would be no block evasion. Hmm. It's an interesting scenario. When an account is indefinitely blocked I don't think there is any requirement to reveal actively editing, undisclosed, alternate accounts. A ban is different, of course, but it does neatly demonstrate the difference. As for the creation of a new alternate account to start editing in a different area, that does have precedent (can't think of examples), usually under supervision and disclosure to Arbcom or someone, though. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, if we discard semantics all it really comes down to is that a block is a block. If you're blocked, you don't edit. It's as simple as that. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think you are oversimplifying things and losing the distinction between a block and a ban. But maybe we should drop this line of discussion, as it is beginning to distract from the point of this section. Carcharoth (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit pointless to enact a block on someone but let them carry on editing anyway. That undermines the whole point of a block in the first place. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think so too and its not usually, publicly allowed for some time. Sticky Parkin 14:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tag his userpage, that's putting the boot in and is not really necessary, there's no known threat of evasion and no real chance of confusion.  Just everybody walk away and if in a while he asks for an unblock them perhaps some friends of his can help that to happen on terms that everyone can agree to. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point: handling this with a little dignity is vital; we've had too few of it to date here. How does [5], [6], look? (We need some way of annotating his account as not being actively editing. Either those links, or simply deleting his pages, is an option; the latter is probably not very good for communication, methinks.) Thoughts welcome, Anthøny ✉ 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an overwhelming consensus existed for the (de facto) community ban; and with due respect to some of my fellow users, I think the strong consensus was actually towards the outright community ban too (although that's obviously debateable given the summary above). And note, I made no view on support/oppose/otherwise in that matter. The reason there's uncertainty over what exactly Kurt would need to do in order for the unblock is due to the mixture of concerns, and I do think that if an appeal was left to the discretion of any single administrator, then whether they decline or accept, it is more than likely to carry some level of controversy and drama. I'd suggest that any appeal be handled by the community as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can he do to be unblocked?

Some people have mentioned that if he posts a sufficient unblock request, they will unblock him.  What would be the conditions of the unblock?  Some people have said Kurt hardly does anything in mainspace, but his activity is 30-something % editing articles isnt it, then 24% discussing on article's talk pages. [7] So 55% of his contribs have been either editing articles or discussing them with other editors.  That's not so bad though I don't know how recent they are. Sticky Parkin 14:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking at this point, considering the communal input that has occurred, would be an exceedingly unwise move. Consensus for this block is very apparent, and I'd be very doubtful if there is anything Kmweber can do about this; it seems many of the "endorse block" rationales also came with the indication that there should be no more chances. I would discourage unblocking without discourse even outside of this consensus, because it is likely to cause much tension and probably even wheel warring at this stage. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that unblocking would be unwise at this point, I must state that I am willing to unblock. The summary above notes that Kurt is banned because no one is willing to unblock, but being willing to unblock does not mean that I'm going to unblock. Obviously, we'd need a lot of discussion - but I am open to the possibility, and that is enough, I think, to prevent the ban. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the distinction needs to be drawn between open to the possibility of an unblock, and going to unblock if Kurt requests. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I would be willing to unblock iff certain assurances are given as well; but the point is that as things currently stand nobody is willing to unblock— not that there are no conditions under which this could happen.  — Coren (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not set an initial length, then, for this block, and review/renew after a set period of time? Sticky Parkin 20:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber requesting unblock

"Yeah, I screwed up. I hope everyone understands that while my methods have left a bit to be desired, my motives were pure. Perhaps we can start anew from there. The last couple of days I went a bit overboard...I've always been good at keeping control until now, and the instances where I haven't have been few and far enough between that they weren't much of an issue until now. You'll forgive me if I didn't take the warnings of those who were already in disagreement with me too seriously; just a natural human tendency we all have. I haven't responded before because I've been gone. I think this matter was handled rather hastily, given the fact that no one has made a serious attempt to get the entire community's input in handling this (it's just been one or two individuals here and there) and that in the past RFCs, I had no problem stopping the activities in question until the matter was settled. You're going to do what you're going to do; I certainly don't expect an unblock to come directly from this, but just to start some discussion. Do I think I've been provoked to this? Certainly. Does that justify it? Well, in a way yeah, but I expect better than that from myself regardless. It's just a website, so if I don't get unblocked it won't matter too much, but I would appreciate an opportunity to convince my doubters that I really have always tried to do what I genuinely think to be right." Kmweber - 15:31, 21 September 2008 [8] (further comments at User talk:Kmweber)

