Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

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: 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC).

Frei Hans (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. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern

User repeatedly accuses other editors of sockpuppetry and vandalism inappropriately or in inappropriate venues:

8 June 2009
8 June 2009
10 June 2009
15 June 2009
18 June 2009
21 June 2009
4 July 2009
6 July 2009 - Flippant accusation of sockpuppetry with no supporting evidence given
6 JulyAdded two more users to his sockpuppet investigation.
6 JulyAdded another user to his sockpuppet investigation.
6 JulyAdded three more users to sockpuppet investigation.
6 JulyAdded one more user to sockpuppet investigation.
6 JulyAdded one more user to sockpuppet investigation.
10 JulyUser opens concering SPI.

Refuses to accept community consensus regarding deletion processes:

Refusal to acknowledge unanimous support for deletion of File:Unwired head.jpg at FFD. Launched flippant deletion review, filled with accusations of malpractice
5 July 2009 - States belief that admin malpractice and "vandalism" resulted in deletion of Telepathy and war despite overwhelming support for deletion at AFD
6 July 2009 - repeated denial of consensus
6 July 2009: Refusal to accept redirect of ASIO File despite AFD

Applicable policies and guidelines

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I would ask that Frei Hans does the following:

Accept the definition of vandalism given at WP:VAND, and understand that content disputes and bold edits are explicitly not considered vandalism.
Agree not to accuse other editors of vandalism unless their conduct is explicitly defined as such at WP:VAND
Agree to follow the proper dispute resolution process if he disagrees with another editor
Agree to assume good faith from other editors
Agree to only make accusations of sockpuppetry at an appropriate venue, such as WP:SSP
Accept that there was an overwhelming consensus to delete Telepathy and war and File:Unwired head.jpg and to redirect ASIO File
Read the deletion policy and the criteria for speedy deletion and agree not to recreate deleted content without addressing the causes of its deletion

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

8 June 2009 by Verbal - Explained definition of vandalism
8 June 2009 by Verbal - Advised about WP:AGF
9 June 2009 by Sifaka - Explained dispute resolution
10 June 2009 by Verbal
14 June 2009 by me
19 June - Wikiquette alert filed
19 June - User advised about alert
19 June - Advised about conflating vandalism with edits the user doesn't like and licensing requirements.
6 July - Lots of good advice by User:Bwilkins
6 July - Advised by User:LessHeard vanU about deletion review and inappropriate comments
6 July - Warning about flippant accusations at WQA
6 July - Warning and advice about Sockpuppetry accusations
6 July - advised to move on by User:Mangoe
6 July - asked to re-read polices by User:Abce2

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

Advice read by Frei Hans on 10 June 2009 - disputed behaviour continued after this date
Advice read by Frei Hans on 15 June 2009 - disputed behaviour continued after this date
6 July 2009 - Statement by Frei Hans refuting advice about deletion process
6 July 2009 - Statement by Frei Hans refuting advice from Bwilkins
21 June 2009 - User refuses to engage in discussion at WP:WQA
6 July 2009 - Continued flippant WQA despite warning
6 July - sockpuppetry investigation request filed claiming that User:Verbal, User:A Man In Black, and User:Papa November are the same person
6 July 2009 - User:Mangoe and User:Abce2 added to the sockpuppetry case
10 July New SPI filed against the last 10 or so people to comment on his userpage.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Papa November (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal chat 17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 05:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC), specifically re the Telepathy and war article, its AfD, and recent attempts at dialogue on his talk page[reply]
Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

pablo_hablo. 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLouie (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lifebaka++ 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike 20:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

note: the response below was cross-posted; original was to User talk:Frei Hans^{[1] [2]}. Frei Hans is blocked. Jack Merridew 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to request for comment

