Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 17 December 2009

FYI

The fact that you are back has generated an ANI thread. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurt_Weber.--Doug. 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification...I don't plan on responding. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong, then or now, anything I say at this point--whatever it is--will just be latched on to by one side or another and make a mess. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

I have taken the liberty of editing your user page, since what it said is now out of date. If you don't like my change just revert it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your questions page

Sorry for cluttering up your questions page. I wouldn't ordinarily engage in such a lengthy discussion on a non-discussion candidacy page, but I don't anticipate many questions being directed at a candidate whose sole platform is "Dissolve the committee", so it probably won't be too much of a bother :-). In any case, if you'd like to remove the discussion, or transfer it to the talk page, please do so. For what it's worth, good luck with your candidacy. AGK 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem...I'd rather people ask for explanation and clarification then go around spreading misinterpretations and presumptions.

Also, I ran on essentially the same platform last year, and that still didn't prevent people from asking a shitton of questions--most of which were totally irrelevant to my candidacy precisely because they presumed that I'd actually be doing something substantial on the committee (and when I tried to remove them for that reason--they were not relevant to my candidacy and just cluttered up the page, you may remember it caused a bit of a ruckus). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your candidacy

Please review this discussion which surrounded and coincided with your apparent retirement last December. Since returning last month you made exactly ten edits before nominating yourself for the Arbitration Committee again. Considering that your candidacy last year received the lowest percentage support of any ArbCom candidacy in site history and that you were nearly sitebanned in its aftermath (your own retirement truncated the discussion), please explain upon what basis you expect to be taken seriously at this juncture. The above circumstances, combined with your pledge to reject every case request, are indicative of disruption rather than serious engagement.

You may be able to impress by doing as requested last year: raising an article to at least C-class and/or writing one new article that runs at DYK. If you express an interest in either option and take steps toward pursuing those goals, and/or bring forward an acceptable alternate demonstration of seriousness as a candidate and an editor, then fine. Otherwise please reconsider your course of action: it would, overall, be better if you waited another year and rebuilt the community's trust in your intentions and track record. Durova 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you've probably come here to take a look at this after seeing that I've made edits since you posted it (that's how I usually decide when to check someone else's talk page for a response to something I've posted). I want you know that I'm not ignoring it; I'm just giving myself some time so I can post a response that's not over-laden with emotional reactions. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a day enough time? Durova 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Two days? Durova 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been nearly four days now. Under normal circumstances the delay wouldn't be a problem, but this is relevant to the election. You have resumed answering candidacy questions elsewhere. Is there a reason for the continued delay here? Durova 19:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Kmweber 3. Durova 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Kurt

I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage as part of the WikiVoices project, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kurt; please note that the General Questions are ready for transclusion. It's the template. Tony (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ping! - hope you're good, just checking in :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Kurt, thought you should know that there is another proposal to ban you going on at WP:ANI presently. The proposer must have forgotten to invite you. Kevin (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's closed resolved and collapsed. Durova 06:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC closed

I removed the Kmwebber RFC from the main RFC page as it failed to get the requisite two certifiers. I will ask that it be deleted after I have verified that neither you nor Durova wish to retain a copy for your records. If you would like a copy, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you moving the RFC in your userspace (noindex, please). Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worthy, I endorse Hipocrite's closure and proposal to delete it (yes, I am in support of deleting something...). Sincerely, --A Nobody 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful

This is indication that you haven't grown up. If you don't grow up soon, you may face another ban proposal. Sceptre 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Even granting your premise, it's not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're doing the same things that almost got you banned. If you continue to do it, it won't be a big surprise. Sceptre 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. To the extent I was ever "almost banned," making perfectly legitimate contributions to deletion discussions had nothing to do with it, as several people went to great pains to make clear. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be using a different definition of "legitimate" to me, then. One that would include the Zimbabwean election last year. Sceptre 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That it's reasoning you disagree with, or even reasoning that you may (I believe incorrectly) think has absolutely no basis whatsoever, does not make it illegitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares that kurt has idiosyncratic views about deletion, sceptre. This is the lamest possible reason to bother kurt. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still disruption, Protonk. And I'm not letting him get away with it. Sceptre 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's really not. For it to be disruption, I would have to actually be disrupting something--that is, creating a mess that someone else has to clean up. Simply expressing a valid and legitimate opinion at a place where such opinions are relevant is nothing of the sort.

