Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC).

Kmweber (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

I think that we would all like for Kmweber to vote on RfAs after he reviews the user's contributions, and then make an educated vote. Alternatively, he should lay off voting on RfAs, at least temporarily. He could go on editing other things, as long as he does not violate WP:POINT or Wikipedia:Consensus. I don't think probation or mentorship is necessary right now, but they could very well come into play if his behavior pattern continues.

Description

I would like to point out that Kmweber has been ignoring Wikipedia:Consensus for quite some time now. His latest act is to oppose any and all self-nominations for WP:RFA on an inherent basis. He has been warned of this several times, and yet has not done anything about his actions, saying that he will not cave in to pressure. He keeps making statements saying that we (as users) are attacking his right to express his opinion here on Wikipedia, which is not true. We are trying to say that his edits are not constructive and impolite. Although we do try to get him to use the talk page and/or village pump, he refuses. Instead of using them, which would gather consensus on the issue, he just goes out and does his own thing. (violation of WP:POINT) Although one could make an argument that Kmweber is indeed utilizing WP:BOLD, I think that he is doing so carelessly, and quite rudely, both of which are mentioned in that guideline. Furthermore, this pattern of behavior (that is, being rude to dissenters) has been ongoing since at least August 2005. This act of opposing self-noms has been ongoing since June 10, 2007. He has been repeatedly warned over and over to stop, and I think that an RfC is warranted here.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Diez2 05:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (note:I left a note on his talk page, I'm guessing that qualifies me for this section)[reply]
Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ds.mt 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (Has been warned by Nick and Jaranda that they will block him if he continues and he did yesterday on two RfA's)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Friday

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This is very silly. On almost any RFA, there will be people whose opinions you disagree with. Deal with it. There will even be people who "vote" with reasoning that you consider completely invalid. Deal with that, too. Kmweber is not hurting anything or causing any disruption. We're allowed to disagree with each other, even on RFAs. The threat of a block based on disagreement over RFA criteria is wildly inappropriate. These threats should cease immediately. A great many RFAs contain "votes" along the lines of "Support, he is a nice person." This is completely invalid reasoning and may cause me to think ill of the judgment of whoever casts such a vote, but I would never attempt to bully these people into stopping that. The crats will give each "vote" the weight they feel it deserves. There is no problem here that this RFC attempts to solve. Friday (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

I agree 100% with everything Friday said. I'm on record as suggesting to Kmweber that he stop voting that way, because I think it's based on a different view of adminship than I think we should take. But a block? No way. I disagree with Kmweber's opinion on this issue, but it's an honest one and he's entitled to it. --TheOther Bob 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.