I believe that a lot of the comments here are posted by sock puppets who do not want to be found out and who would like to discredit my account. An attempt was made to smear my reputation with the sock Free Hans after I pointed out what I suspected to be "vote" stacking. Some of the users here have posted quite aggressive messages on my user page - which as a result of their actions is a mess of what amounts to vandalism. The log histories of some of the users making these claims against me show that they have been banned, warned and reprimanded for creating disruptive content and for edit warring. My first contact with user Verbal was during a period where he began reverting content to versions with almost no content on the now deleted article Telepathy and war. I believe sock puppets were used to push through the deletion of that article, with its history of edit warring carried out by Verbal. Verbal's user log shows he has been blocked before for disruptively reverting content [3]. User Daedalus, commenting here as well, shows similar action to user Verbal. The account of user Daedalus has also been blocked, for harrasment [4]. User Jack Merridew, commenting here, has an extensive block log for harassing others [5]. Jack Merridew has been found before to operate sock puppets to disrupt Wikipedia and harass another user, and he was blocked for that [6]. Many of the users here seem to have a history of annoying other users, nuisance editing, and outright harassment incorporating the use of sock puppets to do so. I do not like what they are doing and stated so. The result is that these users have attempted to drum up a smear campaign against my account. I became part of Wikipedia because I would like to contribute to a community that I thought was focussed on building quality encyclopedic content. I find the way these users are behaving to be counter-productive. I am not the user who should be blocked. I do not operate sock puppets to disrupt content and I do not like the aggressive tone of many of the comments I have seen from these users. Frei Hans (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.: Hans, thank you for posting, finally. I hope we can work something out. For starters, please could you make a list of messages you have received personally from other users that you consider to contain good advice? (with diffs) Papa November (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked for a month for another disruptive spi filing. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to consider a reply on his talk page. Papa November (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.

Q.

A.

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.

View by Hans Adler, who is not sure how involved he is

Frei Hans seems to be acting in good faith. He really seems to think that there is a conspiracy to delete his articles. This is exactly the reaction one would expect in good faith from an editor who writes things like this. I believe there are conditions that make patients much more prone to jump to conclusions and believe that unrelated things must be related, and as far as I know they typically cause this kind of behaviour. Unless Frei Hans can find and accept a mentor, per WP:THERAPY banning him is probably our only long-term option.

Users who endorse this summary:

Hans Adler 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC) This [7] concerns me. Before that, I put a request on his talk page advising him to respond here, instead he filed this SPI plus a couple of other edits.[reply]
Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 16:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--CrohnieGal^Talk 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal chat 17:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LuckyLouie (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive197#User:Chuck Marean, which I believe is similar to this case. MuZemike 20:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse final sentence, and general sentiment, not appropriate to diagnose. pablo_hablo. 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jives with my view on this situation (without the speculation). - 2/0 (cont.) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the overall sense minus the conjecture on medical issues (unless these have been self-declared). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
needs to drop the thoughts of conspiracies. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Crohnie, uninvolved other than comment of deletion review

I think User:Frei Hans needs to read or reread a lot of policies because he definitely lacks understanding about WP:Vandal, WP:SOCK, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLE and a host of other core policies. Maybe a mentor would be a good way to go. Before I commented on the deletion review I read as many links and pages I could find to get a rounded and fair idea about what was happening between editors and the article itself. The deletion of the article and the picture had overwhelming support to be deleted. Unfortunately User:Frei Hans felt there was some kind of conspiracy going on which is unfortunate. I have worked and seen User:Verbal around in the project but I have had no contact other than the notice about this report with the other editor User: Papa November. When I saw accusations of vandalism, sock puppetry and so forth I have to admit my surprise. When I followed the links though I never saw any difs to prove these allegations so I feel the editor Frei Hans should apologize for saying things in the heat of the moment. I think that striking or deleting the allegations of misbehavior that he accused other editors of and maybe an apology would go a long way at mending feeling and stop this process from going forward. I also recommend to Frei Hans to see if he can find an editor he is comfortable with to mentor him. I would volunteer myself but I would only be available until the beginning of the month do to real life. To sum up, I feel that the following should be done in no specific order; 1) striking and/or deleting accusations of misbehavior without proof, 2) apologies if heartfelt for saying things in the heat of the moment, 3) ask for a mentor to help understand policies better. I really think that this editor shows he has the ability and the want to be a good editor here. He just has to realize that policies are here for a reason and everyone needs to be able to work and collaborate together in a collegial manner . I hope I am being clear on what I am saying, thanks for listening.

Users who endorse this summary:

--CrohnieGal^Talk 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Right now he's acting first and saying that he's right later.[reply]
Papa November (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal chat 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike 20:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pablo_hablo. 21:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse 1, 2, and 3. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Brangifer (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by MuZemike

This DRV rationale is completely unacceptable. In any deletion discussion, users need to address the opposition's arguments and not their character or past merits. The only time that the latter should ever be brought up is in the case that a user is banned, and it has been discovered that said user's contributions were in violation of that ban. This was not the case. Such ad hominem arguments go against the constructive and welcoming decorum especially needed in deletion discussions. MuZemike 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

View by Pablomismo, involved to the extent of the AfD and DRV for Telepathy and war

Frei Hans does not accept consensus, displays ownership over articles he edits and will try any and all avenues to gather support for the reversal of the deletions of File:Unwired head.jpg (which he created) and Telepathy and war (which he created the original off-topic and irrelevantly-referenced version of.