FYI: Kmweber is requesting unblock. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since I only weakly endorsed the indef above, I can support a good faith unblock after a discussion on his page about the relevant issues here.  I hold a dim view of civility restrictions so if he is unblocked I would oppose establishing some community civility parole. Protonk (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock No.  He feels justified and provoked?  And... he will stop the things that caused his blocking until the matter is settled?  Which only means that after this discussion concludes we will be back where we started.  Note, I am ABF here, but the past history of the editors does not require AGF.  I see from all the discussion above, the matter is settled.  I don't support an unblock at this time due to the intentions in the unblock request message, namely the lack of remorse.  Time drain, exhausting community patience.  A community ban is long overdue. NonvocalScream (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have however, given him a chance to convince me. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Risker is quite right to say that no-one who commented here is in any position to unblock. It is unclear whether Kurt is requesting a community review of his unblock request or an individual review. Let's wait for someone who hasn't commented here to review the unblock request. I'm also quoting Kmweber's unblock request here, and I would suggest someone consider the talk page section transclusion thingy (I only know how to transclude the whole talk page - does transcluding a section involved includeonly tags?). Carcharoth (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not reviewing anything, I'm considering my opinion here. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he's teetering on the edge of a community ban, an individual review wouldn't do anything; no admin's really in a position to unblock without participating in this discussion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, given the active discussion below, surely no admin is in a position to decline the unblock request. Maybe it can be put on hold until the discussion devlops over the next few days? Carcharoth (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a pretty clear ban, and asI noted here, any appeal on this matter would need to go through the community as a whole rather than at the discretion of any single administrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock - this is the first time I've ever seen Kurt acknowledge that some of the complaints against him have legitimacy.  I view that as a very positive sign. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose request to unblock - I knew this was coming. I knew he'd write something that would play peoples' heart strings. He hasn't been provoked into this. Not at all. He's still being stubborn, he never once said sorry for his behaviour in the unblock request. No way. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock, he admits he screwed up. I think he understands that some people think he's wandered a little too far from the herd. And by the way, we don't require apologies for unblocks. His unblock request is thoughtful and conciliatory.  RxS (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support unblock - has he really seen the error of his ways in such a short time? "Do I think I've been provoked to this? Certainly. Does that justify it? Well, in a way yeah" suggests that he's not really in the mood to change his actions, but I guess AGF and see if he has changed his spots. Sure, let's unblock him, but he should be aware I for one won't hesitate to block him when he lapses back... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support unblock His blocking reeked of politics, and he's being more than gracious in his asking of unblock.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 16:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple ecs) Just a note, the unblock discussion should continue here. No admin should make a unilateral decision in the light of the comments made here. For what it's worth, my support of the indef block has not changed because it wasn't based on one single comment but based on a long history of problematic behaviour. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted something here about any possible appeal on this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock - for me, AGF went out the window a while ago. I'd need to see something a lot more convincing that he'll actually change at all before supporting an unblock. Saying "we'll just reblock if he starts up again" is fine in theory, but if there's a reblock, then we have this whole discussion all over again and its just more community time wasted. Mr.Z-man 17:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, I don't see why we're already having the discussion all over again. Can someone point me to where we decided that we were just going to forget about the section above, the one where dozens of people supported the block? Mr.Z-man 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock He's been a thorn in the side of just about everyone for far too long. I see nothing "political" about his block. Sure, he's admitted his mistakes, but how do we know that he won't go back to his very annoying and disruptive methods? The automatically opposing self-noms just because of prima facie whatever, arguing for the inclusion of everything because "it clearly exists", calling people "lazy" who ask for something to be deleted because they can't find sources, and so forth — it's all very, very disruptive behavior, and it drowns out any good he's done. I have seen him be nice for a while (for instance, he was very gracious after I made the mistake of MFD'ing an outdated userpage of his), but then I've seen him swing back over to attacking, wikilawyering, and flat-out trolling all over again. Because of his flip-flopping, I just can't trust him very well, even when he admits how badly he's screwed up. I agree with Mr. Z-man above, AGF went out the window a long time ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertion that he's "been a thorn in the side of just about everyone for far too long" is inaccurate, see his RFC foe details. He got a lot of support there. RxS (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock, perhaps with a temporary restriction to mainspace. Everyking (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: As an administrator who has reviewed the discussions above but not participated in this discussion, and with holding no prejudice to either unblocking or keeping blocked, I will interact with Kurt. Everyone can read his page and note his responses, and I propose that Kurt review this page in depth and respond to questions that arise here; however, in the interests of drama reduction, it would be appreciated if we could keep the traffic on his talk page to a minimum. I think it is important that we have clear, specific responses from Kurt that are not intermingled with continued prodding from those who want him to remain blocked, or cheering on from those who want him to be unblocked. I have no intention of rendering an unblock decision without input from the community on this page.  Risker (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE I will continue to interact with Kurt per his own request to have a chance to "convince the doubters".  If he tells me he does not want to interact then I will stop.  I must however have a chance to interact with him in order to consider or reconsider my opinion here. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose unblock Kurt has messed with everyone's minds for far to long now, and it's caused this long page of discussion. Without Kurt around, I feel that it would avoid another one of these discussions, that is bound to happen again should he be unblocked. iMatthew (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock I think that Kurt's response on his talk page shews that he is prepared to listen & respond to reasonable community concerns about his behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock with the understanding that continued incivility or disrutpion will result in a community ban.  Kurt has stated he reognizes that his level of incivilty has become unacceptable and needs to be reigned in.  He should also calmly and civily state his views rather than conduction breaching experiments (as with RfA) which annoy more people than they convince.  Based on this request, I am willing to unblock absent a clear consenus for a ban.  Eluchil404 (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock. I feel that the disruption and drama has gone long enough and AGF in relation to Kurt has run out a long time ago. In fact, with someone who admittedly does not view any of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (including, presumably, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL) as binding, and with a long history of incivility and drama, there is no reasonable way of predicting which boundaries and rules of behaviour Kurt will set for himself in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock Per my earlier reservations regarding the original block that stifled Kurt. Nothing about his unblock request appears contrived. I will stipulate no conditions as they would merely be subjective. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is 221kb long.  That is all. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support unblock We need to stop burning iconoclasts at the stake. He has admitted his wrongdoing and promised not to repeat it. Is that not enough for you? He had issues in real life, and he admits that he expects better of himself. Come on. This is the epitome of assuming bad faith on the part of the community. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock  Kurt's unblock request is not specific regarding what he has done wrong, or regarding what, specifically, he would do differently in the future.  He does not say that, in future, he will interact politely with users he disagrees with- in fact, he clearly says that, if unblocked, he will continue doing what he genuinely thinks is right- and we know, from experience and from his own statements, that he genuinely believes it is right to make users with whom he disagrees feel as unwelcome and insulted as he is able.  I don't see anything here that makes me think that he has come to believe differently, or that he would, in the future, refrain from insulting everyone he disagrees with.  Since his opinions are not widely held, this involves insulting practically everyone, which is disruptive. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support unblock and without condition.  I haven't contributed earlier to this, being rather busy at AfD. I agree with only about 25% of what Kurt is trying to do  and definitely oppose most of the rest. Even for the things I support, he's often  not going about it in a way that helps. But I don't think that matters. He has been expressing his opinion, and, though he has been expressing it at length, and often, the expression of even small minority opinions is of benefit to us. societies that cannot tolerate this show, in my view, the fundamental weakness at their base. I do not think they interfere. They make the pages slightly longer, but that is all. Anyone who wants to ignore his arguments is free to ignore them. Nobody has to even read them. I don';t see a single instance in which he has actually disrupted process, or even disturbed it. Dissent is not disruption, and to who treat it as such is supporting the sort of repression that ends in  totalitarianism. True, many groups do not tolerate discussion of their fundamental principles, but I think such groups show their inability to survive scrutiny. I further do not think anything in his manner really crosses the line into true NPA or even gross incivility-- we tolerate much worse from well-established people whose opinions are accepted here. I strongly endorse Keeper's statement [9] at the RfArb, referred to above, and  I note that the arb com refused to consider that RfA, 6-0, 3 of them clearly supporting Keeper's view of the matter. DGG (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of a general philosophical position you are absolutely correct. Vigorous dissent is both healthy and necessary, in the society in general and on Wikipedia in particular. However, there is a difference between radical dissent (or iconoclasm, as Erik the Red puts it) and anachrism. It is necessary for WP users to accept abiding by the basic ground rules of Wikipedia, even if they don't agree with these rules and vigorously campaign against them. Otherwise we'll just have chaos and anarchy and the whole enterprise will become completely unmanageable. Kurt, by his own honest admission, is basically a committed anarchist, who rejects Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and institutions and behaves according to his own code of conduct. For quite a while his conduct did not rise to the level of significant disruption, it was possible to largely ignore it and Kurt was making productive contributions to the project. But in recent months that has not been the case and, as far as I can see, Kurt's behaviour was getting more and more erratic and he has become rather too much of a loose cannon. Since we are dealing with a principled anarchist who rejects all Wikipedia policies, and given the history of prior problems, I don't see how we can excpect Kurt to follow policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA in the future. Nsk92 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also comment on "without conditions" issue. I think that unblocking without conditions would be particularly unwise. At the very least, a long ban from RFA comments is necessary. Apart from incivility issues discussed above, I think that Kurt's RfA participation has had a sustained disruptive effect. Basically, every time he asks his cool down block question, it is a deliberate WP:POINT violation. He usually gets two types of responses from RfA candidates. Some simply cite the provision of the blocking policy that discourages cool-down blocks, while others also give their additional reason for discouraging cool-down blocks. Kurt invariably opposes and subsequent mayhem invariably follows. Now, Kurt knows full well that most of the community does not view following established policy as a valid reason for an RfA oppose, that his vote will be discounted and that most of the community views RfA as an inappropriate forum for advocating policy change. Yet he continues to do it anyway, knowing the kind of disruption that this usually causes. In my view this is a textbook WP:POINT case. Now, in the ideal world it would be nice to simply ignore these cool-down opposes of Kurt's and personally I never engage with him on this issue in RfAs. But the reality is that RfAs are emotionally charged affairs where it is very easy to get people riled up, and opposes that are invalid on their face are a sure way to do it. Invariably tempers flare, people are driven up the wall and sometimes they go to the extremes themselves (see, for example, the recent case of User:Sceptre). RfAs is  one area where Kurt's impact has been almost entirely negative. Nsk92 (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I often hear the refrain "just ignore him if you don't like him" in conjunction with Kurt's name.  Ignoring KMW and his ilk would be more feasible if the wiki-developers would put The Fat Man's (admittedly technically daunting) proposed MediaWiki feature into action.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock I don't feel that Kurt will be a net negative going forward, if he's serious about what he's said in the statement at the beginning of this section. I did give the other side of this question a lot of thought, and he should realize that a) he is here on the strength of his mainspace contributions and the people calling for a block based on his WP space contributions have a valid argument and b) the incivility to newcomers and established editors alike needs to ease up. I would certainly support banning if we're back here again with arguments to ban as solid as the ones presented on this page. Darkspots (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock and oppose Wikipedia-space ban per DGG's wise words: dissent is not disruption. EJF (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • support unblock Kurt is mildly uncivil and there's no reason he shouldn't get occasional blocks when his civility issues go over the line, but in general Kurt's ok. Having strong opinions that are at odds with a most of the community is not a good reason to block. DGG sums things up pretty well. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock. After reading his unblock statement, I'm not convinced he knows why he was indef blocked to begin with. He wasn't blocked for dissent, he was blocked for disruption. Wizardman 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't get a chance to clarify my objection to Seraphim Whipp's endorsal in the archive above. Note that I do not care about reputation, much less his/her sensibilities. This otherwise intelligent editor simply did not think! Regardless of why Kurt is forcing the broader debate over WP:NOT to a level where community norms come into question, and regardless of whether or not this is learned behaviour, his "fascist" insult of an editor new to the issues of arbitration reflects an attitude towards others quite apart from a superiority complex. To present it as evidence here, as if there aren't enough learned assertions flying back and forth, is indicative of a wider trend amongst those who moved to block and ban. Fear. The water of the issue is that Kurt's expression of danger is being conflated with testing dependencies.

