User talk:Kmweber

/Archive11

Objectivist epistemology

Hullo Kurt, thought I'd follow up this reasonable action of yours with a note at WP:RANDTALK in case the other Objectivism editors might want to have a conclusive discussion; you may want to watchlist and/or comment if it develops. Regards,  Skomorokh  17:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sollog

As much as I have an intellectual appreciation for quality trolling, I think I should perhaps not grant your request without more explanation of why you're making it. Steve Smith (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly just curious...just want to look at it. The "new way to troll Wikipedia" was a joke. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 02:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thought of you

One of my Wikipedia friends is running for RFA but I did not know until now. I thought of you.

It is too bad that your user page seems to show anger. Can I help you? If you have a thoughtful comment about Wikipedia space, let me know. If you have a track record of some occasional thoughtful comments, some people will still hate you but some people may see a new effort for discussion and ideas.

For some people, the distance to becoming a good editor, or what is perceived to be a good editor, is far. An example is someone who put the word penis several times in the Panzer tank article (reverted, thankfully, by some quick button pushing editor, quicker than me). For others, the distance is not too far. I don't know all the details so I can't write any recommendation letter at this point.

In short, this message is sort of a "if someone in Wikipedia feels sad, I feel sad" message. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Go Colts!)

AfD nomination of Rodney Watson

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Rodney Watson. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest you read WP:BLP, WP:Notability_(people) and WP:RS for a better understanding of why your unsourced, biographical article about the coach of a division 2 basketball team is being considered for deletion. Nefariousski (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This bot message is stupid. It tells you to "please participate" then when you listen, people cut off your head. I notified the bot owner, but he is militant and says he's right. In the US, if the IRS gives you wrong advice and you follow it in good faith, the IRS will waive penalties if you ask them to. This is not a message of support, merely a criticism of bots. Ipromise (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

Per your community restrictions. I don't know, or care, if I participated in any of the restrictions discussions, but I am simply enacting the provisions of said restrictions. I believe you know your way around an unblock request template, so I shall not insult you by providing you with the instructions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I was in the process of blocking you myself when LHvU beat me to it, and I'm pretty sure I didn't participate in any of those discussions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that I find this block troublesome. As far as I can see, Kmweber's only recent contributions in violation of the restrictions were posts to an AfD on a mainspace article that Kmweber had himself created in good faith. I doubt very much that the restrictions should reasonably be interpreted so inflexibly. At a minimum, I think it is possible that Kmweber reacted reflexively when he saw that an article he created had been AfD'd, and so at the least, I think a warning should first have been given. Finally, despite this editor's prior history, I would have supported a duration far short of indefinite. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to second that...this seems drastic.--MONGO 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite may be of the shortest duration possible - it can be reversed immediately. That said, the restrictions are clear; if there is to be a provision of those Wikipedia named spaces Kurt can edit then they need to be agreed (AfD seems reasonable, there may be others). If it is felt that Kurt can be unblocked while those exceptions are discussed, then do it - although it may be suggested to him that he does not violate the word of the restrictions until those exceptions are agreed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that part of the reason for the restriction is because Kurt was mass-voting keep at AFDs in a disruptive manner. If there is to be an exception for XFD, I would suggest that it apply only to pages that he has created or made significant edits to. No comment on whether any restriction at all is appropriate, nor whether he should be unblocked in the meantime. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of how it was (a) "massive" and/or (b) "disruptive." No one has ever provided evidence of either. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 03:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a valid block. Even if we grant that the referenced restrictions are valid (which they're clearly not), they have never been applied to dealing with incidents in which I was directly involved, including deletion of articles to which I was the primary or a significant contributor. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 03:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, TPH's comments on Less Heard van U's talk page seem to indicate that my initial suspicion (that the AfD nomination in question was done in bad faith) was correct. And someone needs to have a word with Peter Symonds and Woogee about their unjustified striking of my comments on the AfD. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 03:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions are certainly valid, whether you believe in them or not. The block may or may not be valid, that's what we need to figure out. I assure you, though, continued incivility will only hurt you. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There can only be "continued incivility" if there was ever incivility in the first place. There wasn't. And it's not valid, since not only was there never any consensus to implement it, I was forcibly prevented from participating in the discussion concerning it to defend myself. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 04:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WTF? You want the guy to write articles? If so, stop hounding him. The guy is the creator of that Rodney article and is the main editor. If Rodney is notable, Kmweber would know how to explain it. If this AFD is used as the reason for block, the blocker or the complainer is wikilawyering. If there is another reason (let's not try to invent reasons), then say so. This is why I stopped editing WP because of this kind of stupid behavior. If Kmweber voted in a RFA, I can see the outrage, but the AFD of an article that he's a main editor is valid.Ipromise (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"The guy" has barely done anything in the article space that's worth a mention. I endorse this block, as there was no footnote in the ban that said he could touch the Wikipedia space, even if it was his own article. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind the liberty, Coffee, but I've refactored your statement a little bit. I endorse the block too. We can agree on that without kicking a man when he's down. Durova⁴¹² 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You know me Durova... always using that good ol' sailor language. ;) — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Every sailor knows when to use it and when to say 'sir'. Expletives are for use at the mess deck, as descriptives of what happened to dinner. 'Sir' is appended when the division officer asks how the meal was. Durova⁴¹² 04:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha... I have always known you to be one full of navy jokes. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First, please don't make up lies about my work. Second, even if we assume that the restriction was ever valid (which it wasn't, since not only did it lack consensus but by the end I was forcibly forbidden by a few people--yourself among them--from participating in the discussion surrounding it to defend myself), they were always understood not to include conflicts or issues in which I was directly involved, such as deletion of articles for which I was the primary or a significant contributor. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 04:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt, I'm not going to even attempt to argue with you, as You're Always Right™. The ban was found to be valid by consensus, whether you like it or not. And you're article writing? Let's suffice it to say that most of your articles look exactly like the Rodney Watson article, as in they are a few sections, and rarely have any references whatsoever. Please don't try and pretend you've ever done anything substantial to this project. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee, you need to stop now. You are making Wikipedia look like a bunch of Nazis. You just deleted the Rodney Watson article the same day it was relisted. Here you are arguing against Kmweber then you prematurely close the AFD. I was evaluating it and found it borderline so leaving it could have resulted in normal deletion, where it now looks like a case of corruption. Please consider undoing your action.

