Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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: 23:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

  1. DrKiernan
  2. Anonymous Dissident
  3. Sanchom
  4. Hiberniantears
  5. Karrmann
  6. Neranei
  7. carlossuarez46
  8. Ishikawa Minoru
  9. Siva1979
  10. Daniel.Cardenas
  11. MoRsE
  12. Lradrama
  13. EliminatorJR
  14. Useight
  15. Xnuala
  16. the undertow
  17. Angus Lepper
  18. TenPoundHammer
  19. N
  20. Booyabazooka
  21. Coren
  22. Diez2
  23. ACBest
  24. DarkFalls
  25. Boricuaeddie

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:BOLD
  2. WP:POINT

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. User talk:Kmweber/Archive5#Self-noms at RfA
  2. User talk:Kmweber/Archive5#AGF (re your oppose votes)
  3. User talk:Kmweber

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. 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]
  2. Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Agree. The behavior of the editor is disruptive to the community by assuming -- "prima facie" -- bad faith and merely trying to make a point. Bearian 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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.

Just because doing something makes someone angry is not a reason to stop, if that person's anger is completely unreasonable. I, and apparently the bulk of the Wikipedia community, believe that simply giving an opinion that one disagrees with, however novel and unique it may be, is not something that would get a reasonable person's ire up. I'm sorry a few other people think my argument is unreasonable; however, do we really want to start down the slippery slope of banning certain opinions just because someone arbitrarily decrees them to be unreasonable? Further, and while I realize this is not a referendum on the validity of the opinion itself, even many of those who disagree with me have indicated that they certainly understand--and to an extent sympathize--with the reasoning behind my opinion.

That one's actions are making people upset is not, in and of itself, a reason to stop doing it. After all, reverting vandalism and indef blocking the miscreants responsible for it makes some people upset; if that alone were a reason to cease then we should of course let vandals run amok. Clearly, that's not acceptable. That would indicate, then, that one should only even consider ceasing to do something if it is reasonably making someone upset. I, apparently along with the bulk of the Wikipedia community, believe that is not the case here--those who are getting upset by this are simply being unreasonable themselves.

Finally, I believe the accusations of disruption are wholly disingenuous. No one now claims that my RfA opposes are disruptive in and of themselves; rather, the argument has become that they are disruptive because they "cause drama and fights", as though I am somehow responsible for the choice others made to overreact to my perfectly legitimate behavior. That argument is patently absurd.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. As the author, Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well said. The entire problem here appears to be that people get very emotional about RFA. This is nobody's problem but theirs. If Kurt was being dickish about how he expressed his opinion, that would be another story- it's not cool to be needlessly rude. But I've only seem him being polite about it. If someone can make a rational case on why Kurt's behavior is harmful, let's hear it. So far I've only heard emotional complaints. Friday (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have to agree. Kurt's definitely coming off as reasonable in this entire thing. --TheOtherBob 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I also can't think of a single RfA that failed because of Kurt's comments. I still think the comments themselves are needlessly caustic, as they call into question the character of a nominee based on no prior interaction. That said, the comments are no less rational then someone who votes oppose on every RfA wherein the editor has not met some arbitrary edit count, and we let those oppose votes stand. Kurt's efforts have made him a source of stress to many, but I don't see these same efforts actually having an adverse effect on the encyclopedia itself. In all honestly, I suspect the comments themselves would be far more palatable to the community if Kurt showed some signs of familiarity with the nominee that supports the prima facie comment. A self-nom within a process that allows for self-noms is merely prima facie evidence that the editor read the directions. Because the oppose vote is so clearly illogical, and because no reasonable 'crat would ever take it seriously, and because Kurt himself has been willing to stop if consensus asks him to, there is no reason to ban him, and Kurt's comments above are entirely reasonable. Besides which, the Patriot's are absolutely going to paste the Colts this weekend, so I think we should cut the guy a little slack for the time being. Hiberniantears 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I support Kurt's right to state his opinions at RfAs. I agree that those who blocked him are over-reacting and are tilting at windmills. I even think the behaviour of those who blocked him, or argued for his blocking, has been annoying, but that is no reason to block them for being annoying. In the long run, more harm will be done to the community for blocking for reasons like this, than for calmly engaging and discussing the issues. Carcharoth 16:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Argyriou (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. So long as thoughtcrime is not contrary to policy, there is nothing actionable in civil expression of minority opinion. So long as consensus can change is part of policy, we have to allow alternative and minority opinions to be expressed in the appropriate discussion forums. GRBerry 04:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tony Sidaway 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) I believe the complainants here have misunderstood kmweber's reasonable expression of his personal opinion as being in some way contrary to Wikipedia policy.[reply]
  9. I only endorse this because the blocks on the user are plain unacceptable, as it was just a punishment of the user's comments at various RFAs. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 21:08, 10 December 2007 (GMT)