If I were to actually go ahead and undelete the article if it were deleted, and keep undeleting it (assuming I had the ability to do so, which of course I don't), then yes, that would be disruption. This isn't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not going to go over well, but you, Sceptre, need to step back and let someone else be concerned about this. If someone else sees it as disruption, then we can proceed. But I don't, so long as it is piecemeal and not aggravated (i.e. he doesn't copy/paste responses or bother other voters ad nauseum), it isn't a problem. Kurt, I will say you are doing this at your peril. The easiest way to get blocked again is to fuck around on project space. Protonk (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. --Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights From User:Sceptre ... how about you stop harassing other users for their opinions before I print your user page out, tape it to a clue-by-four, and beat you with it? --John Moser (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre's way wrong, but that's...excessive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Kurt's right to free speech. The problem is, Kurt has a tendency to shout fire in a crowded theater a lot. Sceptre 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)How about everyone calms down before this gets much worse than it really should be? Sceptre you're overreacting, Kurt you're certainly teetering on the edge. But there was no disruption and no need for this. Calm down and walk away guys, please. Rgoodermote  00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Free advice from out of left field, worth every penny

Hi Kurt, You certainly have a unique ability to bring out the worst in others! Once you've antagonized enough people, your very existence will annoy them, even if you're behaving appropriately. As someone who is reasonably supportive of your right to politely give your opinion in RFA's, and who thinks you are not trolling but giving your honest opinion, I still can predict, and understand, what will now happen if you oppose any RFA, for any reason whatsoever. Based partly on the unfair but true fact that people dislike repeatedly hearing minority opinions; and based partly on the fact that you have disrupted things in the past (intentionally or not), and it is not unreasonable that some people assume you're still doing it. You're a smart guy, you can see this too, surely?

So the question is, at this point, being unable to change the past, what is your goal here?

• Martyrdom? If so, then well done.
• To simply register your vote? It's been made pretty clear that most, if not all, Crats will completely discount your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment was split from the whole comment by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs), signed below at 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Simply because it's me, or only for certain reasons? In either case, they've no right to; and the first case is clearly inappropriate even if one grants the premise that they are entitled, in the abstract, to disregard votes, and in the second case I'm opposing based on a candidate-specific rationale that I've never used before, so how can we know how it will be dealt with? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying it is or isn't fair; in fact, I could certainly be wrong (it's happened before). But I suspect at this point it's because it's you; you've managed to gain a near-universal reputation as an RFA troll. I don't "know" how it will be dealt with, just have a strong suspicion. Plus, are you absolutely sure you've never used that rationale before? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• To "speak truth to power"? Well then, carry on, I suppose; but sooner or later a movement to drum you out of RFA will succeed, fair or not.
• To try to convince others (which, IMHO, should be the purpose of a discussion) of the correctness of your opinion? Then, were I you, I would simply not oppose at RFA anymore. Not because you don't have a right to, but because it is counterproductive. If you have a point you'd like to make, do it in the discussion section, rather than the oppose section, and call it a concern, rather than a reason to oppose. That will have as much effect on the final "tally" as an oppose from you would; should get most (probably not all) of the instinctive adversaries off your back; and actually give your comments more chance of being read, understood, and (who knows) maybe eventually agreed with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • RFA is a discussion as well as a vote. Discussion can certainly take place on the votes themselves, and if they convince me my concerns are off-base I can retract my vote, whereas if I'm not convinced then my concern (and therefore opposition) will be registered in the proper place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, I understand how RFA is supposed to work. I'm saying that for you, it's gone all pear shaped, and isn't actually working that way. I thought you might like to consider one option I thought of. If you're happy with how things are working, I'm certainly not going to be the one to tell you to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns

Hi Kurt, I share your concerns about ArbCom. My arguments:

• It's a non-community-created body elected by the community but structured by Jimbo himself.
• It has powers over arguably 2 of the most dangerous (in the wrong hands) user rights in Checkuser and Oversight, with nominations and elections largely controlled by ArbCom themselves.
• It is far too easy nowadays for people to pull out the "Go to ArbCom" card as though ArbCom is the end of all ends.
• Its backdoor discussions are secret and ArbCom in the past has moved with its own prerogative, endorsed implicitly by Jimbo but occasionally splitting or antagonising the community.
• Several arbitrators themselves have been controversial in the past and present.
• ArbCom can formally (not technically) desysop users, but who can de-ArbCom arbitrators? Either they step down or Jimmy steps in - where is the community here?

There is something very Esperanza-ish about ArbCom's current structure, commanding a disturbing amount of legitimacy for something seemingly out of sync with the community.

Best, 146.169.51.61 (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sig

Slapped the old unsigned thing here for you Kurt, but if you've got a mo you may want to remove it and add the tildes. Just a courtesy note. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump

So, I'm wondering what premise of mine did you think was "way off base"? They can all be backed up with actual proof so I really dont care what you "think" is wrong with what I said; that's between you and your misconceptions of reality; I'm just curious what it is that you could possibly have a misconception about since high school civics class should have taught anyone enough to realize what I said was true.Camelbinky (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Kmweber! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Userpage notice

Im not watching every edit you make or anything, but your userpage is on my watchlist, and I saw the red letter notice you put up. On some web browsers, it renders such that the two lines overlap. I would suggest adding <span style="line-height: 44px">...</span> to the code to fix this problem. You can either put it inside the <font> tags or incorporate the info in those tags into the span tag as well. -- Soap /_{Contributions} 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What he said, it's annoying. Also, so what? Seriously, other than for your own personal satisfaction, what does it matter exactly whether you "accept" the results or not? ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In Kurt's defense, people often put things on their userpage that are of interest only to themselves. Steve Smith (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt appears to enjoy an abundance of helpful watchers over his userspace. Perhaps it would be better if people did something else besides worry about spacing of red text or claims about this and that. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not worried. However I am curious, which is why I asked the question. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm mostly wondering about what, exactly, would suffice for Kurt's acceptance. He states clearly that he will not accept the result of a secret ballot, and he did not accept the result of a public ballot; there aren't very many alternatives. Perhaps he would accept a ballot that is held in quantum entanglement, remaining both probabilistically open and secret until and unless an observation causes the wavefunction to collapse? — Coren  15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A publicly-viewable ballot is necessary, but not sufficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

There may or may not be a consensus to resume tolerating your "prima facie evidence of power hunger" opposes on RfA, but I find that an initially unexplained !vote of "strongest possible oppose" based on nothing more than this rationale is intentionally disruptive. If you continue in this vein, I will take appropriate action including but not limited to striking out votes that are plainly trollish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No one's trolling anything. A self-nom does indeed make me oppose as strongly as possible. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it trolling. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity Kurt, what are your concerns about RFA candidates having power hunger, and what do you think of nominated candidates on their second RFA whose previous run was a self nom? ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Before all the drama starts, this has been discussed a few times before. I suggest that if folks want to say anything, it would be useful for all concerned to see if it's been said before and what the response was.  Frank  |  talk  16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fully familiar with the prior discussions. The "strongest possible oppose" nonsense raises Kmweber's RfA participation to a new level of absurdity and harassment of the candidates. Kmweber's recent XfD participation with consistent comments of "it/he exists, nothing else matters" is also grossly trollish. If this sort of behavior continues I intend to block this account indefinitely for persistent disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)