This may just be not getting the point, or it may be a willful refusal to get the point; which are slightly different things. I do not know his actions are due to his misunderstanding of WP policies and guidelines, or if he is simply a disruptive POV-pushing edit-warrior. Could be either.

However, when this is taken in tandem with the accusations he dishes out to editors who disagree with him; repeatedly accusing users including (but not limited to) Verbal and Papa November of vandalism, hinting at sockpuppetry [8], [9], followed by explicit accusations of sockpuppetry and general refusal to accept advice when offered it becomes difficult to see him as simply a misguided but good-faith editor.

Users who endorse this summary:

pablo_hablo. 21:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Brangifer (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal chat 06:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Yup; my involvement was about the same as Pablo's re Telepathy and war and I saw the image discussion. The soks bit is news; glad I was not on the list because I *am* a sockpuppet, just not one of that, ah, non-farm. Cheers![reply]
--CrohnieGal^Talk 15:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) After watching his talk page now for over a day I am sorry to say he turns even edit conflict tags into a big issue even when explained. I'm sorry to say the past day or two has shown he not interested in learning policy and more interested in fighting and baiting. Getting closer to an indef.[reply]
Enric Naval (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I looked at Talk:Special_Investigation_Group and Talk:ASIO_File and I saw reluctance to accept consensus, and possibly WP:OWNership. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by -- Banjeboi

Frei Hans can have a place here but they are certainly stepping in the wrong direction. Generally Wikipedians help one another and generally have better things to do than sweep together a WP:Cabal to remove encyclopedic content. While I don't necessarily agree with the AfD outcome - as I felt there was some good content in the article itself - I do agree that usually consensus gets it right. The action to take here was userfying and taking a slow path to see what information could be useful elsewhere. The image issues are unique in copyright but I can empathize with the feelings Frei Hans may hold that they were being picked on - they weren't. Frei Hans should likely apologize in a blanket statement on their talkpage for making accusations and generally disrupting things in the heat of passion. They should take a breather and look at the much bigger picture here that Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead, we follow - let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed. Until then it may may sense to do some basic maintenance work and develop more trust in their skills of editing and OR (original research) judgement. A mentor may also help in this situation but the bad vibes do need to be addressed.

Users who endorse this summary:

-- Banjeboi 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MuZemike 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--CrohnieGal^Talk 09:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with the rider that the page not be userfied unless the user is very clear about the purposes of userfication; specifically that there be no move back into mainspace (under any name) unless the reasons it was deleted in the first place are fully addressed. pablo_hablo. 09:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as pablo says Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by SheffieldSteel, involved in an administrative capacity

Frei Hans has abandoned Assume Good Faith

Whether or not Frei Hans is intentionally acting for the good or bad of Wikipedia is a distracting question. What is certain is that the results have been disruptive. FH has produced an image and an article which have had problems, both being deleted. Understandably FH has sought to restore this content, but has not persuaded the community to do so.

So far, so good - or at least, not so bad. Although there have been problems with the article being seen as unencyclopaedic, with the image (that I haven't looked into), and with FH's wording when requesting deletion review, all of these can be put down to a good faith desire to contribute and a lack of experience of how Wikipedia works.

However, FH has gone too far in accusing two editors of acting in bad faith, and in accusing many established editors of sockpuppetry, including administrators - I mention this, not because I think admins are better than other editors, but because admins have demonstrated that they have the trust of the editing community, making a multi-admin sockpuppetry accusation so much less plausible. The addition of multiple editors to the SPI case, apparently based solely on their offering advice to Frei Hans, is a textbook assumption of bad faith. Looking at FH's talk page posts, it seems that FH has abandoned the very idea of extending good faith to anyone, based on the perceived misdeeds of a few users. Even if that perception were correct, Frei Hans should still assume that other users are here to help, until shown proof to the contrary.

Users who endorse this summary:

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — This matches what I've seen rather well.[reply]
pablo_hablo. 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lifebaka++ 14:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this all can be put to the fact that he does not understand how policies work nor the policies themself. He needs to take the time to listen to the editors who are trying to help, they really are trying to help Frei Hans. If you need help, don't hesitate to drop by my talk page and I will help if I can. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now Peter Symonds is a sockpuppet suspect as the blocking admin of Free Hans. So far, he's Not Getting It. Auntie E (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Brangifer (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal chat 09:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, except that I think SheffieldSteel is lowballing it. The SPI actions aren't so much a mere "assumption of bad faith" as an 'assumption that we're all out to get FH'. I'm not sure if meaningful communication is even possible with somebody taking such a viewpoint. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Harfdav...sorry I feel out of my chair. I agree with user Hragn.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric Naval (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, yet fear this RfC is only cementing his view that some organised cabal is "out to get him". - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Law Lord

Frei Hans is the victim of administrator abuse and harassment committed by (among others) people, who now claim to offer "outside views".

