Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
User:Kmweber is repeatedly using a copy-and-pasted oppose comment ('I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger') on all self-nominated RfAs. The user has been asked many times to cease, however the user continues to post the same old comment. A Request for Arbitration filed in November was declined on the basis that it could be referred back to the community for discussion. The previous RfC was at a standstill. The user states that his actions are not insulting because the comment is blanket, not individual.

Desired outcome
I (User:Auroranorth) would like to see User:Kmweber cease his RfA comments which are not personal and give no helpful advice. The RfAs all say 'please keep discussion constructive' and Kmweber's comments are definitely not constructive and offer no helpful advice whatsoever. Auroranorth (!) 09:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Description
User:Kmweber is repeatedly using a copy-and-pasted oppose comment ('I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger') on all self-nominated RfAs. The user has been asked many times to cease, however the user continues to post the same old comment. A Request for Arbitration filed in November was declined on the basis that it could be referred back to the community for discussion. The previous RfC was at a standstill. The user states that his actions are not insulting because the comment is blanket, not individual.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Here is a list of diffs where Kmweber has declined a support vote on the basis that it is a 'self-nom': ... There are many more, but listing them all would be a waste of space.
 * Kmweber makes a personal attack against young administrators.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Neutral point of view

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * I discussed the matter with Kurt yesterday but we did not come to any resolution. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioned on his talk page, commented in both ANI threads, made a statement in the RFAR. Mr.  Z- man  16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dustihowe (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Secret account 00:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Response
''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.'' ''

{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
''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.}

Outside view by Neil
A very recent RFC showed the community as a whole accepted Kurt has the right to oppose RFAs in the way he does. Making a point is not the same as making a WP:POINT, which requires disruption. Upsetting a few sensitive souls who disagree with his reasons for opposition of RFAs is not disruptive. Kurt's reasoning for opposal is no more or less specious than those that require a certain percentage of editing in certain namespaces. The only reason his RFA activity causes disruption is the responses of a small but very vocal minority of editors. I think the only reason Kurt is continuing to be harassed is that he has shown himself to be a considerate and thoughtful chap who sticks to his principles despite a lynch mob running around block-shopping on various forums to every few weeks. I should also note Kurt has made a very real effort to improve his RFA reasonings - it is unfortunate that the editors who have decided he is the devil have not similarly improved their behaviour. Neıl ☎  13:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Neıl  ☎  14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Jeffpw (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Videmus Omnia  Talk  13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Carcharoth (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Sluzzelin  talk  13:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Od Mishehu 14:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Catchpole (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) This dispute is as silly now as it was when the first RFC was filed on this exact same topic. Friday (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) []. I think I need to say bluntly, the users bringing this up here are the ones being disruptive. There was a clear consensus against this based on the last couple of days. I dissent at least somewhat insofar as I'm not going to call this harassment against a user at this time.Epthorn (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Once more, thoughtcrime is not against Wikipedia policy. Kurts opinion can serve as a useful reminder even when most of us don't agree that the condition is by itself sufficient reason for opposition.  The disruption, if any, comes from those who don't like what Kurt is doing, not from Kurt.  If we need to sanction disruption, don't start with Kurt, start with those who fly off the handle and run around creating a tempest in a teapot for no good reason.  GRBerry 15:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) I was going to add an outside view but this pretty much says it all. The real source of disruption here are the people huffing and puffing and being uncivil in reaction to these comments (which are ignored and have no effect on whichever RFA they appear on). Kurt is an editor in good standing, and people should stop bullying him (and find something better to do). RxS (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Disagree with Friday: this dispute is not as silly now as when first filed, it's a whole lot sillier. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) A lot of fuss about very little. RMHED (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Add that being an admin and being a "sensitive soul" is not very compatible. You've got to be able to deal with some very heated and upset people, and do it at least reasonably nicely. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Kbdank71 (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Kmweber thinks that candidates who self-nominate are not suited to be admin. I think editors who make a fuzz about that are not suited to be admin. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Wily D  18:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) -Dureo (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) In general, users should be able to support or oppose RFAs using whatever criteria they see fit. JavaTenor (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22)  henrik  • talk  19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Davewild (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Well I'm a "sensitive soul" believe it or not. I think Kurt's opposes are silly. However, he is doing it in a civil manner that is not disruptive & can easily be ignored. -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) I don't see any reason he can't voice whatever opinion he chooses in RfAs. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Having an unpopular opinion is not disruption. --JayHenry (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Haemo (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Jeeze - users who can't deal with principled opposition without getting mad and trying to get the commenter drummed out don't deserve the bit anyway. If you don't agree with Kurt's votes just ignore them. Spartaz Humbug! 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Is he back? (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Get over it. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) If people just ignored this stuff there would be no disruption. Besides i see no good reason not to listen to his opinion, this is not so far out there that his point is unjustified. David D. (Talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Voicing one's opinion in elections often results in tension.  However, unless we have a completely confidential vote, there will always be tension ("Why didn't you vote for me?!")  He is, however, allowed to voice his opinion. Mindraker (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) --TheOtherBob 20:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) It's annoying, and mostly pointless, but he's not breaking policy or being disruptive, IMO.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) His actions at these RfAs are silly and a waste of time, but he is perfectly entitled to voice his opinion. As others have stated, this is absolutely no different than those editors who flatly refuse to support someone with less than n edits. Besides, I really don't see what the fuss is about - the 'crat who closes these RfAs are undoubtedly familiar with kmweber and will give his arguments the consideration they deserve.  faithless   (speak)  21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) His oppose at RFA is really rather ridiculous, but the bureaucrats can always ignore it. Disruption is not, in this respect, caused by Kurt, but by those who are being such massive drama-llamas about all this. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) --Cube lurker (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Videmus Omnia
This is my first exposure to this issue, and I'm frankly surprised this has been brought to an RfC, especially when it has been discussed by the community before. Kurt is entitled to his own opinion on the qualities he finds desirable in a good administrator. Others are free to consider or disregard his opinion, including the 'crats who close the RfA nominations. And criticizing an admin, if done in a civil manner, is not a personal attack. Also, I don't understand why WP:NPOV has been listed as an applicable policy for admin nominations - if it did apply, everyone would have to vote "neutral".