Outside view[edit]

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[edit]

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:

  1. 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. --TheOtherBob 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I endorse Friday's description of the situation. The block warnings for this are entirely inappropriate. I strongly disagree with Kmweber, and I've given him reasons why I disagree with him, but I don't think there's a need to take any action beyond that. Leebo T/C 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is being blown way out of proportion. The accusations of disruption are more disruptive than the actual behavior in question. Krisroe 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ridiculous. I suggest this RfC be closed. Weber is entitled to his own opinion. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 18:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. His position is frustrating to me, but not worthy of an RfC. Hiberniantears 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. He is quite aware his votes will garner attention each time he votes. Let's not give him any more. He was my only oppose and I was, and still am, quite over it. the_undertow talk 19:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. My goodness, how ridiculous is this. This is a legitimate opinion, though I wish it wasn't the sole reason for an opinion, and don't use it myself as a sole reason for opining. As a community, we are more skeptical of those who appear to be seeking power, whether that appearance come from self nominations, overly hasty repeat nominations, or other evidence. If we don't allow people to disagree with consensus, we'll never change consensus. GRBerry 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It's not like his opinion has single handedly changed any RfA. He should not be blocked for stating his opinion. T Rex | talk 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Anchoress 21:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Using a block to threaten those who make wildly absurd opposes? That's just fighting fire with a flamethrower. —Kurykh 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. RfC is a waste of time. Daniel→♦ 03:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse, especially as GRBerry. Joe 19:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Kurt's behavior simply isn't disruptive, and he's certainly not the only person who expresses an idiosyncratic opinion at RfA. --JayHenry 17:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. His views on adminship are totally and utterly misinformed, but he's entitled to his opinion (note how RfA pages state "Voice your opinion" and he does just that). I suggest everyone leave him alone, since he isn't going to change his mind, and what he writes won't affect the result anyway. It's a waste of time hassling him and it's a waste of time having this RfC. He's done nothing wrong at all. Majorly (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I totally agree with Friday. He's entitled to his opinion and it's up the bureaucrat to decide it's merit, or the lack of.--Sandahl 03:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Kurt can oppose or support however he likes. He views self-noms a different way than I do, and I don't care; that's cool. Not my choice, but not a bad choice for him. Jmlk17 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I wholeheartedly support Friday's opinion. Since we all can express our opinions – to Kurt it is no exception – he should not be punished or further be scrutinized for his view. It is left to bureaucrats to decide the merits of his and everyone else's opinions. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to disagree here — in fact, I mostly concur — but posting a boilerplate Oppose vote on every single RfA is a complete violation of WP:POINT. If he wants his views to be propagated, he can allude to them in his responses to queries on his talk page, post about his comment on WT:RfA, etc. Not to mention that he's been warned 3 (or so?) times to stop this disruptive behavior. –Animum 01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ral315 » 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. It seems that threatening to block an editor due to their opinion or reasoning in a RfA or anywhere is a violation of WP:POINT in itself. --Oakshade 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Yep. Until we block those who supports almost every RfA saying "There is no concrete evidence that this person will abuse admin tools", I don't see why we should block here. -Amarkov moo! 16:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. We have bureaucrats for a reason. --Haemo 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Verklempt 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Kmweber's reason for opposing RfA's is thin and unlikely to weigh heavily on the outcome, but he is entitled to his view. As pointed out above, plenty of RfA comments are based on personal opinions that may or may not be soundly based. The relative merit of his or anyone else's argument is a matter for the bureaucrat of the day. Euryalus 04:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Tony Sidaway 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) The similarities between this instance and an earlier instance of attempted bullying of Kelly Martin are striking. Both are unacceptable.[reply]