I have reviewed the 100 most recent edits made by Frei Hans.

In my view, the problem is that a number of administrators – and people who aspire to become administrators – have abused their technical powers and wikilawyering abilities and bullied the user Frei Hans severely. Obviously, this calls for the creation of a smooth and fast process for removal of administrator privileges from administrators. The power to do so should not lie with the administrator cliques with whom it lies today.

As a side note, if an administrator has blocked Frei Hans in connection with the current conflict, then any such administrator has lost the right to offer an "outside view" (but may instead offer an "inside view"). Furthermore, to block Frei Hans – and thus prevent him from defending himself – is far below any standard. Some people should really learn to feel ashamed of themselves but Frei Hans is not one of them.

Users who endorse this summary:

Law Lord (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Disengage and contemplate

this proposal has been shown by subsequent events to be the wrong course of action SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) This proposal essentially suggests that all parties disengage from the various disputes and contemplate their own actions. Frei Hans should agree that there is not a conspiracy to delete his articles or to silence him, should accept that his knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines may have let him down in the past, and should undertake to seek counselling or advice when engaged in controversial actions or content disputes (for example, before filing suspected sockpuppet or deletion review cases). For their part, Verbal, AManInBlack, Mangoe, Abce2, and LuckyLouie should agree that they will not pursue, harass, bait, or hound Frei Hans in any way - that they will not, for example, communicate with one another regarding Frei Hans's contributions or conduct - and additionally should ask themselves whether as individuals or together they could have handled this situation better.

suggested by SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I have no problem with this but it appears to be moot, as the subject of the complaint is not responding and has taken to responding to any interaction by adding people to the SPI complaint. Indeed, the root of the problem is that he cannot bring himself to walk away from the conflict. I just "lost" an AFD myself, so I can understand some of his sentiments. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should explain that the list of names above was what I saw when I went to the above-listed SPI case. I had no idea at the time that names were continuing to be added. Probably best if I don't comment further, as I've blocked this user temporarily. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

I'll stop beating my wife while I'm at it! :) Verbal chat 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sheffield Steel - you could remove A Man in Black from this as he has as far as I can see, no interaction[10] save for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telepathy and war, hasn't edited since 15 June, and seems unlikely to want to "pursue, harass, bait, or hound" anyone any time soon. pablo_hablo. 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this be stricken or radically reworded as it is normal and expected that users who are seeking to protect the encyclopedia will exchange information about the actions of a disruptive user. They are not doing anything wrong. It is the disruptive user who has the problem. One should AGF toward those who are protecting Wikipedia, and the above doesn't do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a proposal and is the way the proposer sees things, we don't strike or reword that, disagree sure and a lack of general support would show the authors view isn't widely shared. This is requests for comment and most comments have value in contemplation even if you ultimately disagree with them. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

2) I proposing that Hans be indef blocked until he desides to acually listen to others and that he's not always right. He was given a second chance, but he completely blew it.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Someone just blocked him for one month, but his ludicrous claims in the current SPI against Verbal really show the guy is clueless. I thing a community ban might be in order, but an indef block is okay. Seriously the guy needs to chill. Never have I seen so many obviously unrelated people named as socks in an SPI, I mean, there is an admin that has been around since forever!--Cerejota (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Have you seen the latest? He just won't stop accusing any and all of being socks! It's time to indef block Frei Hans and to blank and edit protect his talk page since that's where most of his disruption is occurring. There is no evidence that he is heeding the advice he's been given, and plenty of evidence that he's incapable of doing so. He is thus unsuited for this environment. Brangifer (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. As I stated above, I don't really see how meaningful, let alone productive, communication is possible with somebody who seems to dismiss all attempts at communication with them as part of some overarching conspiracy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Frei Hans is now indefinitely blocked; discussion continues on his talk page. In an attempt to cool things down, I am going to stay away from his talk page, and I think it would probably help if most thus-far-involved editors and suspected sockpuppets did the same. Let the blocking (and unblock-request-reviewing) admins take this from here. pablo_hablo. 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note (2) that Frei Hans is now indefinitely blocked including posting on talkpage by User:Gwen Gale presumably as a result of accusing all the admins of socking in his unblock requests. Show's over folks. Move along - nothing to see here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Summary

Frei Hans indefinitely blocked.

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.