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Videmus Omnia  Talk  13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Jeffpw (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sluzzelin  talk  13:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Neıl  ☎  14:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Catchpole (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Friday (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Not my first exposure, but otherwise I agree.  GRBerry 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) RMHED (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Kbdank71 (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) -Dureo (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14)  JavaTenor (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Davewild (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) I have no clue what NPOV has to do with this.  I'm actually curious to see a justification of that. --JayHenry (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Epthorn (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Spartaz Humbug! 09:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Agree. Kurt can oppose for whatever reason he wants. As Neil said, this is no different from people opposing over obscure things like namespace balance. Is he back? (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) David D. (Talk) 14:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23)  Lara  ❤  Love  15:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) --Cube lurker (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) I like the "Outside view by Neil" howeve the "Outside view by Videmus Omnia" hits the nail on the head. "Kurt is entitled to his own opinion" and vote the way he see fit on RfC.  Look opinions are NOT "fact", and we can not change someone's opinions by clicking on [ edit ]...IF I said in my opinions  "the world is going to end today"...will make it so...NO!....I do not have that Power...That is my opinion--Looktothis (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) -- Midorihana (talk) (contribs)  01:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Black Kite
Personally I believe this RfC is somewhat pointless; everything that needed to be said was posted on WP:ANI yesterday. First of all, Kurt's spamming of self-noms, whilst irritating to many, is not really disruptive - I am sure it is routinely ignored by the closing 'crats, and also by most other editors (I certainly wasn't bothered by the one on my RfA). However I am a little concerned that Kurt's comment on the young editors above was defended as civil - if he had bothered to provide some supporting diffs, for instance, practically no-one would've batted an eyelid - but that comment really did come over as rather petulant and uncivil, completely irrelevant to the RfA in hand, and he should have been asked to justify or strike it.

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1)  BLACK KITE  14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Partial endorse - I do not approve of criticisms based on age, and I feel ANI dealt with the issue already. DuncanHill (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Nick
This RfC is a complete and utter waste of time, much akin to Kurt's comments. People do think Kurt's comments are disruptive but they don't particularly want to see those comments banned at RfA in case they want to leave a similar comment in future. Bureaucrats will give the comments the weight they deserve and I think we will see that when we get to an RfA that would be above 70% without Kurt's comment. There are few people interested in stopping his behavior and it seems the community at large would rather see these "delicate souls" be upset rather then Kurt silenced, which is regrettable, but it's how the community is behaving at the moment. For that reason, I'm not going to endorse this RfC. Nick (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly. tilting isn't helpful or useful, but I think it is clear this is not considered a blockable offense by a fairly large majority of the community.  Let Kurt keep adding RFA opinions and let the bureaucrats keep ignoring said opinions as baseless.--Isotope23 talk 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for writing that essay! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a good one... although sometimes a little tilting can make you feel romantic.Epthorn (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