Outside view by Andrevan[edit]

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.

I think there are several facets of this issue which merit further examination and discussion.

First off, let me say unequivocally that Kmweber cannot and should not be blocked for his opinions. Leaving comments on RfAs is not a WP:POINT violation as it does not disrupt the workings of Wikipedia in any way. That policy exists to stop attempts to prove a point that are "disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of nonpartisan editors to clean up or revert the 'proof'." In fact, voicing opinions in the form of comments, !votes, etc. is exactly what WP:POINT would like users to do, instead of invoking processes. If Kmweber listed all self-noms for Miscellany for deletion, that would be disruptive enough to violate WP:POINT. Simple !voting is not.

That said, Kmweber's comments are very unhelpful, and ignore community consensus on how to leave opinions on RfAs. As a bureaucrat, I will pretty much ignore them in "see-saw" RfAs that can go either way, and I believe other bureaucrats will do and have done the same. He should be advised that he is not generating goodwill via his !voting pattern, nor is he affecting the outcome of RfAs that he contributes to. I do not understand why he would continue in the face of substantial opposition to the behavior. Certainly he is allowed to leave whatever opinions he wishes on RfAs provided that they are not personal attacks, but doing so in this fashion does little else but betray his disregard and disrespect for long-standing community consensus. Andre (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. This is a wholly reasonable summary. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Andrevan hit the nail on the head better than Friday. —« ANIMUM » 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse paragraph one strongly, and two is a sensible opinion and one that I wouldn't object to a b'crat applying. Endorse. Daniel→♦ 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nothing controversial here. –Pomte 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse second paragraph, Kmweber admitted to me that he was violating POINT though, about a few weeks ago Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I most certainly did not. I was (and am) making a point, certainly, but I did not disrupt anything in the process. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I would like to endorse this too, with both paragraphs. I am not saying that he has no right to vote like that (otherwise I would have probably removed his vote myself), but that his comments are extremely unhelpful and do not help in deciding consensus. Diez2 03:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. Let me try to put this into perspective for the "Have prima facie. Will claim power-hunger." crowd: Imagine if during AFD discussions someone kept !voting: "Oppose, I view deletions as prima facie evidence of deletionism, which I'm against." Of course, you are certainly entitled to your inclusionist opinion, but how many times can someone !vote this way before this happens: "Alright, we get it. You're an inclusionist, and that means you're more inclined to !vote Keep, and we have no problem with that. But how about telling us based on the merits of the article why you think it should be deleted?" (Before someone accuses of using this example because I'm deletionist-leaning (which I am), let me just say I would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot).
    Perhaps a better example would be FACs, where it is possible to nominate an article with the description "Self-nomination". Well, I've never seen anyone say: "Oppose, I view self-nomming as prima facie evidence of... wait a second, who does this guy think he is, he's so conceited that he thinks that his changes to the article are so good that they warrant a FAC?"
    An argument against these examples might say that the subjects of AFD and FAC are just lifeless articles, while RFAs involve real people who have the potential to abuse their "powers". To counter that, let me stress (and this can't be stressed enough), that is the reason we have the freaking RFAs is the first place, to screen potential admins and give the mop to whomever seems to be the least likely to abuse their "powers"! And in case of perceived abuse, there are things like WP:RFC/ADMIN to check them out. Smokizzy (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget WP:AN as well :) Diez2 04:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kurt's actions are not block-worthy (though I would have absolutely no problem with it if he was blocked from !voting in RfAs), but they are idiotic. As Andre states, no bureaucrat worth his weight in edits would ever even consider Kurt's !votes- hell, they wouldn't even consider considering them. Again, Andre put it perfectly when he stated that the only goal Kurt is achieving is making people dislike him. He doesn't need to be blocked, but he has to realize that saying that someone who self-noms automatically doesn't deserve to be an admin well generate ill-will, not results. -- Kicking222 00:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. His actions are not helpful and ridiculous, but he should, of course, not be blocked for this. If he wants to continue spamming RfA's, then let him, just make sure he's clear that his actions are pointless. It should also be noted that he is wrong; adminship ≠ power, and anyone who thinks it is is delusional. Adminship is about doing repetitive and boring tasks and getting harassed because of it while helping build an encyclopedia. --Boricuaeddie 02:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I endorse both paragraphs. To repeat a point I've made before, how would people feel If someone opposed every RFA by someone of a certain nationality or gender? I could not see a block happening here, but it would be a good thing if at least one bureaucrat went on record to state that Kurt's statements of this type on RFAs should be ignored. CitiCat ♫ 04:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Also a good statement by Andre. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ral315 » 03:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Melsaran 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Endorse the second paragraph only. I do think that these are actually WP:POINT violations, because he disrupts the RFA process with his ridiculous votes, and if he has a problem with self-noms, he should advocate disallowing them, not oppose every self-nom.[reply]
  14. I agree here. But could this not be construed as a violation of WP:NPA? Where I come from, calling someone "power-hungry" is considered an insult... ugen64 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agree with all. Utterly unhelpful, and perhaps annoying and irritating, but not so disruptive that it can't be solved by simply ignoring it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree. If he makes a shot at another RFA, this will no doubt be a major issue. PatPolitics rule! 22:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I think this balances things off well. It's annoying but not a banning issue. Stifle (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by freakofnurture[edit]