Kmweber, this is not a license for you to argue or misbehave. I encourage you to act like an upright citizen. Ipromise (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic that people are using my argument that "only direct quotes and contentious or potentially contentious claims require sources" against me, given that that is exactly what WP:V has said for years. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 04:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Kmweber, I object to blocking someone because they comment on an AFD about an article that they created and/or was a major editor. I can't comment about other accusations. But if the AFD is the stated reason for blocking, then let the matter take its course and try to refrain from argument, at least for a day or two. I have stated my observations about the AFD on ANI. Ipromise (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there's this little bit of triumphalism, when the matter is far from settled. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 05:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You want to know why I'm convinced I'm being persecuted? Because everything that's being done has all the appearances of a railroading job. Someone nominates an article I created for deletion; I contest its deletion. A few days later, I'm blocked; the person starting the AfD is then quick to congratulate the blocker and calls him his "hero." Meanwhile, a couple of other people, at least one of whom already has a past history of animosity towards me, are striking out my comments, essentially concluding that I'm an "unperson" and that my comments there are impermissible (regardless of their merit in and of themselves) despite not actually participating in the discussion relating to the validity of my block--which a few people are already contesting, so the allowability of my comments in the AfD is far from a settled matter. Then, one of my leading opponents in the dispute whose resolution led to this situation is the one who closes the AfD in question and deletes it (since the only "keep" votes were mine, which were struck out despite the issue being resolved and me not having a chance to address the "delete" votes made since the last time I checked). What the hell does this look like, exactly? AT LEAST six people taking substantial action in concert against me, despite many people already questioning the propriety of the initial adverse action taken against me? If that's not a railroad job, if that's not an attempt to force through an agenda that the individuals involved know to be of questionable merit at best, then I don't know what is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 05:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The vapors this guy gives people are laughable. Disputes with Kurt spun wildly out of control because nobody responded to him like I did here. For Christ's sakes. This trash notwithstanding, nobody (well, nobody with any sense) believes that Kurt's actual contributions, rare as they've become, are wholly invalid. It's a little silly that if Ten Pound Hammer nominated Rodney Watson on an assumption of bad faith, which he obviously did, Kurt couldn't show up to defend his article. Kurt was, as always, ignored, outnumbered, and overruled. Even if his vote on Watson's AfD stood, it still would be against consensus. Yet his trifling, harmless comments have given everybody the shits with one notable exception: me, and I'm the guy he tried to butt heads with in Watson's RfA. If the usual suspects (is anybody surprised these guys showed up?) would stop giving him the time of day, his effect on the project would be a net positive as all his extremist lunacy would be ignored.