    My opinion is that we can not ban him for the latter transgression, as he doesn't fully understand what he's doing that people instinctively associate his editing philosophy with disruption. Obviously he has some idea, but, as has become abundantly clear in this discussion, and despite his best attempt to apologise, this conflict has come to a head. I believe that a ban at this stage could actually come back at the technocrats. He simply has to move on. I believe Kurt's words are powerful enough to actually demonstrate new perspective on the issue, if managed, ergo support unblock. Ottre 19:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided an example of questionable behaviour and gaming the system because people were continually demanding evidence of the views being provided. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose Unblock - I think we just went through this, he's had enough chances already. He won't stop doing what he's been doing heck just look at his block log. And to me it doesn't seem he understands why he was blocked in the first place. --Coffee // talk // ark // 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock declined. D.M.N. (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose unblock - there's no reason I can see for the return of an editor that is involved (maybe not cause) disruption. Although his article work is admirable, its a necessity for all editors, not something to be thought of as a good feature of a user. It may not be his fault for the controversy that surrounds the edits he conducts at AfD and RfA but the root causes of that pertain to Kurt, and for that reason, I oppose an unblock. This has the feel of false promises being made so the same can happen all over again until yet again a 'hasty' block has to be applied, until yet more discussion takes place and the vicious cycle begins once again. Caulde 21:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock: (with apologies in advance for my terseness) It's easy enough to say that certain conditions won't allow this debate to come up again - but they have - countless times. It's easy enough for Kurt simply to say "sorry", but this situation will come up again, and we'll spend further and further time debating it, rendering this whole debate completely useless. Not to mention that the idea of unblocking insults Hersfold's original - highly justifiable - notice to the core. We wouldn't even be discussing this as a possible unblock if this were anyone else. Can't we put this incident behind us and continue to work as a community for the good of the encyclopedia? Bobo. 21:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the unblock for now.  If Ryan's plan below goes ahead, I will be happy with the unblock.  If not, I don't feel unblocking him only days after he was blocked is good practice and leaves no time to think about his actions.  I also feel that in the result of an unblock, he will only go back to his rule-ignoring ways and we will be here again - life is short.  weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unconditional unblock, per DGG. Moreover, the process here was completely inappropriate, and so was PhilKnight's precipitious decline of the unblock request. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No. Just no. He's had too long to change his ways, faced with permanent expulsion is not the time to have a change of heart.--Crossmr (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I supported his block above. My mind is not going to be changed by a few lines of apology. I'm sorry. Apologies can be easily said, and Kurt's ways haven't changed for years. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unconditional unblock.  DGG is correct that dissent isn't disruption— which is why Kurt has been blocked for the disruption he caused.  Kurt is welcome to burn any and every icon he wishes, as long as he stops burning the people holding them.  — Coren (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Immediate Unblock Unless we go with Ryan's plan below. The block should be shortened (2 months or so maybe, idk) but to unblock him now is just outright wrong. Of course he's had a "change of heart" and wrote up a heart-warming apology, so does everyone else who gets indef'd. As WBOSITG said above, a few days block leaves him no time to reflect, and he said himself he was unaware of it until now. Most of those supporting an unblock are the ones screaming "witch hunt!" and "he's a great guy!" and lets not forget "he's made great mainspace contributions!". I'm really confused as to why anyone as disruptive and outspoken as Kurt hasn't been indef'd sooner. Is it because he's disruptive and outspoken? Maybe some people are afraid that without Kurt here there won't be anyone to express his views? At any rate, I'm sure if I acted the same way Kurt does/has I'd be blocked too, despite my mainspace contribs ( or how charming you may consider me ;-) ). So why bow down to Kurt? What possible reason is there to excuse consistent disruptive behvior? I don't exactly have a huge ammount of respect for this place, or it's rules (just the other day I put up the .png images for the braile letters "F" and "U" on a talkpage to some guy) but I think I can tell when the community needs to have them enforced. And, "I think this matter was handled rather hastily, given the fact that no one has made a serious attempt to get the entire community's input in handling this (it's just been one or two individuals here and there)" that's how you treat a community consensus from WP:AN/I, which may I remind you is watched by Wikipedians like vultures watch a straggler in the desert? Come on, guys. As if Wikipedia isn't confusing enough already, you're going to send Kurt off scot free?--KojiDude (C) 23:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unconditional unblock DGG et al above and Keeper et al at the arbcom pretty much said it all.  The notable meagerness of real reasons for blocking based on real instances of disruption, and Kurt's apology for recent incivil comments says the rest.John Z (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions

I've been thinking about this long and hard over the weekend. I've come up with an idea for moving forward with this because whilst there's a lot of support for an indefinite block at this stage, I'm not sure there's the clear support that would be requred for it to stick. Given the support however for an indef block, if he is to return he needs to be placed under strict restrictions. First, a ban from editing the Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces - this is where the majority of his disruption/trolling seems to occur (I note, this was proposed up above with strong opposition because people favoured a ban, but I think it's something to consider now). Secondly, he should be placed under the mentorship of three active administrators - I say mentorship, but it would be slightly different than normal. I would expect these three administrators to keep a close eye on Kurt and they would be able to block for a short period as soon as he steps out of line. Yup, that sounds like a cool down block, but this could work extremely well here. Short, sharp blocks would cut the disruption as it occurs and give Kurt time to think about his actions. I hope that these would not be required too often, especially considering he'd also be banned with Wikipedia space. Of course, they would work with him and offer him advice, but close supervision here is required. Any other uninvolved administrator would be free to block him, but the mentors would keep a greater check on his activities than other administrators would be expected to. Anyway, that's just my 2 pence. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I've offered that restriction (sans the mentoring) to Kurt already on his talk page, with a caveat to prevent him from being unable to participate in discussions he should, by right, be allowed to.  I would, of course, support this more stringent condition (although I think it might be slight overkill).  — Coren (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I don't think that it's overkill is the vast number of users that would like to see him gone for good. I think there's a way for him to still be allowed to contribute, but in order to be fair to both sides of this, he would have to be under extremely strict restrictions. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I originally proposed a partial ban for Kurt that would restrain him from the project space, I feel compelled to respond. Many felt that it would be extremely unwieldy and difficult to manage in the long run. As for implementing any sort of administrative watchdog, I have very strong suspicions that, since these are special circumstances, many editors would have differing opinions regarding what would constitute a blockable offense during his, I am assuming indefinite, probationary period. This is the reason why I am refraining from suggesting any sort of conditional restrictions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- sounds like an excellent compromise. Do you have any administrators in mind, Ryan? I'd be glad to volunteer. L'Aquatique[chitchat] 18:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't actually, so volunteers welcome! Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'll volunteer, but I want to make it clear that I would intend to keep it as drama-free as possible, to be blunt, I don't like to block. In my some-odd two months as an admin I've blocked like four people, all of them vandalism-only accounts. So I might be hesitant to block if something came up. That may not be what you're looking for. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ban from projectspace. Let nobody say it's for his RFA comments, they were fine, it's for his incility oon these noticeboards and various other places.--Serviam (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If for some reason his block is overturned, I would Support the topic ban. I'm apathetic on mentors, seems like it would basically be appointing police, which would just waste time for those users. Wizardman 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support This sounds like a well-thought out plan, and could very probably work. I am not overly convinced by Kurt's unblock request itself; something's niggling at me to say that's not the most sincere response. His comments afterward, however, do show some promise, however are still concerning. "I decided this was an excellent outlet to let off a bit of steam," for example. We are volunteers, all of us. The Wikipedia community is nobody's punching bag, and I am reluctant to allow an editor who does think or has previously thought that to continue editing. He says he is willing to learn from his mistakes, which is great, but we have seen little evidence of this to date, in my opinion.
    The plan listed above by Ryan is, as I said, a good compromise and an excellent solution to an awkward problem. I believe that through a program such as this, my remaining concerns about Kurt's future conduct can be allayed. However, to ensure this situation does not occur again, I base my support on this condition: If Kurt accepts these terms and is unblocked, I would very much like it to be made very clear that this is his final chance to edit Wikipedia. The discussion we have had here makes it clear that the community is more-or-less divided into two semi-factions: those who are tired of Kurt's conduct (of which I will admit I am one), and those who feel he is being unfairly treated and is undeserving of this situation. Should the conduct that led to this block continue, those factions will become less evenly split, with more people moving to the first side. Should that happen, that will most likely be Kurt's Last Stand anyway.
    I hate to see anyone banned from the site, however when a user has exhausted the community's patience, there is nothing left to be done. If this plan is implemented (and I hope it is), I would like it made clear that it is likely to be Kurt's absolute last chance and to have Kurt acknowledge this. I don't think this is too unreasonable, and as I said, is pretty much the fact of the matter anyway, but it would make me feel a little more comfortable knowing that Kurt is aware of this and knowing that if this does continue, the community will be willing to respond appropriately and in a timely manner - something which has not, but should have, happened before now.
    For the record, I strongly oppose any unblock without some form of probationary condition applied. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a good idea. Kurt's not evil, he's just - how do I put it - rather socially and politically ignorant. He has a supreme talent for annoying and upsetting people and seemingly being rather clueless as to their inevitable reactions. Fundamentally, I think this stems from a very large ego, which isn't best suited to a collegial project such as Wikipedia, as we will always require some degree of submission of the individual will to that of the hivemind collective. I think a long block - say three months here - would have been justified, but I am uneasy about the indef, so Ryan's proposal is a good alternative.
  • This discussion also points out some of the weaknesses in our community sanction procedures. Someone like Kurt, who has aggravated very many people with his blanket RFA opposes, is always going to get a rougher deal than he deserves. And the hypocrisy of the commentary of Majorly - among others - is beyond belief and is a good deal more sickening than anything Kurt has ever done. It's a good reminder, I suppose, of why we will always need a DR body external to the admin corps - in some form or other. Moreschi (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't be bothered to comment on the rest of this mess, but I agree completely with everything you said right there. naerii 19:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also worth pointing out that wikipolitical support for banning someone like Kurt (who has only done indirect harm to mainspace, if any) is unjustifiably strong compared with the muted reactions I inevitably get when trying to deal with the real trolls who mess up entire topic areas of the encyclopaedia and no one cares. It's a sad day when we're all so eager to kick Kurt out for disrupting RFA and AFD, and no one really cares much about the much less high-profile, but 50 times more insidious, trolls on race articles and Iranian ancient history (to name but two recent examples). Moreschi (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, must've missed it, sorry Ryan. But sure, I'd support this if he is to be unblocked. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all those proposed conditions, would it really be worth giving time (from K's perspective) to a project that has banned you from wiki-space and put under perma-porary watch from three administrators? Caulde 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's his choice I guess - From his perspective, it's certainly better than an indef block. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug. Those guys we hit with the ARBMAC stick think so, and arguably they get sanctioned more heavily - and still edit. Moreschi (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ryan's masterplan, so long as any personal attacks, incivilty and generally being a dick are seen to immediately.  (NB, I use dick idiomatically.) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks like a good suggestion/plan. D.M.N. (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skeptical.  I'm not convinced that Kurt is interested in editing under these conditions, nor am I sure that he'd be able to resist getting involved in his favorite pastime of pissing people off.  But if he wants to try, I'd be willing to give him that chance, on the assumption that further incivility would be smacked down firmly and immediately.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose compromise and/or unblock. Kurt has been extremely disruptive in the face of extreme and prolonged criticism. He never acknowledges that he's an annoying nuisance. His continued disruption in the face of requests for better behavior are a slap in the face of the community. We need to stop wasting our time and give this guy the boot. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ryan, it's really looking like there's going to be no consensus for a block at all so either you come up with something, support this or he's going to have zero restriction on his editing and we're back to square one. A lot of people are supporting an unblock at this point - let's start making a compromise. I support an indef block personally, but that's most probably not going to happen. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose disruption is disruption. We have to stop bending over for users who have no respect for the project. Why are we even discussing this?--Crossmr (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose managerial team - would cause more drama/harm than good. Would be troublesome to manage. Who makes the decision about "transgressions"? An arbitrary three man team? However, I fully support a ban from the project space. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support - I like the restrictions set out by Ryan above. I think that if he does end up getting unblocked, that some sort of restrictions need to be set, and this is exactly what I like to hear. However, this is not endorsing unblock with restrictions, and I still hold firm to my belief that he should stay indef blocked. Xclamation point 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would just turn into another "giano" style situation where the letter of the agreement would say "any admin can block for short periods" but the reality would be "don't block unless you want an earful of shit" (pardon the expression, but that's what that GWH/Giano/Peter Damiens thread looked like to me).  If we accept an unblock it should be after some time (like a week or so) to see if this is really him coming to terms with his actions and it should bring him back to the site as just another user. Protonk (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Any unblock conditions need to make it perfectly crystal clear that this is his absolutely last, and final chance, not mandate a bunch of little wrist slap blocks. I'd rather not give him any more chances, but if we have to, let's make it only one, not an indefinite amount until the community can't take it anymore (again). Mr.Z-man 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
I would recuse myself if this block were to come before "the Arbitrary Committee," so I shouldn't offer a formal opinion here either, but I'll submit a few thoughts for what they are worth. My first impression of Kmweber came from his RfA !votes, and I commented on them on his first RfC; I found his repetitive rationale for opposing self-noms to be profoundly unimpressive, and I asked him to cut it out, although I also said at the time that it didn't warrant a block. For what it's worth, although there is an honorable place on Wikipedia for those who would seek to raise the bar on RfA, those who have gratuitiously opposed massive numbers of candidates without a reasonably coherent rationale (Boothy4433, Masssiveego) generally have not fared well here. But this of itself would be thin grist for a ban discussion. In the recent request for arbitration, arbitrator Paul August (whom we miss) voted to decline the case with a comment along the lines of "dissent is permitted." Whether we deal here with dissent, or with trollishness, I will leave for others to judge.
Whether Kurt remains blocked or is unblocked, is banned or unbanned, my lasting memory of him will be the time we were having a discussion in an IRC channel and he told me that I hate Wikipedia. I assumed this was a rhetorical device, meaning "you are conducting yourself in a way that I consider detrimental to the project" (in my case, by serving on the ArbCom; in others' cases, but self-nomming for RfA or seeking to delete something) "and I will refer to your wrong-headed action as 'hating Wikipedia' as a powerful metaphor to show how bad I consider the effect of your actions to be." But no ... upon further discussion, it turned out that what he meant was that he thought that I, subjectively, actually hate Wikipedia, and so apparently do quite a number of other people. But I think it is fair to say that whatever my virtues or drawbacks as an editor, I do not, actually, hate Wikipedia, and no reasonable person supposes that I do. Now, failure to assume good faith is not, of itself, bannable; but perhaps can we instate Wikipedia:Do not assume that large numbers of experienced editors hate Wikipedia, and try to convince them that they do after they deny it? before this conversation goes too much further? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did we waste our time?

