[WikiEN-l] Improper block redux

Mon Dec 19 06:57:24 UTC 2005

Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:

>As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
>1) Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as such?
>2) If so, then are deletionists vandals?
>  
>
1) is obviously true. 2) depends entirely on your definition of 
"deletionists". I visited AN/I to see the basis for Karmafist's block 
and checked the diffs provided. All of them were to AfDs, were "block" 
messages (the same message copied/pasted from page to page), and clearly 
were not made with respect to the actual content of the article, but 
were made in order to make a WP:POINT. Nominating articles for deletion 
because they don't meet the long-established guidelines of WP for 
notability does NOT make someone a deletionist, nor a vandal. It makes 
them attentive editors who pay attention to the guidelines. A 
deletionist, in my book, is someone who deletes content that is 
informative and helpful, and meets WP guidelines, for the sake of making 
a point or otherwise - as such, what they advocate is as bad as what 
you're doing at the moment. I strongly urge you to take a step back. The 
purpose of AfD is not to allow editors to make a point, but to analyze 
each article's content and its meeting of Wikipedia's guidelines. If it 
does not meet them, it should be removed until it CAN meet WP's guidelines.

However, I do NOT feel that it was appropriate for a single 
administrator to block a user for four months (in fact, I couldn't find 
any justification for blocking for WP:PA unless it places another user 
in danger — I think we can all agree that is not the case here). That 
type of block is, in my opinion, pretty clearly meant to only be handed 
down by the ArbCom. The WP:BP makes provisions for if a user's block is 
agreed to by consensus, but that is clearly not the case here, since 
Karmafist re-blocked Kurt even after he was unblocked by an admin 
uninvolved with the conflict.

Regards,
[[User:Bbatsell]]