Two questions. Precisely who gave Coffee, Durova, Ten Pound Hammer, and the rest the right to violate WP:CIVIL without repercussion? And where's the !vote about this block's validity where my "oppose" vote will be outnumbered by the same peanut gallery who persist in letting this empty vessel get to them? Şłџğģő 05:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? How do you construe incivility? I toned down another editor's statement and asked him to agree to refrain from kicking Kurt when he's down. If that is objectionable in any way, I'll gladly refrain from such good faith intervention with regard to him in future. Durova⁴¹² 05:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that Kmweber was already given a final warning in December, in the section "Warning about violation of a topic ban". It was for the same reason than this block: Kurt participated in a wikipedia-space page, and he gave the same reason, that he could do it because it directly concerned him. If Kurt is unblocked, he shouldn't be allowed any exception from his wikipedia-space ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC) I moved my comment to the ANI thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

See here. Please don't make me regret it. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 13:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A statement on this, that I request everyone involved read

There are a few arguments that I see consistently being used against me, that I'd like to respond to in one place.

1. My block log. I'd like to suggest that everyone who considers using the length of my block log against me take a look at just how short nearly all of those blocks lasted. Only once have I been blocked for a period of more than a week (and it was quite deserved); every other block (including this last one) was undone within a day or so. Does this fact not indicate that maybe, just maybe, in some of these cases the error was on the part of the individual who blocked me, and not me? Does it not, at the very least, suggest that perhaps some of the circumstances surrounding these blocks should be investigated, so you can arrive at an independent judgment of whether or not those blocks were justified? Should unjustified blocks be held against me?
2. "He's been given several chances." Have I? In general, the complaints against me stem from three different issues. Up through mid-2006 (that is, four years ago), I had the habit of using the phrase "deletionist vandals" to refer to people who I thought nominated a lot of articles for deletion. Since then, I stopped using it, and no one's brought it up since. That one, at least, is over. It's the other two issues that are the problem.
   
   The first of these two is the RfA/AfD voting. Every single time someone has blocked me for that, there has been overwhelming agreement to overturn the block; and every single time someone has made some sort of public complaint not involving a block, those complaints have been overwhelmingly rejected. There is a minority now who likes to claim that those were the reasons I was almost banned, but that's clearly not true given how roundly those complaints were rejected. The other issue, and the one for which I perhaps was indeed "almost banned," was an unfortunate tendency in mid-to-late 2008 to attack people who had disagreed with me, which as I recall initially started with the Bedford desysopping and degenerated from there. And you know what happened? I was called out on that, I acknowledged I was wrong, and I stopped doing it. Furthermore, this is the incident out of which arose the supposed "topic ban" against me.
   
   Now, here's where it gets interesting. There were, it is true, a few people who, during the discussions concerning the aforementioned personal attacks, also tried to bring in the RfA/AfD voting into it as a reason to ban me. Those people were very few in number, only a small fraction of the total people participating in the discussion, and were in fact outnumbered by those explicitly rejecting that particular rationale. But few though they were, they remain the most vocal, most fanatical, and most obsessive of the bunch; and they are the ones who keep insisting that I've had "several chances already," despite the fact that that's clearly not true. Their attempt to include my votes on RfA/AfD as instances where I was nearly banned and supposedly "slipped through," by mentioning them in the discussion for the brief (and long-over) spate of personal attacks and so trying to attach them to that issue like legislators and pork, is disingenuous at best if not outright dishonest.
   
