Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Kmweber

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Kmweber or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * Example: I am supporting this candidate because I feel they have the necessary qualifications for the position. Examplevoter, 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, no, a hundred times no. He broke the record for the most Opposes for anyone or any issue last year for a reason, quite aside from that he's no longer an active editor.    RGTraynor  14:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have voted to Oppose this candidate and many other candidates due to significant involvement in drama on the Wikipedia project. Whether or not I agree with the candidate's stances in such conflicts is negligible. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that could potentially devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members. Vodello (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this candidate in his endeavour. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not a serious candidate. SilkTork  *YES! 16:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Kurt's behaviour seems to incense certain people to irrationality and behaviour which is far worse; I think as a community we have treated him shabbily. His legendary RFA opposes pissed an amazing number of people off but helped bring out issues the community needed to think about (power hunger, importance of age/maturity, too many like-minded administrators). However, I fundamentally disagree with his platform - that Arbcom is not legitimate - and his proposed plan of action were he elected would be disruptive. Martinp (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. -- Simple Paradox   19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. While I abstained from his previous campaign, the various and sundry idiocies of the 2009 ArbCom (coupled with the somewhat creepy, almost cult-like aura around many of its more controversial announcements - shades of Esskay's Talk page) have made what may well boil down to a simple protest vote much more appealling in my eye. Badger Drink (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I opposed Kurt, because his idea of how to help things get better, is ass backwards. --Coffee // have a cup  // ark  // 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose twist it, shade it, spin it however you want, this is a soapbox. Alas, the message is tuned out even as he writes it. There are better ways to achieve your ends than nasty venting. King Pickle (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are ye mad, man?GJC 01:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose troll who should be banned from the project. Secret account 19:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per a recent comment at an RFA. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose like last year, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)