Why did we bother going through the whole "support/oppose indefinite block", "support/oppose ban" phase if it gets ignored anyway? How many times can "But we can't block dissenters!" be used as a shield? Seraphim♥Whipp 19:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that above and never got an answer, even after archiving the previous discussion, as it was apparently just a waste of time. Mr.Z-man 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some people were a little too ready to declare a consensus for a ban, where none existed. The "whole "support/oppose indefinite block", "support/oppose ban" phase" did not get ignored, it contributed to the position in which discussion of a way forward became possible. DuncanHill (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tally the numbers supporting an indef block. Those are the people being ignored. Seraphim♥Whipp 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as long as there is more than one willing to unblock, overwhelming consensus for a ban (also called "piling on") is just a "witch hunt" and therefore illegitimate. No one above said "Unblock if there is some sort of vague apology from Kurt" even though that will likely end up being the case. I wouldn't be surprised to see some bold admin unblocking without comment even. Such is wikipedia. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I said indefinite block, not ban. We should be discussing block length. Moreschi suggested a length of 3 months above. Seraphim♥Whipp 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CCC (consensus can change) when new information/data/evidence/comments emerge - surprisingly quickly sometimes. You might also want to ask those who started the ban discussion and those who contributed to it over the weekend while Kurt was not here. Think about it. If Kurt had early on posted what he has done now, and maybe if he hadn't been blocked so swiftly, in an atmosphere of egging on and open calls for someone to block him, then the discussion might have ended differently, and the mood swung away from the one that developed. Group discussions are very sensitive to mood and atmosphere, as anyone who hangs out at RfA will confirm. People talk about process-wonkery, but there is a reason that in some cases process is used. Process is not an evil word, and using the same process each time ensures uniform results and avoids wastes of times like this where opinions are swinging backwards and forwards and those at either end are (understandably) getting frustrated. A formal, more organised, ban discussion, might have had more legitimacy and might have actually ended up with a ban, compared to the chaotic way this process turned out. The other thing, is that it is generally better to get firm consensus on something, rather than try and force something through with diminishing consensus (as appears to be the case at the moment). Those who still want a ban should remember that each time patience does wear a bit thinner in more and more people. Each time we are inching a step closer towards a ban. Kurt himself, I'm sure, now realises this (if he didn't before). It might have been a form of shock therapy and a huge waste of time for some (I don't exactly enjoying spending time doing this, you know) but it has achieved something I think. And if that ultimately helps, that's no bad thing. And one thing at least is crystal-clear. Given the amount of "support unblock" comments above, there is no consensus for a ban. There does seem to be a lot of support for some kind of enforced restrictions, which may or may not turn out well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did it achieve? Any result that may have come of it is entirely moot as we've started the discussion over again. We haven't had a more formal process for bans since the MFD of WP:CSN, this is how we've done them ever since. If I don't like the outcome of the current keep blocked/unblock discussion, can I start another one too? Or is 2 the maximum? Mr.Z-man 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you want to start another discussion depends on how helpful (i.e. productive/disruptive) you think it would be. The second discussion started after Kurt's unblock request and (for some) changed the picture. You would probably need another 'precipitating' comment or incident to start another discussion, but again, doing so for every new incident might end up being disruptive. It's ultimately your decision, and no-one can make that for you. Carcharoth (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could set a length of time for the block, like a month/fortnight, then review or renew.  Then it's sort off a compromise, with those who want a block not feeling entirely ignored. Sticky Parkin 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the users that think Kurt is just a "dissenter": I do sincerely hope that, in the future, you will run into him and I do hope he derides you for something (on or off Wikipedia). That way, you'll come back, and, hopefully, learn from your mistake of allowing him to return. Kurt won't learn. He knows he's going to get off easy. He's an even bigger ass on WR, maybe you guys don't see that. He attacks everyone as much as he can because he knows he'll get away with it. How many times must we come to this point before he gets let off? It's infuriating. Logically, he doesn't care about Wikipedia. Kurt hates Wikipedia. Full-stop. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a lot of people supported an indefinite block, but I'm not sure it was clear enough for it to be actually closed consensus - this is especially true when reading over the "request for unblock" thread above where a large amount of people are supporting that.  This is the reason I created a conditions section to try and form a consensus for restrictions to come to a middle ground - I would be deeply concerned if no restrictions were placed on him were he to be unblocked given the feelings expressed by the community so far. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, if he were to be unblocked, I would, at the very least, expect a complete and indefinite topic ban on him making comments to WP space. That's where he gets his adrenal fix. If he truly wants to "save Wikipedia", he'll agree to that. ScarianCall me Pat! 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you not been reading #Conditions? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one's wasted their time. It's all about consensus. User A suggests something, people discuss that, User B suggests something better and users think that route is more feasable. On a semi-related note, this may seem related to the above. D.M.N. (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Unblocked

Given that Kurt has agreed to stay away from the project space (almost) entirely for at least the next three months, I have unblocked him.  It is obvious that the feelings on his block are split, but allowing a contributor to return after having willingly stepped away from the source of the conflict is a big gain for everyone.  Please allow Kurt the opportunity to return to us with no hard feelings.