   I will acknowledge that "having enough chances" really shouldn't matter, since I shouldn't be doing anything wrong to begin with. That is absolutely correct. The point is, there are certain individuals who insist that my RfA/AfD votes are part of some long history of disruption, despite that argument being roundly rejected every time it's brought up in public, and who by virtue of being so vocal and fanatical (and at times using strong-arm and bullying tactics to prevent me from defending myself) in their insistence are able to convince others that my past is worse than it is.
3. I only create short, unsourced stubs, and doesn't even bother to categorize them properly That's simply not true or irrelevant, as the case may be. I am largely responsible for such articles as Princeton, Indiana, Gibson County Courthouse, Testor Corporation, the initial Head gasket article, and Lyles Station, Indiana, among others. That said, it is true that lately a lot of the articles I have created have been short stubs. But what's wrong with that? I don't have as much time now as I have in years past (and the more of my Wikipedia-time I have to spend defending myself against an onslaught, the less still I have for productive work), so I do what I can when I find the time. And by putting a stub out there in mainspace, rather than keeping it hidden away in some userspace subpage, I put it out there where the general public can find it. This way, anyone who happens across it that has something useful to add can easily find it and do so. This kind of organic growth is the whole point of a wiki, which provides a wonderful model for content development. How can this possibly be problematic? As best I can tell, it appears that some people are just afraid of this new paradigm in content creation that a wiki provides; that's the only explanation I can see for their insistence that the old, cathedral-like model of cloistered article development, not unveiling it until there is a finished product, be used.
   
   Categorization is essentially the same. I enjoy writing article content; I know a lot, and I'm good at it. Other people enjoy categorizing and the day-to-day minutiae; they know a lot about it, and they're good at it. Another advantage that a wiki provides is specialization. One need not know everything to contribute; one person does what he's good at and enjoys, and leaves the rest to others to do what they're good at and enjoy. That way, everyone does what they enjoy (we're all volunteers, remember?) and understand, and those who aren't interested in a certain aspect of contributing don't have to worry about it and can instead focus their available energies on becoming better at what they do do. Specialization leads to increased efficiency and effectiveness, and a wiki provides a unique and wonderful opportunity to exploit this. Once again, I can't see any explanation, other than fear of the unknown, for opposing this; I've certainly seen no substantiative argument as to why it's bad.
   
   Sources are more of the same. Ironically, those who claim that I'm somehow operating in contravention of "policy" by not bothering to include sources don't seem to realize that the argument I've been making all along (that sources are only necessary for direct quotes and contentious or potentially contentious statements) is exactly what WP:V has said for years now. That's not to say sources are bad; only that they're generally not necessary (especially given the kinds of subjects I participate in—is Rodney Watson's birthplace really controversial, after all?), so I'm hardly doing anything wrong by not including them. Again, those who want them and are good at that kind of thing are welcome to find them and include them: I do what I enjoy and I'm good at, and others do what they enjoy and are good at.

Thank you for reading. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 13:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the AfD Timeline

I think you need to check your timeline, because both of your comments were made while you were under editing restrictions that prevented you from editing there. Now are you responsible for your actions and in control of your editing or not? The question here is quite simple if you'd like to pursue it:

1. . Either you are in control of your actions and willfully violated your editing restrictions twice
2. . You are not in control of your actions and your account should be locked until such a time that you are capable of controlling yourself.

Which is it?--Crossmr (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if they're valid (which they're not, since there was never any consensus to put them into effect), they never restricted me from participating in disputes directly concerning me. Furthermore, none of this alters your fundamental factual error that is at the root of one of your arguments. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The root of my argument is that you've continued to invite drama over and over again and you've knowingly done it again. If I didn't see exactly when your comments were struck out, they were both made when you were under restrictions. So whether you made them both before being struck out or after, you were restricted. You had many choices you could have made and you made the one that generated the most drama. It was choice, unless you'd care to provide some evidence to show that someone forced you to make those edits? or are you telling us that you're not responsible for your actions?--Crossmr (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I was under no such restriction. The idea that any restriction, regardless of substance could possibly be considered to prevent me from defending myself and my work is so laughably absurd that I fail to see how any reasonable person could honestly believe that it does. Given that, I took the most reasonable action, based on the assumption that other people would be reasonable as well. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Defend yourself? That isn't your article. It belongs to wikipedia. It is quite reasonable. You were restricted from editing wikipedia space to prevent drama. The moment you edited wikipedia space you started drama. Look around you. None of this occurred until you chose to edit that AfD. had you not edited it, none of it would have happened. You've been here long enough to know that. You've apparently got someone more than willing to sing your praises on AN/I, why not the same on the AfD? You see, you had many choices you chose the path of most drama. you. chose. plain and simple. no.one.forced.you.--Crossmr (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep harping on this straw man? When have I ever claimed that I was "forced" to do this? My argument is that I am not prohibited from doing it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 16:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently plenty of people disagree with you. There is nothing straw man about it. whether you choose to acknowledge your restrictions or not doesn't make them any less real. Frankly it only strengthens the argument against your unblock.--Crossmr (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A "straw man" is when you claim that I'm making an argument that I'm not actually making. You are insisting that I am arguing that I was "forced" to edit the AfD, when I have made no such argument. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 18:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No, but it would be the only legitimate defense for your edits. So if you're not even claiming that there was zero reason for your unblock.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it most certainly is not the only legitimate defense. That's where you're wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Rodney Watson DRV