People are entitled to support or oppose something for whatever reason they care to or care not to provide. To determine which comments are meaningful/pertinent/actionable/overpowering/whatever is the duty of the bureaucrats, whom themselves have been selected by the community to perform this task, ostensibly by virtue of their capacity for critical thought and their understanding of the project as a whole, rather than their ability to count votes and push buttons, even if the mathbot afficionados beg to differ. —freak(talk) 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Yes. I'd only add that we should encourage people giving well-founded reasons in RFAs. (But encourage does not mean compel, of course). Friday (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RfB is a thorough search for a reason. We trust them. Per Friday, it's better for you if you provide a good reason, because people may agree with you. However, if you don't, your impact is minimal and can become even less so with the discretion of the b'crats. Daniel→♦ 03:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Walton[edit]

My stance is slightly different to the above. Like most of those who have already commented on this RfC, I do not think that Kurt Weber is being disruptive, and I support his right to express his opinion in RfA; even if his views are outside the community norm, they are supported by an adequate rationale, and he is not deliberately disrupting Wikipedia. However, I also strongly disagree with the argument above that the bureaucrats should be able to determine which comments are "meaningful". The bureaucrats should treat every single vote equally, and should promote on the basis of numbers. Anything else disregards the essential point of community consensus. It is up to each individual user, not the bureaucrats, to decide what constitutes a "meaningful" reason to support or oppose. This point was summarised eloquently some time ago by Elaragirl here. Bureaucrats are not the Jedi Council. They should not decide who passes and who fails. They should implement the will of the community. WaltonOne 10:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus not numbers. Andre (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an essay, not a policy, and is also wrong (as I noted on its talk page). WaltonOne 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean "as I opined on its talk page." --Tony Sidaway 15:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this view:

  1. 'crats should be free to disregard sockpuppets and vandalism. But in order for consensus to change, they should not disregard minority opinions. GRBerry 01:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep. Like I've been saying for a long time now, having the trust of the community is part of what you need to be a good admin. Nobody should get the power to say that I must have certain criteria for trusting people (although truly bad faith reasons should be ignored). -Amarkov moo! 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You read my mind. @pple 16:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ Wikihermit 14:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree, with exceptions for sockpuppetry and inappropriate canvassing, and in extreme cases for misinformation. Consensus isn't about which arguments one person finds more persuasive. — xDanielx T/C 05:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. A case can be made that self-nomination is a good reason to oppose a candidate (one I don't personally subscribe to, but the case is a legitimate argument), and bureaucrats must take it into account. Argyriou (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by After Midnight[edit]

I believe that this is one of the sillier disputes that I have seen here. I do not agree with Kurt's position. However, it is incorrect for anyone to think that his comments are anything other than in good faith. He has an opinion that is different from that of many other editors, but he is consistent about it, does not make personal attacks and it is his right to express it. People need to not be hung up on the notion that an RFA is spoiled by the presence of a few oppose comments, and I doubt that Kurt's sole comment has ever tipped the scales between passing and or not passing an RFA. Frankly, I think that more censure should be made against the many editors who have berated him, called him a troll or a vandal, or accused him of disruption to make a point. In most cases, they are acting far more inappropriately and with greater incivility than he. --After Midnight 0001 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Hiberniantears[edit]

I know I'm not really and outside view, but I decided to ignore all rules for a few minutes. I would also add that I had been here for well over two years when I self-nominated myself. If Kurt had simply told me he thought I was power hungry, I would have disagreed with his thoughts, but respected them. The prima facie part was what irked me the most, as it showed zero informed opinion about how long I had been here, how many edits I had made, how substantive those edits were. There is nothing prima facie about someone who has been here for years, and never saught a position of higher responsibility, until one day deciding they might like a few more tools in order to contribute more widely. I actually oppose the need for this RfC because whether people think I am ready to be a sysop or not, I seriously doubt any logical and informed person could have reasonably concluded I was power hungry. If anything, you could argue that my last RfA failed because I was not power hungry during my two years of being here, otherwise I would have boosted my edit count with a little automation, and spent half my time editing talk pages in a manner which effectively turns Wikipedia into the IMDB discussion board. Voting as Kurt dis was in fact prima facie evidence of ignorance toward my history with this project, and even though my own RfA failed, I can't imagine it had anything to do with Kurt's vote. That said, given the group think ignorance and lack of background research which is quite possibly prevalent amongst the majority of RfA voters as demonstrated in this recent debacle, Kurt's contributions to the discussions are actually the least of our problems. If nothing else, they help demonstrate that this is not a vote, but in fact remains a discussion. Hiberniantears 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view from Cool Blue[edit]

Per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CRAT, 'crats make their decisions based on the merit of each entry, not a vote count. It's unlikely that any 'crat will ever take Kurt's entry seriously, and he's not really violating WP:POINT. I mean, if entering a bold entry at an RfA is really a violation of WP:POINT, then we're all in trouble. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view from Neranei[edit]

I don't think anyone should be blocked for having an opinion, even for expressing an opinion that some/a lot of people may disagree with. He was being bold, and simply expressing what he felt about self-noms. He is not disrupting anything on Wikipedia, and users who do not disrupt should not be blocked. That said, I would presume that a sensible 'crat would not take his opinions into account when determining consensus(as Andrevan said), as his comments did not conform to the community's general standards of how RfA comments should be done, but he should not be punished. And, I echo what Cool Blue said: "If entering a bold entry at an RfA is a violation of WP:POINT, then we're all in trouble." (This is my first RfC, so I'm sorry if I did something wrong.) Neranei (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Newyorkbrad[edit]

