Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Kmweber/Questions for the candidate

Discussion of AGK's question

 * I agree entirely with Kurt on this particular point, regardless of what I think of him generally. Complying with the laws and customs of the existing system doesn't imply acceptance that the system is legitimate. Think of Kurt as the Gerry Adams of Wikipedia. – irides cent 2  17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where people comply with the customs of a system "because it's their only option for getting by at the moment", they might not agree that the system is perfect. But by participating in its processes and accepting its decisions as binding, they are accepting its right to rule; and that in itself makes it legitimate. I make no comment either way about how rightful the arbitration system is—although I do accept that the inclusion of Jimbo in the member selection process is wrong. What I do think is that Kurt's candidacy is built on a fallacy. AGK 19:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And here again we have the same problem: de facto is not the same as de jure. What is being done is that the AC's rulings are being accepted as de facto binding because they are--the muscle is in place to punish thoes who don't agree with it.  That does not mean that they accept that it is right.
 * The same goes for participating in its processes. Participating in a body's processes does not imply an acceptance of its legitimacy; it could be that people are just trying to lessen the negative impact of a fundamentally bad situation and illegitimate body they find thrust upon them.  Kurt Weber ( Go Colts! ) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Say we did seek to establish the committee's authority by way of a community-wide referendum. That referendum would probably be successful: most contributors accept arbitration as a necessary evil, after all. What will at that point have changed? The same people will hound on ad nauseum about the committee's illegitimacy. Most of them will have been on the receiving end of arbitration sanctions because of their own misconduct. Having established the committee's de jure authority, we would be back precisely where we started.
 * Some kind of referendum might be useful; I don't deny that. It would be an invaluable chance to push through reform. But I take great exception to voting for a candidate who tries to usher in that reform with a statement that handily ignores the fact that the committee is legitimate because the editorial community accepts its existence. Do not presume to speak for the rest of us: it is not your place to assume that your fellows accept the arbitration committee simply because it is the only available option. AGK 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * [Addendum:] Although I suppose I could be easily proven wrong on that last point if the community decides to vote you in this year! AGK 20:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Aak, defending Kurt). I think you (AGK) are missing the point here. I disagree with most of what Kurt says (although I agree that the current Arbcom is so dysfunctional the best solution is to demolish it and start again, I completely disagree with his Randroid notion that everyone acting in their own interest with no governance will make everything perfect). However, "if elected I will campaign to destroy the present system" candidates have a long and valid history; if you still live in Lanarkshire, pop down to your local SNP office and they'll tell you more than you ever wanted to know about the concept of running for an elected body in order to dissolve it if elected. As I've already said, "if elected I will not serve" isn't a particularly unusual concept - Gerry Adams is probably the most prominent example at present. – irides cent 2  20:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is not that Kurt is wrong to base his candidacy to the committee on a promise to disband it. It is that he is choosing to do so because he contends that the committee has no legitimacy; but that that is not true, by virtue of widespread acceptance amongst the community of the arbitrators' authority to make binding decisions. AGK 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * False argument; the selection bias makes it a meaningless fallacy of presumption. The community "chooses" to accept Arbcom's decision, in that those who don't abide by Arbcom decisions are summarily blocked. This is the "survivors' testimony" fallacy in action; if a dozen people survive a plane crash while a hundred people are killed, and all the survivors prayed to God to save them, then it seems at first glance like a powerful testament to the power of prayer - but without knowing if the dead had also prayed in vain, we've no way to judge. Around 500 people generally participate in Arbcom elections; the number of users blocked by me alone outnumbers that by a factor of four to one. Your "by virtue of widespread acceptance amongst the community of the arbitrators' authority to make binding decisions" argument is like saying that Stalin had "widespread acceptance amongst the community" because none of the survivors complained publicly about him when he was alive. – irides cent 2  22:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The problem with that argument, I suppose, is that most of the editors who can't participate in the elections are people who the community would have kicked out of the project if the committee hadn't—because they're giant dicks. The committee and the community work towards much the same aims, and do so in much the same way, simply because they're both drawn from the same pool of editors. AGK 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion here from the question page. Let's keep the question page for questions and the candidate's replies please. Skomorokh, barbarian   17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)