Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Killervogel5

Killervogel5's edit stats using "wannabe Kate" tool as of 18:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC):[reply]

{{{2|}}}

Discussion of Kurt's oppose. Further off-topic comments go here, further on-topic comments go on project page

Oppose: claims to "take rules seriously," which is a major problem and indicates a total misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. We don't have rules; we have our own judgment as to what is best in any given situation, possibly guided by precedent but ultimately deciding based on the situation at hand. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You poor, misguided soul. Tan | 39 20:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't mean to be antagonistic, and haven't been around RfA enough to know exactly how the process works, but I fail to see how my penchant for taking rules seriously means that I misunderstand the purpose of this project. Policies and guidelines (otherwise known as WP:RULES) are meant to be followed, and, while subject to change and open for interpretation at times, are a valuable part of making sure that we have structure instead of anarchy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it--they're most certainly not meant to be followed. We have "best practices," but they're certainly not binding. I realize the terms "policies" and "guidelines" may be misleading, but those of us who have been around much longer than you have (not intended as an insult or condescension, just a statement of fact) realize that right from the get-go the so-called "policies" were merely a description of what has typically been done in certain situations in the past, without actually ever being binding on anyone in the present or future. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take nothing Kurt says seriously. He's Wikipedia's biggest joke. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KV5, there have been issues with Kurt's behavior on RFAs in the past (see here and here). You might want to take his comments with a grain (or mountain) of salt. Killiondude (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not have this RFA turn into a Kurt-bashing session? Just ignore him.--Atlan (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh..hello, comment of content You dont have to go out and attack this guy.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was banned from RfA (not that I think he should be). Keepscases (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is, and I'm sure someone will take this to ANI. Also, to my fellow Wikipedians above, how about you treat Kurt with a modicum of respect. Thanks. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming off-topic, let's stop with the Kurt bashing, this isn't the place. Secret ^account 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on the original concern: having interacted many times with KV5 at WP:FLC, I can tell you with certainty that he knows when to apply the rules and when to use common sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it--"knows when to apply the rules" implies that there are rules to be applied in the first place, which there most certainly aren't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is highly off-topic. Would anyone object to moving it to the talkpage? Robofish (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how, seeing as we're discussing my oppose based on the nominating statement. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) You say there are no rules? Go replace George W. Bush or Barack Obama with "is a big poopy face." And see what happens. Or if you nominate a list at FLC (as Dabomb mentioned) that doesn't meet the criteria and see if it passes. You may take issue with calling them rules as opposed to policies or whatever, but that's a pretty thin cause for an oppose in my opinion. Do you doubt KV5 would properly apply the [Whatever you want to call them]? Because if you don't then your issue is one of semantics, not adminship. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it! Let's see what happens. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wonderful, you provided a textbook example of what WP:POINT addresses. Please do not vandalize high-traffic articles in order to "win" an eArgument, it is highly disruptive. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. To put it simply, you just killed the legitimacy of your argument by doing something that stupid. JamieS93 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who reverted the edit I can tell you what happened when Crotchety Old Man vandalised the article. The blocking form was immediately opened for indefinite blocking without warning. It's still open. Having read this discussion I'm still not sure what point was being tested. The rules would probably suggest issuing some warnings, but any rules would have taken second place. Kurt appears to have been proven right by this highly disruptive point. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, that was a rhetorical statement. I wasn't actually saying go vandalize anything.... Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you tell me. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that might have come up ASAP since the Obama article is on community mandated restrictions where any action might result in any kind of administrator action without any warning, notice or discussion? Otherwise and indef without warning is, um, well. Not so good, unless anyone wants to run on the grounds of deliberate disruption that harmed the community. That being why the imposed restrictions were put up in the first place, I assume. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from all other concerns regarding the oppose, Kurt is factually incorrect in his statement. WP:Five pillars states, as its final "pillar", "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here." That means that those 5 pillars are "firm rules". True, everything else is either a policy or guideline, but those founding principles are explicitly being declared as firm rules. -- Atama頭 17:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as something is not looked at as a 100% absolute this is quite moot. It's kind of like if a user says "ban" at ANI when it's a block sought, but we know what's going on. There's a reason all our templates and pages are written as they are to make it the de facto words to use to "P&G". That doesn't make it wrong/harmful to have "rules" coughed out sometimes, accidentally or deliberately. Most of this all is a matter of semantics since I seriously doubt anyone here has a particularly different application of any of it, regardless of what they happen to call it. Even if something is for all intents and purposes a rule, we mostly say "policy" or "guidelines" in, even if it's just because we don't want new users to see things set in stone and have them start speaking righteously on their defining firm rules. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]