Sceptre calls for ban of Kurt Weber, cites "Off-wiki harassment, and continuation of disruption to mak Options

[KamrynMatika]

If anyone needs to be banned really, it's Sceptre.

[Doc glasgow]

Ha! Trollfood at RfAr.


Kurt is perhaps the most successful troll wikipedia has ever had. Just enough to be really annoying , get himself noticed, and provoke drama, never enough to get banned. Just enough to have the community shout at each other about whether to ban or ignore.

And Sceptre? Sheeeesh, gives him exactly what he wants.

[Crestatus]

And the thing is, I think I see future Kurts developing just to combat the likes of Sceptre. ArbCom is becoming a joke.

[Castle Rock]

If anyone needs to be banned really, it's Sceptre.

Agreed, just as much drama, twice as annoying.

[Apathetic]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...WilliamH#Oppose

[LaraLove]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...WilliamH#Oppose

Wow. What an amazingly pointy oppose. How shameful and hypocritical.

[Crestatus]

Sceptre is really showing itself for the drain on WIkipedia Sceptre is. Maybe something good will finally come of it.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

He's also been blanking the List of Fascist Movements by country series, after his AFD for them failed.

I wonder if we can add the "Duchy of Sceptre" on those lists.

[Milton Roe]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...WilliamH#Oppose

Wow. What an amazingly pointy oppose. How shameful and hypocritical.

It is. However, though poor WilliamH's RfA is not the venue to express the thought, less-nice people have been uncivil forever (SV, JzG, etc), and the community is completely unable to do anything about it. Where there is no enforcement, there is really no law. Also, although I can't think of a specific instance where Jimbo has been very uncivil--- he tends to say: "Sorry, you're banned forever, and your friends. Much love. Go in peace."---- at the same time if he were to become uncivil, there'd be even less anybody could do about it than for JzG and SV. Not unless the WMF board decided they were grossly offended.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 5th August 2008, 9:45pm

[Shalom]

Also, although I can't think of a specific instance where Jimbo has been very uncivil--- he tends to say: "Sorry, you're banned forever, and your friends. Much love. Go in peace."

So you don't think this block log summary is "very uncivil"?

[Milton Roe]

Also, although I can't think of a specific instance where Jimbo has been very uncivil--- he tends to say: "Sorry, you're banned forever, and your friends. Much love. Go in peace."

So you don't think this block log summary is "very uncivil"?

Hadn't seen that one; thanks for pointing it out. Yeah, an indef block with the comment "ugh" is uncivil. Not the worst I've ever seen, mind you, but it qualifies, I admit.

Sigh. The provocation for the ban was a historical view to make one's skin crawl, and I've got a thick skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fourdee

However, I would think it would take a lot more case-by-case stomping before giving up on an editor. Particularly since WP claims to be NPOV and uncensored. I could say "ugh" about a lot of what many editors have successfully inserted into WP. This guy's major problem is that it had to do with Nazi history and not somebody else's hot button. You think this guy would have been banniated if he's said all the same things about the Armenian genocide or the mass starvation of Kulaks? I doubt it.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Tue 5th August 2008, 10:59pm

[Shalom]

Also, although I can't think of a specific instance where Jimbo has been very uncivil--- he tends to say: "Sorry, you're banned forever, and your friends. Much love. Go in peace."

So you don't think this block log summary is "very uncivil"?

Hadn't seen that one; thanks for pointing it out. Yeah, an indef block with the comment "ugh" is uncivil. Not the worst I've ever seen, mind you, but it qualifies, I admit.

Sigh. The provocation for the ban was a historical view to make one's skin crawl, and I've got a thick skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fourdee

However, I would think it would take a lot more case-by-case stomping before giving up on an editor. Particularly since WP claims to be NPOV and uncensored. I could say "ugh" about a lot of what many editors have successfully inserted into WP. This guy's major problem is that it had to do with Nazi history and not somebody else's hot button. You think this guy would have been banniated if he's said all the same things about the Armenian genocide or the mass starvation of Kulaks? I doubt it.

Oh, noes! Fourdee was a conspiracy theorist regarding SlimVirgin and the Cabal, and that spelled doom. The way I found out about him was by reading Piperdown's ANI discussion of June 2007, seeing Fourdee's comments, and saying to myself, "Let me guess, he's probably banned by now." I clicked on his userpage, and I was right! Then I clicked on the block log.

Fourdee's comment in June:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=139135054

This is troubling in so many ways. I don't understand why Crum375, SlimVirgin and Jayjg are always at the center of this nonsense or who is really in the wrong. I honestly have no idea what it is, but all the intrigue that centers around those three is really detracting from the project. As far as "outing", how does that justify blanking the whole page? This deleting of edits from the history should be reserved for only the specific violations and used as little as possible. It's very, very troublesome to think that edits can just disappear at the whim of certain bureaucrats - shouldn't the history indicate at least that there was Some edit at the time, even if it's been deleted. I don't agree with the anonymity of administrators either, we should know the names of anyone with that much power over the flow of information. Why wait to take it to Jimbo? I'm not sure what response you expect though, I don't think any of this would be news to him. [[User:Fourdee|Fourdee]] 04:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I won't defend that comment, nor will I defend Fourdee's other inappropriate comments. He was almost begging to be banned. But Jimbo's block log summary was not appropriate either.