The conditions are not onerous (he is specifically allowed to defend articles he has worked on, and to participate in dispute resolution when he is involved), have been agreed to willingly, and should allow everybody's stress to return to reasonable levels.  I think Kurt has made a significant acknowledgment of why we felt there was a problem, and should be given every chance to mend the bridges he may have singed.  — Coren (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have any consensus for that. I see a clear split of about 14 aside on the issue of unblock, that is hardly any indication the community wants him back editing this project.--Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec x 3) FWIW, consensus isn't something everyone agrees to, but something everyone can live with.  This gets rid of the source of the problem, without banning a contributor.  Best of both worlds, even if it won't satisfy people living on the extremes.  — Coren (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a community block. A majority who spoke wanted him blocked. You can't just go and unblock him until the community accepts that.--Crossmr (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly hope this doesn't rouse a wheel war. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it should; Kurt was blocked because he was being disruptive and agreed to stop the activity that was felt to be disruptive.  Unless revenge was a motive, that should satisfy the people (me included, I'll remind everyone), who felt the block was warranted).  — Coren (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa, this was way premature. I would strongly advise Coren to reblock until a real consensus can be reached. I'm not going to do it, but I'm willing to bet there are others who will. This cannot end well. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I really don't care what happens as long as everyone acknowledges that this is his last chance, no excuses or smooth talking. —Animum (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was certainly my intent.  Kurt will most certainly get no support from me if he breaches the conditions of his return or resumes his problematic behavior.  — Coren (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it starts. That's great. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos to Coren. I don't see what good bandying about threats of further blocks will do. Giggy (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And he's just been reblocked indefinately. DuncanHill (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was easy to predict. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes and to prevent further warring he shouldn't be unblocked until there is a clear community consensus for it. Kurt has been asked to stop before, there is no indication that this time he gets it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He should stay blocked, there was not consensus for the unblock. What's the rush anyways? --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps predictable, but no less disapointing.  The block was justified, and given that the source of the problem had been alleviated, I had hoped retribution would not be a factor.  — Coren (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because Kurt said I really really won't go back to my old ways doesn't mean its been alleviated. Just because he was previously disruptive in the project space doesn't mean he won't now become disruptive in the talk space or user talk space. This is not a problem that's cropped up over a weekend but a problem which has gone on for years.--Crossmr (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then the incidents should have been dealt with. But, as it stands, he was blocked once in 2007 for less than 24 hours. Before that, he was blocked once in 2006, and his longest block in 2005 was for 5 days and some change. I'm no fan of Kurt. He knows it, everyone else knows it, but we don't just bust out a ban on someone for this sort of stuff. Jennavecia (Talk) 06:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you deny that he hasn't been told to read WP:CIVIL before? there really shouldn't be anything else influencing the discussion. Has he been told to change his behaviour in the past? Yes. Has it gone on for an excessively long time? Yes. Did people finally grow tired of it? Yes. Kurt having a few individual supporters doesn't change the fact that WP:CIVIL is very clear and has been formed from a much larger consensus than what exists on this page. His finally seeing the light when he's facing down an indef block doesn't change any of that. I've seen plenty of people blocked indef for behaviour that didn't get any kind of escalating block, etc. I don't see the need for one here. It only invites more drama the next time any issue about him crops up. Frankly I'd like to write it all down right now because I'm sure I can predict the play-by-play.--Crossmr (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Warnings are followed by blocks when violated. Not indefs. CIV is a jacked policy. It really should be merged with NPA and enforced less arbitrarily. It's over-cited and frankly quite subjective. The drama stems from people who like it. The majority of Kurt's behavior could simply be ignored. Then, it would most likely go away. But it's not. Why? Because people here like drama. Too many editors would rather start and AN/I thread or an RFC, or bitch and moan some other way about other editors, than write or improve articles. They enjoy the drama, so they create it and feed it. Don't feed the trolls. Those feeding the trolls don't have much room to claim the trolls are creating drama. Most of his actions are only disruptive because people allow him to get to them. There's no valid reason not to give him the chance to edit under restrictions. Calling for his head when it's been almost a year since his last block, which was for like 14 hours or something and his first in over a year, is ridiculous. Jennavecia (Talk) 07:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh I see... so the reason Kurt is a problem is everyone else's fault because they all let him get to them. Have you read the second definition of Enabling? If you can honestly look at the things Kurt has said to other users here and feel that it was the nicest way he could say them, then I'll let it go. Blaming the policy, blaming other users, etc for Kurt being disruptive doesn't solve the problem and frankly its an insult to both the project and the other users. Just because kurt hasn't been blocked over the last year doesn't mean his behaviour wasn't continuing. Perhaps some people just felt it was futile to report it because the Kurt supporters would just show up and tell them to get over it. If Kurt or a certain few other users in a similar position were to suddenly act inappropriately I'd be loathe to bring it up simply because it seems like it would do no good. Everyone else has just as much right to edit here as kurt and they also have a right to edit in a certain kind of environment. Kurts ruined that for a lot of editors who have stumbled across him.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • crossmr, I'm going to quote you here because this is the exact reason why we're left in this bad situation. For editing restrictions you said; "oppose disruption is disruption. We have to stop bending over for users who have no respect for the project. Why are we even discussing this?--Crossmr (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)" I told you we didn't have consensus for a block so we should start looking at a compromise. Your blind rejection of anything other than a ban, even when it was clear he was going to be unblocked has led to him being allowed to edit exactly how he wants. It's not just you, others have done exactly the same thing up above, but you summed it up perfectly. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 07:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That's right. I did sum it up perfectly. There are certain users in this community who for some bizarre reason are willing to go to great lengths to accomodate people who shouldn't be accomodated. Frankly its getting a little old. If editors can't come here and expect a certain level of respect from fellow editors while working here, what incentive is there for new people to come or stay?Kurt is someone who for a long time has shown no respect for the community, its policies, or other editors. I don't see any benefit to his being allowed to continue editing here. He's shown that his main interest in project space, which he doesn't respect and is disruptive in it. As for my blind rejection, I posted below calling for sanity in dealing with any future issues that arise because of this unblock and ensuring that people don't create more drama if he messes up again.--Crossmr (talk) 12:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retribution hasn't a thing to do with it. The problem here is a.) some of us are unwilling to take Kurt completely at his word, and b.) there simply wasn't consensus for an unblock. When you perform a controversial unblock without consensus, what exactly do you expect. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect editors, especially other administrators, will (a) respect the fact that I have not unblocked rashly or without considerable thought, and (b) assume that Kurt has some good faith, and that combined with the condition for his return the problem would have been minimized significantly if not gotten rid of entirely, which is supposed to be the only reason he was blocked in the first place.  Obviously my expectations were too high. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's gone past WP:AGF by now, don't you? --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be pointed out that the original block was made without consensus, which came after the block. Leave him unblocked, until there is significant consensus to reblock him. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is currently blocked, not unblocked. And you, Giggy, and the rest of the minority of people wanting him unblocked isn't going to do it, there is consensus for him to stay blocked. I personally don't think that we can really take Kurt at his word on this one. --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the problem is that there isn't consensus either way - which is probably why it should remain in place. Although, I can't really make a forecast as to how this is going to pan out with such a split. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee; You do realise how consensus works, right? Giggy (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronize me young man... :P --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty disgusted by the desire for punitive action amongst some of the editors on this page, but not half as disgusted as I am with the admin who re-blocked, without talking to the unblocking admin until after the fact, and who apparently feels no need to explain his action here. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not punitive to block someone who will continue to act the way he has in the past, it is preventative. --Coffee // talk // ark // 01:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