I take a more serious view of Kmweber's conduct than do the other outside views. I don't advocate blocking him, and I'm not going to precipitate an edit-war by striking one of his ill-reasoned oppose !votes, but I consider what he has been doing on RfA to be disruptive, and his phrasing to be offensive, and I think he should cut it out. Newyorkbrad 03:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Melsaran (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC) The only thing he will accomplish by wasting his time to oppose every self-nom is annoying others. He knows that his !vote is discounted anyway. Yes, he should not be blocked for it, but the only thing he's doing is disrupting RfAs. If he thinks that self-noms shouldn't be allowed (I don't see why not, but that's another issue), then he should discuss it on WT:RFA, not oppose every self-nom.[reply]

Quick Point J-stan would like to point out, though it might not be in the right place. He wouldn't know. It's his first RFC[edit]

I suggest taking a look at his RfA. A self-nom, no less. Not one support vote, because the community saw a desire for power, saying he wanted to push his own agenda. Power hunger. J-stan TalkContribs 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Retracted, per request of KMweber. J-stan TalkContribs 16:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by the_undertow[edit]

My RfA is listed as one of the incidents of disruptive behavior. I don't really want to be here, so I consider it an outside view. Kurt's was the only oppose on my RfA. First, making a point, and disrupting wikipedia to make your point are as different as notability and the assertion of notability. His vote was not disruptive. He was correct - I was a self-nom. If he tags 17 articles on AfD that do not satisfy WP:BAND and they are in fact articles that do not satisfy WP:BAND then is his omnipresence disruptive? Absolutely not. Did his vote piss me off? Yup. So does hunting and so does NAMBLA, but I'm over it. In fact, I think that Nick's block was more pointy than any comment Kurt has made at RfA. I'm urging Nick to unblock the user and I anticipate the RfC that takes Kurt off the chopping block and puts Nick's administrative actions on it. the_undertow talk 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorses:

  1. Thank you for being reasonable. An opposed RFA doesn't really hurt anyone. Many disagree with his reasons for opposing; so be it. Friday (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by TwoOars[edit]

I pretty much agree with Newyorkbrad above that a block is unwarranted, but I believe K Weber is actively disrupting RfA and also causing a lot of unseen harm in the process. While till now, no RfA has hinged on Kurt Weber's opposes alone, letting his template-opposes be would give the wrong impression: that it is ok with giving ill-reasoned opposes. And this would undermine the intent of RfA - that each nomination should be throughly reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This may not seem like such a big deal to old-timers and RfA regulars (all those who comment on this page, for eg.) but I believe it would be a bad influence on new users who continually stumble into RfA. A new user or someone who hasn't ever seen RfA comes across the absurd oppose unquestioned; what if the user thinks it is okay to come up with another absurd ill-reasoned oppose and be confident that he/she won't be questioned about it? (Just like we stopped questioning Kurt Weber's opposes on the RfAs for a while because everyone was so tired of it. And most new users would not go through the back alleys like BN or AN or WT:RFA or the archives to see real discussions and get a good idea about RfAs). I think the solution is to prevent K Weber from commenting on RfA with his template-opposes, any user summarily removing them if necessary. Let's not just think about ourselves. Wikipedia, and therefore RfA, are dynamic, with a user turnover. New users pick up cues from older ones. If the old users can not be reasonable (and everyone agrees that Kurt Weber is unreasonable; the disagreement on this page is just about whether such behaviour is a real problem), we can not expect new users to be so. The saving grace is, K Weber's oppose reason is so obviously absurd that most people would recognize it as such. Other arguments, say, edit count based arguments, are much more insidious. So anyway, I'd say unblock given that he already said he won't do it any more, but any user should be able to remove his "prima facie... power hunger" comment from RfAs on sight. - TwoOars (Rev) 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have a First Amendment, but it's often said that the solution to wrong-headed speech isn't forced silence, but more speech. It is ok to give ill-reasoned opposes, or supports -- it happens all the time, and I don't want us to be in the business of deciding when an opinion has enough reason behind it to be allowed. If it's well-reasoned, it will impact others and ultimately the result. If it's not well-reasoned...it won't. Besides, if users are going to go through the trouble of removing his comments, isn't it easier just to note after them that "Kurt always votes this way, but pretty much no one else agrees with this view."? --TheOtherBob 15:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is easier, except that such methods have devolved into "leave him be", "no, don't leave him be", "let's block him", "no absolutely not"... all pointless and disruptive IMO. "If it's not well-reasoned...it won't" - True, for you and me, and probably every RfA regular. But not so when we have new users joining in every day, including a good proportion of very young and/or immature users. - TwoOars (Rev) 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another outside view by Friday, after Kmweber was indef blocked[edit]