This post has been edited by Shalom: Tue 5th August 2008, 11:34pm

[everyking]

Some people are making ArbCom statements to the effect that Wikipedia should not begin sanctioning people for holding particular opinions. In fact, it has already been doing so--I have been under ArbCom restrictions for nearly three years because of my opinions. I was told by Raul, in no uncertain terms, that the restrictions were imposed because of what I believe, on the grounds that if I hold certain beliefs it is impossible for me to do otherwise than act on those beliefs. Although I stopped engaging in criticism of unilateral and controversial admin actions in order to appease the ArbCom, Raul rejected that gesture as meaningless and said that the sanctions should remain in effect because I refused to recant my views. Indeed, given the remarkable length of time that has passed without incident since the sanctions were imposed in November 2005, it is impossible to believe there is any other reason for leaving them in place.

[Shalom]

I was told by Raul, in no uncertain terms, that the restrictions were imposed because of what I believe, on the grounds that if I hold certain beliefs it is impossible for me to do otherwise than act on those beliefs.

I got a little curious, so I trawled through some page history but I couldn't find it. Everyking, could you link to Raul654's statement?

[everyking]

I was told by Raul, in no uncertain terms, that the restrictions were imposed because of what I believe, on the grounds that if I hold certain beliefs it is impossible for me to do otherwise than act on those beliefs.

I got a little curious, so I trawled through some page history but I couldn't find it. Everyking, could you link to Raul654's statement?

Raul's most explicit and complete statements to that effect were made in IRC, so I can't cite them. However, there are also some on-wiki statements from Raul that illustrate his viewpoint, from my January 2007 appeal:

"I think the consensus among the arbitration committee is that while we welcome Everyking's newfound good behavior and do appreciate it, we do not think he's reformed. If we modify the remedies, we think it's quite likely he'll go back to his old behavior, and the risk of this far outweighs any potential benefits to EK of modifying the decision."

"The fact that you are still in very deep denial about your past behavior is troubling, to say the least."

"...if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions if you thought we weren't looking. Hence, our desire to keep the remedies exactly as they are."

[Sarcasticidealist]

In the interests of all involved individuals having their say, I should point out that Raul posted this rebuttal of Everyking's comments here. I haven't read his version and have only just skimmed Everyking's (his was posted earlier, before I lost interest, and was shorter in any event), so I make no representations as to who's telling the truth here.

[everyking]

In the interests of all involved individuals having their say, I should point out that Raul posted this rebuttal of Everyking's comments here. I haven't read his version and have only just skimmed Everyking's (his was posted earlier, before I lost interest, and was shorter in any event), so I make no representations as to who's telling the truth here.

I reverted him, as he is not welcome on my talk page and is perfectly free to post his rebuttal on WR if he so chooses. I am impressed by Sarcasticidealist's level of awareness and response time, however. Since it may be presumed that he doesn't have my talk page watchlisted, I would hazard a guess that Raul has been discussing this in IRC--perhaps even asking someone to publicize the rebuttal for him?

This post has been edited by everyking: Wed 6th August 2008, 6:10am

[Somey]

In the interests of all involved individuals having their say, I should point out that Raul posted this rebuttal of Everyking's comments here. I haven't read his version and have only just skimmed Everyking's (his was posted earlier, before I lost interest, and was shorter in any event), so I make no representations as to who's telling the truth here.

You deny that you were banned for ignorantly mouthing off - instead, you cook up this fiction about being persecuted for beliefs which nobody really cares about. I'm sure it's comforting for you to believe that, given that the reality of the situation - that the sanctions that you now chafe against were predictable consequences of your own misbehavior over a period of months and years - is so much less pleasant.

Raul isn't addressing the actual issue, as usual. He's going on and on about why Everyking was "sanctioned" in the first place, and conveniently sidestepping the question of whether or not the sanctions continue to this day because EK refused to publicly recant.

As for EK's tendency to "distort the meaning of conversations after the fact," how does that make him different from any other Wikipedian?

And how does Raul654 know that "nobody really cares about" the beliefs that Everyking espouses?

[The Joy]

In the interests of all involved individuals having their say, I should point out that Raul posted this rebuttal of Everyking's comments here. I haven't read his version and have only just skimmed Everyking's (his was posted earlier, before I lost interest, and was shorter in any event), so I make no representations as to who's telling the truth here.

I reverted him, as he is not welcome on my talk page and is perfectly free to post his rebuttal on WR if he so chooses. I am impressed by Sarcasticidealist's level of awareness and response time, however. Since it may be presumed that he doesn't have my talk page watchlisted, I would hazard a guess that Raul has been discussing this in IRC--perhaps even asking someone to publicize the rebuttal for him?

Wow. Treating a fellow Wikipedian like a petulant child. Way to go, Raul. I'll try to remember this thread during the forum's annual "Worst Wikipedians Awards."

[Sarcasticidealist]

I reverted him, as he is not welcome on my talk page and is perfectly free to post his rebuttal on WR if he so chooses. I am impressed by Sarcasticidealist's level of awareness and response time, however. Since it may be presumed that he doesn't have my talk page watchlisted, I would hazard a guess that Raul has been discussing this in IRC--perhaps even asking someone to publicize the rebuttal for him?

Not quite right - I'm afraid that I can't even spell IRC, let alone act as Raul's proxy as a result of my participation there. I have Shalom's talk page watchlisted, and Raul posted a link there.