@Coren, no, obviously you misinterpreted the situation. Last time he was blocked, about a year ago; this was the rationale given by the unblocking administrator: agreed to stop and talk things over, and stop commenting on RFAs if needed. Apparently, he didn't keep his word that time, what's changed? I'm not saying here I agree with an indefinite block, but don't unblock against consensus and then get nasty when someone disagrees with you. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed to stop and talk things over, and stop commenting on RFAs if needed—there is, and never has been, a need for Kurt to stop commenting on RfAs. Giggy (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just counting hands in both the unblock and condition sections above show a pretty wide split between "unblock unconditionally", "keep blocked" and "unblock conditionally" (where the condition is a project space ban with or without mentoring).  No sort of consensus to keep blocked can reasonably be said to exist; and if you wanted to talk about counts then some sort of unblock has the biggest headcount.  My unblock was reasonable, and certainly not against any discernable consensus.  — Coren (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware we determined consensus by counting heads... L'Aquatique[talk] 01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't either.  But given the words "majority" and "minority" are being brandied about, there was need to address that as well.  — Coren (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(From Kurt's talk page — Coren (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)) Yeah, I said earlier I was leaving for awhile, but it was earlier than I thought it was.[reply]
He is apparently not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the last block, when he says @Coren, no, obviously you misinterpreted the situation. Last time he was blocked, about a year ago; this was the rationale given by the unblocking administrator: agreed to stop and talk things over, and stop commenting on RFAs if needed. Apparently, he didn't keep his word that time, what's changed?
I did exactly what I said I would; I discussed the issue with the blocker, and we both decided that it would be best to get the community as a whole to provide input.  I agreed to stop commenting on RfAs if needed, that is correct; indeed, I did stop commenting on RfAs until the issue was sorted out, at which time it was pretty overwhelmingly decided that it was absolutely not necessary for me to stop participating on RfAs as I had been.
Hope this clears things up.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's you who are counting heads, L'Aquatique. Anyone who advocates for a block because more people want it than they do an unblock is counting heads. There was no consensus to block in the first place, so there needs to be consensus for a block, not an unblock. There clearly in no consensus for a block, so the default is to unblock. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)We don't have a mechanism for determining consensus when it isn't blatantly obvious already. DuncanHill (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't blatantly obvious already, though. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know - my point was aimed at those objecting to Coren's intrpretation of the situation. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Count me on the side of those who are shocked that Coren would make the effort to take on the personal monitoring that comes with a conditional unblock - only to see his work wheel-warred to naught. Count me on the side of those who say there is no overwhelming consensus to indef-block. This is an unseemly display of concerted power on the part of those who have "had enough" of this editor. Since Kurt has offered to reform his approach, the only explanation left is that a large cohort just plain doesn't like having to deal with uncomfortable POV's in project space. Franamax (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no overwhelming consensus to unblock him either. It has nothing to do with his uncomfortable point of view, it has to do with the method in which he expresses that point of view and the disrespect he has for the project.--Crossmr (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be consensus to unblock him, because there was no consensus to block him in the first place. You can't change the status quo without consensus and then demand consensus to change back to the status quo. That is what we are doing. Blocking him without consensus and then demanding consensus to unblock. This is not due process and needs to cease immediately. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at that block. As far as I can tell it was enacted here . Where was the demonstrated consensus to block? There was a fairly level-headed discussion: Kmweber had made a post to the guy throwing his non-students into the wiki-flames. If I read it right, Gladys J Cortez was of the same mind, they both had been reverted; Kurt's post to AFD:Karl Kae Knecht had come up, calling people lazy - I've addressed that farther up, double-standard there. Guy used the same example - uh, Guy, RFC much? Civility much? And I say that with maximum respect for Guy, lest there be doubt; then the "deletionist...fucking retards" issue arose. The discussion proceeded apace, with ample contributions from Majorly (Al Tally?), Coffee (Chetblong?), Crossmr, Anonymous Dissident - some evident "burn-the-witchers"; then suddenly Hersfold enacts a block - based on what? Now discussion proceeds on the lines of confirming that we all secretly wanted that nasty, nasty man removed from our august presence, in fact, let's ban him!
I would consider the original block to be out-of-process; Coren's discussion with Kurt and conditional unblock to be very much in-process; and the subsequent re-block to be Arb-worthy wheel-warring. Indef block/bans confirmed ex post facto are not part of the way we work here. Both Ryan and Coren worked out ways forward here which don't include perma-banning editors - to see these solutions rejected in favour of wheel-warring into place a supposed community consensus to indef-block is quite disappointing. ArbCom has asked us to define community solutions, we worked it out with Betacommand (so far) - I just don't see this ban-the-fucker as being satisfactory. Do we need to kick it upstairs?
Oh, I should clarify: I have been labelled as an angry, pointy, tiresome troll who hasn't read any of the discussion. I may have missed some adjectives, but fair disclosure anyway. :) Franamax (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I WAS reverted. Still don't quite get WHY, but...whatever. My concerns, utterly separate from Kurt's, were in re: setting a bunch of middle-schoolers (a group with whom I've had a fairly-substantial degree of experience, good and bad) to racket through WP, with no guarantees or guidelines as regards their supervision. It had nothing to do with Kurt's exception--no issues of what public education should or should-not be doing--only the question of what would be best for Wikipedia as a whole. Conflating the two seems...illogical, at best. Kurt: "Schools shouldn't be doing this." Me: "Please make sure someone's watching these students closely." Apples and oranges? more like, "apples" and "dancing eels hanging from the chandeliers of the Sydney Opera House".Gladys J Cortez 03:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gladys, my mention of your post was not meant to construe support for Kurt. I do think though, reading on as Kurt explained beyond his original post (which he stated was a little, umm, concise), that you both had an equivalent thrust - Wikipedia is not your proving ground, nor is it your class project. To me, taking any naive group and telling them "I want you to learn about X, so go off on your own and edit English Wikipedia" is not a good educational strategy. Unless the "X" you wish to teach is the nature of extremely complex and arbitrary systems populated in some part by nasty and unforgiving pseudonymous persons with superior knowledge of policy and procedure. If that's the goal, this be the ultimate classroom! Franamax (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Before I read this drama, I was watching movie. I find this drama to be more entertaining than that movie! :-) I support the unblocking of User:Kmweber. Let's give him one more chance. AdjustShift (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(fecking EC) Not that I'm a Kurt partisan--far from, in fact; his RfA's are POINTy at BEST--but wow, was this reblock a bad idea??? Oh, just a little. Seriously. I don't even KNOW who the admin is who reblocked him--but, I mean, daaaaaaamn. Coren was WP:BOLD; Bobo was WP:LOST_HIS_FRIKKIN_MIND.  If-and-only-if Kurt has (as he's stated) decided to rethink some of his less-productive strategies, then absolutely, yes, he should be allowed back into the commmunity to work on improving his badly-tarnished image. And if-and-only-if we (the WP community) see an evidence of current or impending relapse into the intrangisence of the past, then-and-only-then should a reblock be considered. Does no one understand the concept of "repentance"? of "redemption"? If I were an admin, I'd have gladly given Kurt another chance--with the caveat that my pointy little finger would be poised like a hovering vulture over the "BANNINATE 4EVER" button, to be POUNCED at the very FIRSTest sign of rampant butthead-ery. Kurt, whatever else his faults, is NOT stupid; the concept of "absolutely last-est chance" is FAR from lost on him. Seriously. Unblock the man and let him prove himself. I'm more than ready to eat crow if the final outcome is less-than-positive; in the meantime, I'm happy to AGF til proven otherwise. (And Kurt, so help me, if you prove me wrong, I will slap you with a WP:NARWHAL, never-freakin-MIND a WP:TROUT.)Gladys J Cortez 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a Wikihalibut would be appropriate? :) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should my actions in blocking Kurt be reverted, I apologize unreservedly for my uncharacteristic activity in this debate. While I still believe I was right to do what I did, I respect the decision of whatever becomes of this and whatever anyone decides to do in terms of unblocking/confirming the block of Weber's account. I am sorry for causing such drama when that was nowhere near my intention, and I'm sure you can understand now why I do not make a habit of using the block function. While I believe we have given Weber one too many "final chances" as far as this is concerned, maybe I was wrong to act in the way I did for the sake of the community. Bobo. 03:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bobo192, will you consider undoing your block? Let's be honest, it is only the second block you have ever enacted; the last one was over 2 years ago. You don't appear to interact with Kurt in any of the fora in which his behaviour has been raised as a concern (AfD, RfA, RFAR);  in fact, you seem to focus on  wikignoming and vandal patrol. Your reblock seems to come out of a clear blue sky. It's unclear to me what your reason for reblocking was; best I can figure is that you want everyone to talk about this longer.  Is that it?  Risker (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being sympathetic to my position, Risker. Fact is, I misread concensus, got a little too involved in the debate, and as a result, acted in a way that if you believe it was incorrect, it probably was - while if you believe it was correct, it may well have been. Indeed I felt that "restore block until situation is sorted" was the right thing to do instead of removing the block while we were talking about it — and while there was nil concensus to do so.
It's no excuse, but it's been a tricky couple of weeks for me, and maybe because of personal circumstances my judgement was clouded and I should not have done what I have done.
I would like to thank Jenna for, essentially, not outright attacking me in her unblock comment, and not making me feel like a complete idiot for doing what I did, even though that is the way I feel right now.
With all due respect, unless someone has further legitimate concerns about my actions, I would prefer to exit this debate here. I have already stated my case, twice, above. I believe I did the right thing, but it's not unknown for me to be completely wrong when it comes to this kind of thing. Again, to Gladys, to Franmax, and to anyone else who was perhaps outright offended by my actions, I wholeheartedly apologize. As anyone can see from my contribution history, and my logs, a move like this is incredibly out-of-the-ordinary for me, and, while it's no excuse, is probably a reflection on my inability to deal with my itchy trigger finger - the same which means that I revert vandalism without a second thought. Bobo. 10:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bobo, sorry if I came off harsh (okay, I KNOW I came off harsh.) Let's just say it was a case of WP:EUI combined with my general exhaustion with Wikidrama. Like I said, I don't know you like that, and I especially didn't realize that you're a fairly-new admin. There's no permanent harm done, you didn't delete the Main Page or permaban Jimbo or anything like that--so it's all good. Gladys J Cortez 17:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gladys - I'm not a new admin, by the way - my oldest admin logs go all the way back to March 2006 - but I have never really delved into the controversy that is blocking/banning users - seems other people generally get there before me, and when they don't, there is, pardon my language, a damn good reason for it, as this case proves. Turns out I was unable to predict my reaction until a minute before it happened, and maybe even then I shocked myself by doing it. Bobo. 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt unblocked again