I know there are plenty of obsessive folks checking this :) So would anyone object if I listed the Rodney Watson article on DRV, given the somewhat underhanded manner in which it was handled? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Write a rationale on this page here, and i'll take responsibility and proxy for it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar suggestion myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's already at DRV, and the close has pretty much been endorsed. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrongly so. None of the arguments for deletion had merit, and the adherence to proper procedure in this case was absolutely non-existent.

I'd like to see a response to my position that sources are only necessary for direct quotes and contentious statements. I'm all for ignoring "policy" all the time; but most of the argument for sources is that "they're required," when in fact WP:V has said exactly the argument I'm making for years now. So what's the basis for arguing they're necessary? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Km, sources are vital. Without them we can't verify if this guy is just a figment of someone's imagination or the man you claim he is. We just can't take your word for it, or anyone else's for that matter. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone were to honestly challenge a statement (as opposed to just trying to make more work for someone else to be a pest), I'd gladly either provide a source or not object to its removal. But there's no need to demand them up front; that just makes creation of new content more of a hassle, which is hardly conducive to this project's goals. And the up-front absence of sources for unchallenged statements is hardly a reason to delete an article. No one's going to die if the article stays around unsourced. People are perfectly entitled not to take the claims made in the article seriously, in the meantime, if they're bothered by it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 01:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop with the fucking antics Kurt. You know how we view sources on BLPs and you know that on most articles the sources should be there anyway, regardless of whether you're too lazy to add them or not. This is an encyclopedia, and you don't make the rules. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"Why?" is always a valid question, especially since every time I've asked so far I've never gotten so much as an attempt at an answer. Attempts to suppress those who ask "why?" almost always come from those with suspect motives. If you're not going to be constructive, please leave this discussion. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree. Everything must be cited. Let me reverse your argument: Why don't you write those statements that can be verified and then litle by little add more verified statements. Articles with unverified statements are not good for the project. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your argument stems from a fundamental misconception about what Wikipedia is. To resolve this, I think it's first helpful to consider just what is the essential aspect of a wiki in general--that is, what is it that makes a wiki, a wiki; and a normal website, not a wiki?

On a normal website, I can visit it and read the content of pages; I can do that on a wiki equally well. On a normal website, I cannot modify the content of pages myself; on a wiki, I definitely can. This, clearly, is the essential difference between a wiki and a normal website; and equally clearly, it is a difference of content production rather than content publishing. Indeed, this mode of content production is a wiki's greatest strength, and the method by which that takes place means that a wiki has a considerable weakness in publishing content. Open editing means that anyone who has information to contribute can easily do so; but it also means that anyone who wants to cause trouble can do so just as easily. Given enough eyeballs, it's possible to keep the aggregate amount of time a wiki page contains questionable content to a minimum, so that production work can progress; but given open editing (without which there's no point in introducing the overhead of a wiki) it is impossible to make sure that any given article does not contain questionable or inaccurate content at any given point in time, so a wiki utterly fails as a medium of content distribution.

Indeed, on Wikipedia, content is released under a free license for a very specific reason. First, it allows anyone to modify the work of anyone else, thus enabling the wiki to fulfill its role as a content production mechanism, for which it is uniquely suited. Second, it allows third parties to handle the work of publishing content, separating the wheat from the chaff, and so fill in the role that wikis really aren't suited for.

