Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
As I see it, there are two questions that need to be settled here:
- Is it acceptable to refer to people who actually are vandals as such?
- 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]]