Per him agreeing to the conditions, per the comment left by Bobo in the block summary to allow an undo, per the discussion above this one, and per the fact that there was no consensus for an indef block/ban before the original block was made, nor should there have been. Kurt, if you need a place to spill your anger at any time ever, feel free to use my talk page. You can spew as many expletives as you want, just keep it non-specific to anyone. Regards, Jennavecia (Talk) 05:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - How many admins does a ban require before it's no longer a ban? The day we evict every politically-incorrect gadfly  from the project, I'll support Kurt's ouster. But you cannot tell me, within the bounds of reason, that an unpopular irritant is somehow worthy of being stomped on while there's 7 or 8 trolls running around with solid admin support that will never in a million years see a ban. To those who support a ban on kmweber: I ask you, are you prepared to set a fine line for "productivity vs. agitation" and then ENFORCE IT? I didn't think so. It hasn't been done thus far, and please pardon me for asking you to universally (instead of preferentially) practice what you preach. Also note I haven't named names, but we can all think of at least a handful. Bullzeye  (Ring for Service) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes actually I am ready to set that kind of a line, and I've argued for it constantly. Anyone who generates this kind of drama for the reasons that is been generated doesn't belong here. Anyone who can behave with such disrespect for other community members for so long needs to move on or be moved on.--Crossmr (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock. Please, let's give him a chance to show that he can work under these conditions, as he is apparently (and rather surprisingly, I must say) willing to do. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock he shouldn't have been blocked like this in the first place. We are not cavemen, and we can do more than beat people with our blunt clubs. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unblock. This wheel war needs to stop. Everyone needs to slow down and not jump the gun so many times. Synergy 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock has already been done, so supporting a reblock wouldn't help wheel warring. -- Ned Scott 05:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He needs to remain blocked until we have a consensus to unblock. This is a no-brainer. A few comments does not a consensus make. Its these fast unblocks and crappy rationales that should be questioned here, and not the editors speaking from the majority. I am opposing the unblock on technical issues, not over Kurt himself. Unblocking is not the best way to enter into a conversation, Lara. Synergy 05:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Go read up on what wheel-warring is before you accuse me of it. Both in Bobo's block summary and in the thread above he stated his action can be undone, thus not a wheelwar. As Ned pointed out, he should not have been blocked indefinitely to begin with. The original action was out of process, as was Bobo's reblock. Consensus can change, and it did. There's no reason to leave him blocked after he's agreed to conditions and while discussion is on-going. He has a right to participate in discussion, Synergy. Last thing, your classification of my rationale as "crappy" is completely ridiculous. Jennavecia (Talk) 06:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, somebody specifically acknowledges the silliness of Kurt not being able to argue his case or entreat to the community. Thank you lara. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have people not heard of a talk page? Al Tally talk 08:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you're the one who needs to go back and read it, because it happened exactly as its stated at WP:WHEELWAR. Just because the blocking admin doesn't mind it being reversed does not ipso facto make it a non wheel war situation. I have no problems with him discussing the situation. That is after all, why his talk page hasn't been protected. And I still think your logic is "crappy" since you use a blocking rationale as justification to unblock in such a way. I don't mind that hes unblocked, and look forward to him following through under the conditions set forth, I just don't like how it was executed (and I said the same for the original block if you scroll way way up there :) ). yawns Synergy 06:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Almost bed-time.[reply]
    A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions. Show me the struggle between Bobo and myself, else take your seat. I'll simply refrain from commenting on your "logic". Jennavecia (Talk) 09:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC
    You're choosing your words to suit your action. You have to think about the bigger picture. Its the series of events I was talking about, not a lone single action. Its over now, so let it go? Synergy 09:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm choosing my words to avoid having another admin throw CIV at me. ;) Jennavecia (Talk) 11:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support unblocking, unconditionally, per what others and I have wrote above, doesn't seem to be real wheelwarring now. But per Jennavecia, he should be reblocked if his April Fools Day prank isn't as good as advertised.John Z (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock on the condition that come 1 April 2009 we get some epic lulz. Giggy (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock - Once again. Although, I'm kind of miffed about the constant undoing of admin actions. That said, I do think Lara made a sound call in the sense that she was objective and neutral in this. It would not have been appropriate for an involved admin to have sanctioned the unblock. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Right. Neutral. Of course... sure. Al Tally talk 08:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Majorly, we all know that you have issues with Lara. Please deal with them outside of this forum. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock Thanks Jenna. The original block was dubious, I'm glad you noticed that Bobo made a freely-reversible re-block, this should now be the status quo. As noted above, Kurt is not stupid and should recognize now that editing here is a privilege. I'd be interested to see what can top 01Apr08, Kmweber's self-nom at RFA - that chuckled me up good. Oh yes, overwhelming consensus is that the Colts suck! Franamax (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give him a barnstar because honestly that is the next logical move here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dripping sarcasm in unnecessary here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet you support the unblock of kurt down below? If a little minor sarcasm were kurt's greatest crime we wouldn't be having this conversation.--Crossmr (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like people took your suggestion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock per my comment above. Kurt is passionate, which gets him into trouble. That doesn't mean he's not out to help us. Him promising to stay away from the behaviour that got him the block in the first place is a bonus. — Werdna • talk 06:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support unblock per my comments above. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did he agree to any conditions, and what conditions did he agree to? I'm not seeing anything specific on the talk page. Diffs? Mr.Z-man 13:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is where he agreed that the conditions I've put forward were "perfectly reasonable".  — Coren (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unblock thanks Jenna, and thank you Bobo for being so reasonable about it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Colts are now 1-2

For this reason alone, we should cut Kurt some slack.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No further block actions.

I would very strongly urge all admin parties not to make any further actions here. A wheel-war is not productive, and neither is the back-and-forth discussion that comes with it.

This entire discussion is repeating itself in a terrible circle of premature block --> discussion --> premature unblock --> discussion --> premature block. This needs to stop. Unfortunately, there is nothing between blocked and unblocked, so Kmweber is going to have to remain in one of the two states while this discussion takes place. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter which.

Now to the discussion itself. This method of constantly making proposals and then conducting an informal straw poll in regards to the proposal is evidently dysfunctional. We need to consider alternative discussion methods that can bring about a definitive result, a result that will not lead to the tugging back and forth of administrative actions that we have seen here. Instead of becoming dug down in the matter of blocking Kurt, or re-blocking Kurt, or unblocking him and whathaveyou, we need to come back to square one, examine our bases, and continue reasoned discussion following a pre-determined structure. This will be necessary because, as this page self-evidences, this is a massive issue concerning a hotly debated topic.

Rationality and effectiveness of discourse are what is needed; let us work on this before we get stuck into the dealing of the matter itself. I assure everyone the latter will be absolutely impossible otherwise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're learned anything from what went on with Betacommand its that we've learned nothing. Apparently there is a proposal that has been spelled out on his talk page. We need to set out some strict guidelines as to how that is enforced since there may be trigger happy admins on either side. The way I read his talk page is that Kurt is to be the model of civility and he's on his last chance. If he isn't the model of civility and his behaviour is taken to AN/I and an admin deems it block worthy (whether extensive, indef, or otherwise) no one should be undoing the block without good reason (and discussion) and "grow up" or "take it like a man" isn't a good enough reason.--Crossmr (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, as stated above, we need to come up with some sort of line for when the ratio of good, constructive edits to wiki dramaz and disruption drops down to disruption. All editors are not created equal, but no editor should have any right to make others' lives miserable just because in the process they write some good prose or do some worthwhile tagging. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look up your earlier comment to check who you are referring to – Kurt, not those who are trying to get rid of him. Are you seriously accusing him of making some peoples' lives miserable? I would like to verify that this isn't just about a couple of white sheep who feel entitled to be miserable by the mere presence of a black sheep in the flock (and feel the urge to do something about it), so please provide names. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go look at the crap he spouts on WR. I wouldn't class him as a "black sheep", I'd class him as a "white sheep" who's just trying to be different for the sake of it. On WR, he compiled a list of users who he'd love to see removed from Wikipedia, for example. This guy isn't here because he cares, he's here just to annoy people. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just individual users- think of all the time spent on AN/I, RFCs, and RFAR's for these trouble users. At some point their net drain on the project with people trying to constructively deal with them exceeds their positive contributions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt 55% of his edits would be to articles or article talk pages if annoying people was all he was here to do.  And he hardly ever posts on WR. Sticky Parkin 21:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the informal straw poll(s) worked fairly well.In the course of 4 days we reached a compromise conclusion. Compare that to arb com.DGG (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance?