Sorry to be so wordy on this issue, but I have a strong opinion here. Z-man and Mercury both told Kmweber to cut it out, with Mercury going so far as to threaten a block. I pointed out that this had all been discussed before, and that a block was unwarranted. A few minutes later, Kmweber was indefinitely blocked by User:Nick who left a message citing only vague "disruption" as the cause. I repeatedly asked for diffs of this diruption; none were supplied. Nick also gave a completely inadequate explanation of the block on AN. Several users continued to argue fervently in favor of the block. It is not normal (nor reasonable, in my view) for an indef block to come out of the blue for behavior that had already been discussed at RFC and found generally not disruptive. Nick, Zman, Mercury- had you guys read the RFC? Had you discussed the drastic measure of an indef block somewhere? You all seemed strangely in agreement, all at once, on an issue that had been discussed months before and then wasn't generally considered an ongoing problem. Were people getting more and more annoyed by the RFA behavior but not bothering to use normal channels of dispute resolution? It looks to me like something weird happened here. I want to know what it was, so we can make it not happen again. Friday (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can, and appears to have changed. There's no longer widespread consensus that what Kurt was doing is acceptable. One user has taken Kurt to the arbitration committee, users are expressing an opinion that his behaviour is disruptive at the Arbitration Request page, users actively supported my block, users asked Kurt to cease making these comments.
I'm also deeply hurt by the completely biased commentary Friday paints here, a blocking administrator doesn't need to post a wordy, verbose explanation at WP:AN, indeed, they don't need to post anything beyond the block reason whilst performing the block, I wentg way beyond the minimum requirements and get accused of providing "completely inadequate" commentary, something contrary to what Friday was saying on my talk page last night, when she described my posting to WP:AN as "I think you're being perfectly reasonable here, thanks for the discussion." - indeed, I'm a bit annoyed these views are being made hidden away on this RfC and were not raised on my talk page. This post by Friday appears to be a complete about turn by Friday, for whatever reason.
Finally, I am disappointed that Friday unblocked the user without leaving a message on my talk page, it seems to have been done very quietly and I only learned through looking at the WP:AN thread earlier. Nick 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of turning this into a discussion, I disagree. I don't see evidence of any change in consensus. This RFC, WP:AN, and the ArbCom postings seem to be in accord with the original consensus. Individual users (some of whom hold mops) disagree with that consensus, but that's hardly surprising. As to overturning the block, it was done after much discussion, which I think we all assumed Nick was a part of (or at least aware of). Yeah, Friday should have left Nick a note as well, just to be sure -- but I don't think we need to make wiki-drama out of it. Live and let...umm...whatever. --TheOtherBob 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it would have been better if I'd mentioned it on your talk page also. Sorry about that. I did mention it on the thread on AN- I didn't have the remotest intention of hiding anything. By that time many other people were saying an unblock was best. And yeah, I'm taking a different perspective here than I did last night. I've had more time to think about it, and as an outside view, my purpose here is to be persuasive. I still maintain that you were being reasonable in our discussion last night. But, I don't think the original block was very reasonable - it was problematic for the reasons I mention above. I'm still troubled by this whole episode and don't know why it happened. Friday (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view on the whole RfA comment thing is that I'm disappointed I felt I needed to take any action at all, we're supposed to be a community and people have asked Kurt to stop before, some people have said they were upset at the assumption of bad faith shown, others feel the comments amount to disruption. If I was doing something and someone said "that's pissed me off" let alone "that's disruptive" then I would stop. I'm disappointed that Kurt has gone through an RfC and is using the consensus at RfC to continue making comments which anger people, even if consensus says they are not disruptive, they are comments which I don't think are helpful in a project where we all need to get along. I