Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kmweber

Reply to outside view by Andrevan
I mostly agree, but I take exception to the statement that Kmweber's actions demonstrate "disregard and disrespect for long-standing community consensus". He explains his view on the candidate. What more do we require of those participating in RFA? He is giving his opinion in the relevant forum. Yes, this opinion is unpopular, but this does not demonstrate disrespect or disregard for community consensus. It simply demonstrates that Kmweber has an unusual view on self-nominations. Disagreement need not mean disrespect. Andrevan's strong words may have an unfortunate and undesirable chilling effect on minority opinion. Friday (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * His view is not a view on the candidate because he does not look at the candidate at all. He is opposing a procedure, one that is supported by the community since RfA has existed. Andre (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. He's not saying "self noms should not be allowed, therefore I oppose", he's saying "a self nom indicates to me that this editor is power hungry, therefore I oppose."  Perhaps a small distinction, but I see these as two very different things.  Friday (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But he also uses the term prima facie, meaning that a self-nom by itself is reason to oppose and therefore he does not need to evaluate the candidate, and he does this on EVERY self-nomination. It's true that he's not claiming that self-noms should be disallowed, but he seems to think that self-noms disqualify candidates. Andre (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not very bothered by the "prima facie", myself. If someone nominated themselves several times, once every few weeks, I'd call this prima facie evidence that the candidate is impatient and has poor judgment.  As I consider those undesirable qualities in an admin, it's likely I'd oppose on those grounds.  Nothing wrong with this, as far as I can see.  Friday (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not that I have a problem with prima facie reasoning in general, but that it's being used regarding a standard part of RfA procedure. A single, not particularly overeager or impatient self-nomination by anyone at any time is viewed as evidence of power-hunger, without reviewing a candidate's contributions or qualifications. This is against the entire concept of RfA. Andre (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Block Warnings
Just for the record, I have never suggested for Kmweber to be blocked, nor did I leave any block warning on his talk page. I have even stated that nothing should really happen, other than make more educated votes in the RfAs. This Request for COMMENT is to gather opinion on his actions. I agree with Andrevan, and I feel that he has every right to leave his oppose votes on the RfAs, but that they are extremely unhelpful and they "betray long-standing community consensus." Diez2 10:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If we demand that votes adhere to community consensus, what exactly is the point of HAVING individual RfAs? Part of the point behind the processes we have is that consensus can change. But if people are expected not to disagree with consensus, how will that happen?

Continuation of discussion from the arbitration request
The comments at the (now rejected) arbitration request may be of interest. See here for the statements at the time the case was rejected (4/5/0). I've invited people to continue the discussion here. Carcharoth 11:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)