View by CBM (1)
Wikipedia (and RFA) is a collegial environment in which editors must work together towards consensus. It is not an experiment in democracy nor a forum for free speech. To the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with Kurt at any RFA he has opposed; I only know of him because of the continuing complaints about his comments at self-nominated RFAs. Regardless of the merits of his comments, Kurt is aware that they cause disruption, yet continues to make them. Continuing to make these comments while ignoring the reactions they provoke is inappropriate and will eventually result in sanction of one form or another. If Kurt believes that self-nominations are inappropriate, he can pursue that goal at WT:RFA, as many have pointed out. I encourage Kurt to reconsider his methods and make a voluntary change. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:


 * 1) &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) That's my thoughts on the matter too. Nick (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed. Pointless action with no appreciable result should be reconsidered.--Isotope23 talk 16:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) If something has to be blatantly offensive to almost everyone to be considered disruptive, we're in more trouble than I thought. Mr.  Z- man  16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely. - Chardish (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Agreed. Also, I've always felt that "power hunger" is a personal attack meriting an apology; maybe I'm too PC for my own good. bwowen talk•contribs 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Indeed.  BLACK KITE  20:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9)  J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Endorse, of course :)  Red rocket  boy  00:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) This likely most summarizes my feelings on the matter. SorryGuy Talk  02:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12)  sh  &curren;  y  02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) I dorftrottel I talk I 08:31, December 12, 2007
 * 14) The Islander  11:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Secret account 00:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

View by TheOtherBob
I hate having the same conversation on here over and over and over again. It's not a wikipedian's duty to rehash or continue a debate until all parties are in agreement. The old RFC wasn't at a "standstill" -- it was at a resolution. A resolution with which some disagree, certainly, but at some point you have to put down the stick and walk away from the dead horse. I know that's hard because Kurt's still doing what the community has said he can do. The yelling about Kurt's opinion -- not the opinion itself -- is becoming disruptive. Multiple RFC's, multiple trips to ANI, a request for arbitration... Some seem to hold the view that if they make enough noise about a perfectly acceptable practice, then they can stop the practice just because...well, we're all tired of the wikidrama their protestations are causing. So to the merits of the practice, again? CBM is correct that this is not a democracy, and Nick is correct that the community's acceptance of Kurt's oppose !votes is motivated by the expectation that others may need to oppose a potential admin candidate in the future. Wikipedia is (roughly speaking) a meritocracy, which means that the merits of those who are "promoted" must be examined. The community seems to feel that it is good to oppose certain candidates (as some do need opposing, certainly - some aren't qualified). The community is, I think, therefore very wary of creating any sort of minimum level of "rightness" for an oppose !vote -- or, worse, of creating an atmosphere where people think that !voting support gets you a friendly smile and !voting oppose gets you threatened and possibly banned. And so, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the community seems to have decided that allowing an unpopular, even solitary, view is better than the alternative. Having done so, can we please move on? --TheOtherBob 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:


 * 1) Very well said. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Great summary. Videmus Omnia  Talk  16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sluzzelin  talk  16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) RMHED (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Epthorn (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Kbdank71 (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) -Dureo (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) JavaTenor (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) TomTheHand (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Yep.  We only haven't moved on because a few loud people keep complaining about it.  Friday (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Agreed Davewild (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Kurt who? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Conditional endorsement, iff Kmweber signals his willingness to move on as well. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:30, December 12, 2007
 * 16) Neıl  ☎  09:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Spartaz Humbug! 09:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Very well said. RFA is a discussion, and people must be free to state their opinion frankly, but with civility. Is he back? (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Yep. The constant objections to Kmweber's comments are more of a problem than the actual comments. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) David D. (Talk) 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22)  Lara  ❤  Love  15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) JoshuaZ (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) --Cube lurker (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) -- Midorihana (talk) (contribs)  20:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Chardish
The community has decided that self-nominations are acceptable. Kurt Weber has decided for himself that all self-nominations, without exception, are done in bad faith (ostensibly due to "power hunger"). Rather than challenge the policy (and, by all indications, he hasn't) he has instead decided to express his opinions by repeatedly and monotonously challenging the candidacy of every self-nomination as a bad-faith decision. This is disruptive behavior for a process that attempts to identify the individual merits of editors. Spamming RfAs is not an acceptable means of conveying objections to the RfA process. - Chardish (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) Its been said numerous times that WT:RFA is the correct forum. Mr.  Z- man  16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. Intentionally using the wrong forum is by definition disrupting Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. bwowen talk•contribs 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I dorftrottel I talk I 08:29, December 12, 2007
 * 5) Very well put. The Islander  11:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree, for the most part.  However, if approved as an Admin, the candidate will see, much, much, much2, much3, worse. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