What this means is that we shouldn't be really too concerned about making sure articles in Mainspace meet some minimum level of quality or completeness. We don't need some other place to work on articles and bring them up to par; Mainspace is where we work on articles and bring them up to par. The purpose of the Mainspace is to serve as the workshop for articles, and not as the publishing mechanism for articles—that is the role of third parties. Maybe it's desirable to have sources for articles in the end, but that doesn't mean we have to have them right now. Publishers who don't want to publish unverified content can simply choose to exclude it from their releases. But in the meantime, we keep our works in progress around so that someone, sometime—and it may be ten, twenty, thirty, or a hundred years on down the road—can complete them, building on the work of others. Deleting them just forces that person to start from scratch. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt, your ideas are not wrong. They reflect a model of the wiki that in my opinion is still operational, to an extent. But times have changed. This model is gradually been replaced by more stringent criteria due to the phenomenal success of Wikipedia. This is why your article survived a few AfDs. It is marginally acceptable but it leaves a lot of people unhappy due to its lack of sources. There is also the notability problem. The person seems not to trigger any reliable sources from search engines. Times have changed in Wikipedia Kurt. The question is that in order to survive as an editor here you must accept that while your views, in an absolute sense, may be noble and even theoretically viable, now they have been replaced by more strict criteria and you should accept that you will always be overruled by the majority. It is time to disagree but not in a prolonged fashion. There are many people here that will jump at the chance to sanction you as, to my great surprise, I found out. Survivability is a matter of adaptability as you very well know. Except, of course, if you'd like to go out in a blaze of glory. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I have written stuff in articles from memory. Then, months later, I decide to look for sources to support the statements. Then I found out that I had been wrong to several degrees in several parts. Now I look for sources before adding the statements. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC) @Dr.K. Kurt's ideas about the meaning of "free" are incorrect. Please don't mislead him further by telling him that he is right. You will just manage to land him into hot water. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC) ugh, I mixed Kurt's comments with Dr.K.'s comments.....

I think that as a minimum I am free to express my opinion without you insinuating that I mislead anyone. If you don't like my opinion say so and say why. But do not attribute motives to me like I want to mislead Kurt. Also, as you see, I told Kurt that his model of the wiki was true in the earlier days of Wikipedia but has been superseded by a more strict interpretation of the rules and I advised him that citations are always needed and not to go against the majority, except if he wanted to go out of here in a blaze of glory. I wouldn't call that misleading him. Would you? Further Kurt has not replied to me in days to challenge my advice. That means he may have got the nuance of my message and stopped the arguments. So please leave out the condenscending advice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And now that I read your statement again I find it bizarre. I never talked to Kurt about the meaning of "free". "Free" what? Are you sure you are talking about my comments? And, finally, telling me that I will manage to land Kurt in hot water is really disingenuous. Kurt is already in hot water provided readily, reliably and free of charge by many here. Or you haven't looked at the various threads against him? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Does a free license not allow anyone to make modifications or redistribute content, subject to certain conditions (the big one being attribution)? I'm not sure what error you see there. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 13:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt, yes, you can modify content in any manner that you see fit.... in your own website. The content here is hosted in Wikipedia Foundation servers, so they get to say what is published here. You are free to copy the content and modify it and publish it on a website where you are the one paying for hosting.

I'm not convinced you understood what I said, or else I wasn't clear enough, seeing as your counter to what you perceived to be my argument is uncannily similar to my actual argument. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In reference to your message of 01:57, 8 March 2010 in this section, the last two paragraphs. The WMF doesn't want to follow your recommendations of being a pure content producer and leaving the quality assurance to someone else. In fact the trend in the community seems to be the opposite one: the notability guidelines keep getting more stringent, a recent coup d'estat tried to reinforce BLP to remove anything unsourced from any BLP, Wikipedia:Software notability has been rejected (it wanted to lower the requirements of sources for software), etc. Asking that notability requirements are relaxed is going totally against the tide. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@Dr.K. I'm very sorry... I read one of Kurt's comments as if it was written by you, it's Kurt who has the wrong idea about "free", you were giving him good advice.... Again, I'm very sorry for the confusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am striking my reply to you as we speak Enric. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I was also too harsh, and I hadn't informed myself well before speaking. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkbacks

Hello, Kmweber. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 02:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kmweber. You have new messages at DESiegel's talk page.
Message added 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the discussion regarding how such situations should be handled in the future.