don't want to see Kurt blocked for ever and ever, which is why I didn't try and open a community ban, I was quite clear that the block could be overturned at anytime and I was fully aware someone would (so I'm not at all unhappy at the unblock, just a tad annoyed at having to find out from the WP:AN discussion). All I want to see come out of this is Kurt to say, "well, it appears some people are upset at my comments, others think they're disruptive, I disagree, but I'll cut it out, I'll find a better way to make my point, I'll provide better evidence for the point I'm trying to make". Nick 09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, you wanted Kurt to discuss it.. and your way of accomplishing this was to indef block rather than, say, opening a dialogue? I don't understand that at all. Did you know that there was already an RFC on this exact issue? Did that not seem like a reasonable place to raise your concerns? I still can't figure out what happened here. Our standard of acceptable behavior cannot be "you must stop doing something if people complain about it." It won't work - people complain of legitimate deletions all the time. You have to make a reasonable case for disruption- you can't just say "this is trolling because I say it is." I am disturbed because to me this looks a case of "I'm going to invoke Jimbo, make a bunch of emotional handwaving arguments, and do an indefinite block while providing no evidence of disruption". And it almost fucking worked. Some people bought the emotional arguments and cried "Burn him!" without, apparently, reviewing the case at all. This is very, very wrong and must never happen again. I'm in favor of not tolerating trolls. But you can't go around labeling someone a troll simply because they irritate you. Working on Wikipedia requires working with people who irritate you. We need to use our reason, not our emotions, when evaluating cases of disruption. Friday (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I agree that it can be tough to live and let live when someone's opinion really pisses you off. But when it comes to things like voting, individuals asking someone not to express an opinion because it pisses them off, or blocking them for the opinion...well, you can see the community reaction.
Do I think he should provide more evidence with his comments? Well, his view isn't particularly hard to explain...he thinks self-noms are evidence of wanting power. He thinks (to put words in his mouth, with which he may or may not agree) that we have too many editors who view adminship as a goal or a status rather than a job, and his view (based on significant time here) is that self-nomming is a good indicator of who those editors are. I disagree...but it's a valid viewpoint. More importantly, I don't want to go down the road of saying that if you oppose an RFA you have to provide some "sufficient" level of reasoning or risk being accused of assuming bad faith or being blocked.--TheOtherBob 14:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notice[edit]

I know this is unorthodox, but I figured I'd better do something just so people don't skip over it. I have (finally) posted something in the "Response" section above. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Record of arbitration request[edit]

This may be unorthodox, but I think it is worth recording here a permanent link to the comments at the (now rejected) arbitration request. See here for the statements and arbitrators opinion on hearing the case, at the time the case was rejected (4/5/0). It is safe to say that the situation has been handed back to the community to deal with for the foreseeable future. I've invited people to continue the discussion on the RfC talk page. Carcharoth 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorftrottel's opinion[edit]

I don't think Kmweber should be blocked over this issue, but: I think the problem is where some regard his comments as meta-comments rather than actual input to any specific RfA. I know I do. The opinion/argument that users who self-nominate are generally power-hungry is not one about any individual user who self-nominates. It's an argument/opinion about RfA/adminship in general. That's why I think his opinion is actually not one about any individual user or his/her qualification for adminship. I therefore think the point (lower case, not blue!) he's trying to make is simply at the wrong place in any individual RfA discussion. And since it provides no actual input whatsoever, any, even the slightest, disruption it causes means a net loss. — Dorftrottel⁠ 12:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who share this opinion:

  • nobody but me

Discussion[edit]

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber&oldid=1144565944"