View by CBM (2)
This edit is not a personal attack. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) It's only an opinion. Videmus Omnia  Talk  17:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Carcharoth (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree and the consensus on the previous pages littered with this mess seem to indicate a clear repudiation of that allegation. Epthorn (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) As above. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctant endorse. It's an insult, it's not friendly and it's completely uncalled for. But not an "attack." - Chardish (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Sluzzelin  talk  17:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree that it's an opinion, not an attack.  --Kbdank71 (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Insulting, uncivil, and inappropriate, but not an attack on their person.  Mr.  Z- man  18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Opinion -Dureo (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) He stated his opinion that young editors aren't mature enough to be admins yet, someone thought they'd make him back down by giving examples of young admins, and he stuck to his original point. TomTheHand (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Criticism is allowed.  Friday (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) His opinion, not a personal attack Davewild (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Agreed, and especially per Friday. --TheOtherBob 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) A case could be made about it being unWP:CIVIL, but it's certainly not a personal attack Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Could've been phrased in a more temperate manner, but it's not a PA. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) I wish he had supplied diffs, or some sort of evidence, but no, it does not qualify as a WP:PA. SorryGuy Talk  02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17)  sh  &curren;  y  02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Bad call by Pedro, I might add. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:28, December 12, 2007
 * 19) I now agree that this was not a personal attack, although I still felt it unreasonable and uncivil. But if I might say, Dorfrtottel, a worse call would have been me blocking for it rather than seeking further input at WP:ANI. Pedro : Chat  09:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Spartaz Humbug! 09:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Absolutely not. It was not a personal attack, it was not uncivil (why is it uncivil, but incivility?), and it was entirely appropriate for an RFA discussion. Threatening users with blocks for expressing an opinion we don't agree with is bullying, plain and simple. Neıl  ☎  09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Agreed. A tad rude, yes, but not an attack. The Islander  18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) An opinion, albeit a tired one. RMHED (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) David D. (Talk) 14:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) It's an opinion about performance, not a personal attack.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26)  Lara  ❤  Love  16:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) --Cube lurker (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

View by D.M.N. (Davnel03)
Many of Kurt's edits to RFA have been done to pages that have only had someone self-nominating themselves. At first, some users could take Kurt's opposes as a personal attack. However, I also feel that Kurt is making his decision purely on the basis on whether its a self nom or not. Kurt seems not to base his decision on whether the users a good faith editor or not, whether or not they have been blocked before. The only thing Kurt takes into account into RFA's is whether the candidate has nominated themselves or not. This in a way is a bias opinion. Kurt seemingly doesn't take the time to look at the candidate even if it is a self-nom. I also think that although Kurt's edits are disruptive, if he did provide a seperate reason (eg. user was recently blocked), I would be happy with that. (Note: This RFC links in with this.)  Dav  nel  03   17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:


 * 1) bwowen talk•contribs 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes.  Red rocket  boy  00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. The Islander  11:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Dustihowe (talk)
I feel that he should be able to voice his opinion, but by him only opposing the Self Nom's, its harassment. Even if its a blanketed effect, he is only voting in those Rfa's. It would be different if he were to vote in all Rfa's or just some of the Rfa's. I feel that he is being unfair in what he is doing and he should stop or be blocked.

Users who endore this summary:


 * 1) Dustihowe (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Carcharoth
Will present evidence in the form of diffs later, but I think it is important to note here that Kurt's behaviour, in some respects, has improved since the last RfC (or, as some will say, never needed improving). If others want to provide diffs below of examples of improved behaviour, please do so. Update: Thanks to Sluzzelin for adding those diffs that I hadn't found time to hunt down yet. Just the sort of thing I would have looked for. This is probably enough for now, so maybe I should 'officially' declare this draft view finished and ready for people to endorse! Other diffs (for or against) should be provided in the endorsement comments. Please note that the first three endorsements were made before this update. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Kurt's behaviour since the last RfC
Users who endorse this view:
 * Reasoned oppose at an RfA
 * reasoned oppose (2)
 * reasoned oppose (3)
 * reasoned oppose (4)
 * oppose because of self-nom, but acknowledging candidate's qualities
 * reasoned support
 * another support
 * 1) Hmmm..I agree to an extent. But what if his comments, soon may be seen as acceptable by other new users? &mdash; Rudget Contributions 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Ironically, some seem to think that this is his single worst RfA comment ever... I dorftrottel I talk I 08:34, December 12, 2007
 * 3) Added six more diffs of opposes and supports since the last RFC. A bit reluctant to support this view, because I don't believe that Kmweber's behavior required improvement. Supporting anyway, because it shows that Kmweber doesn't always oppose, doesn't always oppose for the same reason, and doesn't always merely "cut and paste" his reason, though it would be perfectly acceptable for him to do so, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk
 * 4) None of these opinions are the slightest bit problematic and express civil principled consideration of candidates' merits. Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