Assuming that, as we go forwards, there is a clear understanding that an editor under sanctions are not allowed leeway even for afds of articles they are major contributors to, what would be a good way to ensure that they are able to inform the afd discussion? Are there other scenarios that should be given the same consideration? Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Specific_question Unomi (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the linked conversation has the same antagonists who always show up to oppose this guy; I tend to think if Kurt said "the sky is blue," Crossmr would demand the quote get a "some say" preface. There's no consensus at that link, no uninvolved admins or crats have weighed in to favor an across-the-board ban, and several people without the aforementioned "clear understanding" have pretty solid ground to oppose the whole concept. (And never mind the fact that Luna Santin seems to have more or less flipped off the idea of a 100% AfD ban by unblocking Kurt.) For the millionth time, I'll ask: What is the harm in Kurt contributing confrontational votes that nobody pays attention to anyways? Şłџğģő 07:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This supposed "restriction" came about due to an unfortunate and regrettable spate of personal attacks from myself, which I have long since acknowledged were wrong and have attempted to apologize privately to most of the individuals involved (some of them have refused to listen to me, which is quite understandable). There are those who would wish to paint this as merely one instance in a long-term pattern of "disruption," referring to my votes on AfD and RfA; they are simply being dishonest, as every single time those were brought up, every single time someone tried to block me for those, the blocks were overturned almost immediately and the resounding decision was that I had done nothing wrong in those cases. The supposed "restriction" was solely to deal with the personal attacks I had been making--which, you may notice, I have not engaged in for over two years.

Restrictions, in general (assuming a particular restriction had a consensus in a fair, open discussion), are there to let people know of a past history of certain behavior, to make it easier to deal with that problem should it resurface in a certain venue. So long as the behavior in question is not being engaged in (in my case, personal attacks), rule-bound insistence upon enforcement does absolutely nothing productive for Wikipedia. It provides a mechanism for dealing with actual problems should they arise again; if no actual problems arise, then there's nothing to be gained by invoking it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kmweber. You have new messages at Luna Santin's talk page.
Message added 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Just in case you never looked at that...

07:26, 10 March 2010 Coffee (talk | contribs | block) blocked Kmweber (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ (Note: The previous block was not "ridiculous" but instead was within administrative discretion; as was the following unblock. However any further edits to AFD, without review, will result in an indef.) (unblock | change block)

If you want to be able to edit AFDs relating to articles you created, and believe that the community will allow you to do that, then you must ask for a formal review, otherwise you'll be blocked indefinitely next time. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not your decision to make. So far, it seems like most people are fine with what I did. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 01:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

On December 21, I reminded you of the community imposed topic ban. If you make any further edits to Wikipedia project space your account will be blocked. If you wish to appeal that decision please write your appeal here and I will post it to WP:AN or to the ArbCom, as you prefer.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurt on behalf of the community, that is my decision to make. I cleared it with Luna Santin as well. Denying everything, doesn't make it go away. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If the community decides that you no longer speak on its behalf--if the Wikipedia community decides that this supposed ban does not apply to constructive comments on AfDs on articles for which I am a major contributor, and that I may make such comments without asking for permission beforehand--who are you or anyone else to override that decision? I'm not saying that anyone has or will make that decision--but if that decision is made, are you claiming that you are entitled to do what you want regardless of community consensus to the contrary? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 16-0 and Super Bowl XLIV Champions) 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not what he's saying. If the ban is modified through consensus to allow this sort of thing, then that's fine. As of now, though, it has not, nor does it appear that it is going to be in the immediate future. Thus, any further participation in Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk spaces will merit another block, and I highly doubt it will be undone next time. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is my belief that the ANI sub-thread "Specific question" indicates a lack of community support for such a blanket restriction, and therefore if you are blocked for making non-disrubtive comments at an AfD for an article which you created or were a major contributor to (I reserve the right to use my own judgment on "major contributor"), i stand ready to unblock. DES ^(talk) 03:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll paste what I replied at my talk page. Until a formal ban review is done, and a full consensus formed, the previous ban stands. If you stand to unblock Kurt, I'll warn you now, I stand to block you in direct violation of community consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)