Can we all reach a consensus that this is Kurt's last chance, that we will not tolerate, under any circumstances, such disruption again? —Animum (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to need to specific (tl;dr above) exactly what "such disruption" is, first. Most people think that refers to his RfA voting. Giggy (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's accepted a restriction banning him from project space (at least for a while) so the RfA voting isn't an issue anyone needs to be concerned with. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely think that if Kurt acts up with some recent incivility again after this, he should be blocked. But civil (though radical) RfA/AfD voting is not disruption, nor is making a certain comment about the point of public schools. Saying, "fuck deletionists" is, however. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of what Kurt does would necessarily be uncivil if he'd just be nice while doing it. The problem is he isn't. The people calling for his ban can separate the two but those defending him can't seem to do that. No one ever wanted him blocked just because they didn't agree with his PoV it was how he expressed it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence me saying "civil RfA/Afd voting". It should be noted that "I view self noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger" is no uncivil. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is, it assumes bad faith of other users. Someone self-nominating is no reasonable evidence they are 'power-hungry' to which is the only exception in assuming good faith.--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: When I say "such disruption," I am referring to incivility and his other recent antics (e.g., "On Deletionist Vandalism"). —Animum (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) No, how about we talk about it when the time comes. If he slips up and is blocked, it can be evaluated. If someone wants to drum up another ANI thread regarding a future incident, let them. The community can talk it out. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of Kurt's disruption is the questions about cool-down blocks used in RfAs, and opposing due to the candidate's answers sometimes. This probably leads to this ban discussion, and would be considered trolling (possibly). I wouldn't be sure if Kurt would actually have this last chance, but I'm monitoring this discussion. SchfiftyThree 00:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he had accepted the condition to limit his edits to articlespace? Surely editing in project space at all would be a violation of the conditional unblock the community supported? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't block him from the project space entirely forever, that would be unfair. Definitely for several months, but not necessarily forever. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really needs to be said. If Kurt violations his ban, we'll use the Buckshot Shells. Nothing more to it.--KojiDude (C) 01:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more the Hydrogen bombs, but that really is a matter of personal preference... However, if in, say, a year from now, he makes an edit to the project space, we can't just indef him on the spot. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Absolute last chance" is difficult to define in this situation. Last chance to never again espouse an unpopular view? Never oppose an RFA self-nom? His right to do that was broadly supported. Never ask a (supposed catch-22) RFA question on CDB's and oppose based on the answer? Both those have met with sustained opposition based not on the question, rather more on the supposedly bad consequence that an RFA !oppose results - that is a problem with RFA, not with Kurt. Never label AC as the "Arbitrary Committee"? An ArbCom above reproach would be the better solution, until that heaven is found, Kurt is not alone among the questioners; Never oppose AFD's with a consistent rationale? Why not - because it gets in the way of a clean kill? Never take issue with those 'pedians of deletionist bent? Inclusionists have rights too, which need to be expressed. Never be abrasive (or incivil when the civ-police decide to blow the whistle)? Should we surrender the 'cyclo to the smooth operators?
It's unlikely that Kurt will ever adopt "popular" views - but honestly, nothing I've seen here constitutes egregious behaviour. I think it's more the totality of Kurt's way-out-of-mainstream views, and the associated mass of editors who wish to be rid of those views, that have brought us here. However, dissent should not be a capital offence on-wiki. I've really yet to see a flagrant instance of true wrong-ness. I have however seen a long series of actions that make me think hard about my wiki. Franamax (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit he put on his user page about deletion vandalism wasn't true wrongness?--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well - it was edgy for sure. :( But no, it wasn't a horrible awful thing. It appears to be a quote of an off-site comment (which should be attributed imo); we normally allow wide latitude in user-space; it doesn't attack an external group - substitute "Jews" (or "Republicans") for "deletionists", then we have a problem; and it's just not that big of a deal - that's mild language compared to what AfD nominators get on their own talk pages every hour of the day here, just a little more coherent and well-spelt than the norm from the common- or garden-variety SPA. More to the point, it exposes Kurt's bias. In the case of userboxen, that's often noted as being a good thing. Seems to me it's an asset in AfD discussions - Kurt's !Keep can be noted with a reference to just that section. Draw the sting, rather than freaking out about the poison. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It being a quote doesn't make it any less wrong. Its a view that he chose to express on wikipedia using his own or someone else's words. If he holds that belief fine, but he doesn't have to actually say it. As far as userspace goes, there has been a long history of removing personal attacks from people's user space (and just because it attacks a group and not an individual doesn't make it any less personal, I can't get away with calling all of kirk's supporters names just because there is more than one of them) so its not a safe place to be hostile to other users. It was needlessly insulting and hostile and that is the problem. If he can't conduct himself on wikipedia without being needlessly hostile and insulting then he doesn't belong here. I don't really care what his views are. He could support me every time or oppose me every time I really could care less if he can't do it in a civil manner which doesn't make other editors feel bad for editing here. if that really is too much to ask I have to wonder what it is exactly that we're doing here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll retract the "quoted someone else" strawman - by quoting someone else's words, he's effectively made them his own (though I still feel attribution would have been better - if it was Churchill or Lord Byron talking about fucking deletionist retards, well... :). Nevertheless, even taking that as a personal statement, so what? I suppose it's down to whether you wish to interpret the quote as an attack on individual persons (wherein you would need to identify a candidate group of individual deletionist retards who would feel insulted), or as an attack on a certain deletionist mindset. Would you agree that there is a small subset of editors who see value in trimming Wikipedia of everything that can possibly be trimmed, based only on assessment of current article state, sans attempts to first improve the articles? Would you agree that AfD-nomming an article 10 minutes into its existence is plus-ungood? Should that tendency be opposed? Franamax (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Kurt has taken the extreme position that if you can prove the existence of anything through any means possible you should be allowed to have an article on it on wikipedia. That includes people's cats, their 4th uncle twice removed, etc. This is obviously contrary to what the community has decided (notability is a guideline, but most people seem to adhere to it). If someone creates an article on topic X that doesn't fit speedy deletion criteria (in that its not explicitly spelled out that that this topic qualifies for speedy deletion) and I google the topic only to find a couple of forum mentions on and nothing remotely resembling a reliable source there is no reason it shouldn't be taken to AfD. Generally the quick nominations I've seen have been violations of WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. AfD lasts 5 days. If the person creating the article is genuinely interested in keeping it on wikipedia then they have 5 days to find sources to back up why it should be here. Its been repeated many times but we're not a repository of all human knowledge. There are guidelines and policies on inclusion and those have to be adhered to. If I can't even find a whiff that something belongs here, yes, it should be nominated for deletion. We're under no obligation to keep it around for 6 months or a year just to give it a chance on the hope that a couple reliable sources finally cover that subject. But again this is all immaterial because that is not the issue. The issue was Kurt's behaviour in his sharing of his viewpoint. As to "so what?", its hostile and poisons the environment for other editors. Not only those being attacked but those who witness it. If a situation isn't handled properly it can leave a sour taste in the mouths of the observer. Being hostile and insulting is not welcoming and a community project has to be welcoming to all except those that would harm the project or the community. While there may be tolerance for him to express his viewpoint there is no tolerance for his methods.--Crossmr (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to quickly cover your not-an-issue: of course you're right that AfD's run for 5 days and there's lots of opportunity for the article to be recovered in that time. Equally though, Kurt's single opposition to deletion will either be proven wrong or right within that time period. His opposition to deletion is immaterial, no matter how it's stated - actual facts and consensus will rule. The anti-Kurt part of it arises because he pisses people off. I was just coming back here to add, when I noticed your reply, that the CSD'ers are equally of concern. However, if you feel that editors roaming around looking for every possible deletable article is fine, then my point is lost. Note that I don't support every single article about my buddy's new band (and especially articles about pet cats, unless they've been sprayed with a firehose, in which case we should have pictures :)
As to your substantive point on behaviour: where is Kurt poisoning environments? RFA - covered that. AfD - seems to me the boilerplate !keeps were also covered in an AN thread and judged acceptable. ArbCom - he's sullying a prevously pristine environment? Upage - just discussed, and as you say, immaterial. Biting newbies? - you mean the level-1 sysadmin teaching "his" students about en:wiki by signing them up en-masse? Or are you talking about general tone and demeanour? In which case, Crossmr, couldn't I mount a similar argument against you? "hostile and poisons the environment" could equally well apply to your arguments on this very thread, and on related ones. As I recall, you adopted a similar tone on some Betacommand threads (and correct me if I'm wrong). Ask not for whom the bell tolls... And for that matter, I seem to be equally guilty of hostile poisoning of the environment - read just a little (megabyte or two) above where I'm accused of "angry", "pointy", "trolling". These are the unfortunate consequences of expressing a currently unpopular viewpoint. It comes with the territory. Franamax (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did take a similar stance on the betacommmand issue because I viewed it as a very similar situation. An editor who seemingly had no net positive benefit to the project who had been exhibiting behaviour for a long time that a lot of people didn't like (including civil issues) and yet unfathomably had legions of supporters for his behaviour. The same people who would turn around crucify someone else for the same behaviour, but you keep getting off topic. Your constant attempts to move the discussion to anything but Kurt don't really defend him or his behaviour or solve the situation. There is a difference between debating something with passion and insulting the other person in the debate. If kurt can't separate those two then yes he is poisoning the community.--Crossmr (talk) 10:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, let's make it easy and cross the other bridges when we come to it; if he violates the article-only restriction, block him again. If he's a good little editor, we loosen up, and then we can decide on what "disruption" will be. You can't come up with a bright line for this; whether an action is blockable depends on context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that as making it harder. If we don't carve it in stone and nail it to everybody's collective foreheads, it only invites further drama. Kurt is controversial, people are passionate. If there isn't a solid criteria that a neutral and objective editor could view and easily say "Yes he violated it" or "No he didn't", we're going to end up copying and pasting this to Part 2 the next time it happens.--Crossmr (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if we make a strict criteria and Kurt does something very negative but outside of that criteria, there will be much gnashing of teeth and weeping anyway. Catch 22. I say we just leave it as a general "don't violate our policies", and worry about the details should the problem arise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dave and AD. Giggy (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance? You've gotta be kidding me. Kurt's probably more civil than I am. You people are really itching to use those pitch forks and go run the "bad guy" out of town, eh? I guess the criteria for community ban includes sneezing. -- Ned Scott 08:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was that really necessary? Kurt already receives a lot of praise from regular people* who distrust Wikipedia. I'm sure he can bring himself to concentrate on closed* debates, perhaps on off-site forums* first, then through his mentorship, then through the appropriate means of listing a discussion.

*plural. Ottre 11:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

Kurt is now unblocked (I went to unblock him and the block had already been lifted). Looking at the above, it is unlikely that a resumption of trollish behaviour will result in anything other than another fist-fight, so I suggest that this debate be archived as, effectively, a dispute resolution process that has run its course, and if the problem recurs we should simply go straight to ArbCom, who can take a dispassionate look at the situation. No more drama for Kurt, please. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Absolutely. I'm more or less uninvolved, having only made ~2,000 edits in my 7 months here, but it's clear this has gone on long enough. I'd suggest we keep the Wikipedia talk page active though, and review the situation as it evolves from here, to aid any decision on the part of a new ArbCom. Kurt won't be acting on anything prior to his unblocking, then. Ottre 11:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber_ban_discussion&oldid=1147947224"