View by RyanGerbil10
Kurt is an intelligent person, he has surely been made aware of the fact that bureaucrats give his opinion little weight in discussions despite his firm belief in it, meaning that he is most likely aware that he is now only expressing his opinion for the sake of his opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a forum for free speech. We accord our users acceptable, but not unlimited, bounds for expression of personal opinions. However, a user does not have the right to engage in a certain behavior solely because the community is unable to agree whether such a behavior is disruptive or not, or to what degree it is disruptive and how or if sanctions should be applied. It is at best disrespectful to the community to continue to act in a way which causes discord therein for no tangible benefit. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:


 * 1) Eloquent and absolutely correct. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed.  Red rocket  boy  00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. - Chardish (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4)  Mr.  Z- man  01:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely. bwowen talk•contribs 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Very true. sh  &curren;  y  03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Very well put. The Islander  11:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Chardish (2)
The users who oppose Kurt's conduct with regards to spamming the "prima facie" line do not necessarily oppose Kurt's other behavior at RfAs, or Kurt's behavior as an editor, and are not motivated by a personal agenda against Kurt. Opposing Kurt's "prima facie" behavior through channels such as AN/I and RfC does not constitute harassment. Chardish (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) I think everyone is here in good faith. Mr.  Z- man  01:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree strongly.  Red rocket  boy  01:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Ten-four. bwowen talk•contribs 02:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) I assume that users are upset about the issue and not the editor, per se- the only reason it might seem otherwise is because, in this case, the two are closely (completely?) linked. I think that bringing multiple RfCs was/is unwise, however, good faith as it may have been.Epthorn (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Totally. There's no malice here. Pedro : Chat  09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Very strongly agree. It baffles me how people can claim that his edits are in good faith whilst at the same time calling those of us who disapprove disruptive. One set of rules for everyone, please. The Islander 11:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) "Harassment"? Who's talking about "harassment"? I dorftrottel I talk I 13:44, December 12, 2007
 * The word "harassment" currently appears in Neil's opinion. I agreed with the opinion but stated opposition to the harassment part, thinking it won't help to make that charge here.Epthorn (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was asked to clarify this - threatening someone repeatedly constitutes harassment. Kurt has been threatened repeatedly with blocks, RFCs, Arbcom cases, over and over again. This is harassment.  See Harassment. Neıl  ☎
 * "Harassment" is an overused buzzword, shibboleth and strawman all the same, and shouldn't be used if at all avoidable since it only generates heat. I dorftrottel I talk I 22:55, December 13, 2007
 * So by telling a vandal that if they don't stop, they'll be blocked (a threat), and then giving them a last warning (another threat), you're harassing them? No. Threatening to harm someone is harassment. If RFCs and Arbcom cases harm the innocent, then something is wrong with those processes. - Chardish (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The focusing on Kurt is not harassment, but that doesn't make it constructive. Carcharoth (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Carcharoth (2)

 *  A shorter version of Neil's view, I think, but also a bit more negative about Kurt's behaviour. 

There are two dead horses in the room: (1) Kurt's continuing to oppose self-nominations at RfA; and (2) Those arguing that "something must be done about this". Continual beating of the dead horses will not bring them back to life. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) User:The Dead Horse... Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Wily D 14:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree, let's all drop the stick and back slowly away— especially since people on all sides are beginning to abuse harassment as a killer buzzword. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:35, December 12, 2007
 * 4)  Richard  Ω6  12  10:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

View by Mr.Z-man
In the interest of making RFA a useful process to those who succeed and to those who do not, comments made on RFA should either be neutral or constructive. Saying a user is a jerk is not constructive. Rephrasing it and coupling it with examples that show the candidate being uncivil is constructive. However, evidence should be rooted in consensus (standard policy/procedure) or common sense. Saying a user is a chronic edit warrior and then pointing to reversions of vandalism is not constructive as vandalism reverts are not edit warring. Self-nominations are explicitly allowed in the RFA process and, by themselves, are evidence of nothing except that the user is familiar with the RFA process. Mr.  Z- man  01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) RFA is neither the village stocks nor Room 101. sh  &curren;  y  03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Very true. The Islander 11:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree.  Red rocket  boy  16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

View by Random832
If I were to say "I view statements that a comment clearly referring to a specific person is a 'blanket, not individual' comment, and therefore is not insulting - as prima facie evidence of being a dick.", would this be seen as an accusation that someone is a dick? If so, each of Kmweber's votes should be seen as an accusation that someone is power-hungry. Whether saying someone is power-hungry is a personal attack remains to be decided, but we shouldn't pretend he did not say what he said.—Random832 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Nevermind that opposing on the basis of no other evidence of "power-hunger" makes a mockery of the term prima facie anyway. —Random832 14:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

View by WilyD
There are no guidelines or policies covering why you can, should, can't or shouldn't oppose, support or be neutral on an RfA, beyond whether you think the editor in question would be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. An essay exists on the subject (Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions), but its unlikely to every be policy (and explicitly states it isn't intended to be). While the manner of Kurt's phrasing of his opposes may be subject to Civility, the substance of his oppose is neither a personal attack nor incivil, and far more uncivil, absurd and poorly reasoned opposes appear commonly in RfA. This is why bureaucrats have discretion in giving bits to editors. Wily D 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this view:
 * 1) Here here, well spoken me.  My own RfA was opposed on the basis of an opinion I didn't have, the outcome of three AfDs, two of which I had no involvement in, and (x2) my failure to edit war and escalate things further when I got really angry.  Wily D  14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Well said. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Epthorn (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Davewild (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Kurt's "prima facie etc." reasons are wrong-headed, but if he wants to post opposes for that reason, then fine. He'll get ignored, and Wikipedia moves on. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

View by EpThorn
Constant back and forth over this issue has yet to provide a unanimous solution. If and when Kurt's RfA comments provoke a response from a user who is not aware of these discussions, they should gently be guided towards the relevant links so as not to reinvent the wheel, or at least be informed that the topic has already been raised. While all editors should feel free to disagree at RfA, they might find it useful to at least review what has been already thoroughly debated by the community. We should do our best to minimize disruption, rather than allow it to spill over and grow.

To illustrate, the following sequence is unhelpful:

1) Kurt opposes based on self-nom

2) nominated-user questions or argues with Kurt's oppose (optional per CBM's note below)

3) outside user comes to defense of nominated-user

4) outside user comes to defense of Kurt

5) and so on...

If we can manage to slow or stop this sequence at any step we might not end up here again.

Users who endorse this view:


 * 1) Epthorn (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Finally, something we can all agree on.  (I hope.) (I can't agree with many of the views above stating Kurt has done nothing wrong, but CBM's concurrence below gives a better reason for supporting this.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Without a doubt. --TheOtherBob 18:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed. In particular, 'all editors' and 'we' include Kurt, who is equally responsible for minimizing disruption at RFA. Note that when I checked the RFAs Kurt has objected to, step 2 frequently didn't happen. Usually, it's not the candidates who ask, but other random people.  &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 18:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Usually potential (effective) admins have more sense. Epthorn (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) There is life in the horse yet! Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Excellent points. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)   Ravenswing  22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Ravenswing
Well, it does look like this is still open. That being said, look. Yes, Kurt's cut-and-pastes cause disruption. Yes, his history of nominating himself (for admin and for the Board of Trustees) suggests that he's a hypocrite. Yes, the quasi-farce that is RfA ensures that three Support votes are necessary to offset his one. However, and I want to make this clear: nothing in Wikipedia policy or guideline compels him to say only what we want him to say. Like any other editor in any other discussion, he has the right to express himself as badly as he wishes, with as little common sense, consistency and forethought as he wishes, and in as knee-jerk a fashion as he wishes. What's next, filing RfCs against editors who always vote Keep in XfDs with kneejerk "Sounds notable" cites?

I assure anyone reading this that I'm as frustrated by Kurt's antics as much as anyone. That being the case, people have tried reasoning with him, gentle suggestions, harsh suggestions, sarcasm, screaming, what have you. He is going to type what he's going to type. Any admin action or sanction against him for it would set a horrible precedent, and I don't think I'd want to be part of that Wikipedia.  Ravenswing  22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

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.