User talk:Kmweber/Archive7

RFA opposing

Please stop opposing candidates simply for being a self-nom. It is explicitly allowed in the process. If you want it changed, debate it on WT:RFA. What you are doing now is in violation of WP:POINT. Mr.Z-man 22:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll echo what Zman says, with the addition that accusing folks of power hunger is not assuming good faith. If I see another string of opposes like that, I'll block for disruption on RFA, and disruption to prove a point. I'll do this to prevent further disruption. Mercury 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been brought up before. Giving one's opinion on an admin candidate at RFA is not disruption; it's precisely what RFA is for. Feel free to say it's a misguided opinion, but threatening to block for this is inappropriate in my opinion. Friday (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for your continual disruption of Wikipedia. There is discussion of this decision at WP:AN and I will ask that someone makes representation to any discussion on your behalf if you ask. Nick 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been considered in the past, and the general consensus is that my actions are perfectly legitimate and not worthy of a block. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber. There are several assertions that what I am doing is "disruptive", but no one has actually been able to point to any actual disruption. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at WP:AN - consensus can change and I believe it's worth checking to see if there has been any change in consensus. If there hasn't, I'm sure you'll be unblocked. If you have a problem with self nominations at RfA, you need to argue for changes to the process, not penalise those editors using the framework as it currently stands. Nick 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, if you want to gauge consensus then file another RfC. Until you can establish that the prior consensus no longer holds, however, there is no reason to block me--and given that I have never been blocked over this before anyway, an indef block is totally uncalled for. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber, I was perfectly justified in believing that the Wikipedia community did not view my actions as disruptive and blockworthy. Since that RfC, nothing had happened to indicate to me that the community consensus had changed. At the very least, then, it was absurd to block me indefinitely without warning. If the consensus has changed and what I am doing is no longer acceptable, I will stop--but neither at the time I did my most recent opposes nor when Nick blocked me was there absolutely anything to suggest that.

I'm willing to stop at least until this matter is sorted out, and if community consensus indicates that it is not acceptable then I will stop altogether. I'm aware that consensuses (consensi?) can change; the point is, though, that there was no reason for me to think that it had. At the very least, a warning, giving me a chance to stop, would have been appropriate before blocking me for engaging in behavior I had every reason to think the community agreed was perfectly legitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, anyone who reads this. There's no need to go to Arbcom here. There's no need for me to agree to a self-imposed, PERMANENT, ban from RfA either. It's very simple. There was an RfC on this earlier. On my own accord, I stopped engaging in the contested behavior until a very clear consensus emerged on the RfC that what I was doing was perfectly legitimate. I'll do the same again. I'll stop until this matter is re-resolved, and if it turns out that consensus is against me, I'll stop altogether. But if consensus is that I'm still in the right, why should I stop doing something the community as a whole believes is OK just because a few people don't like it?

File another RfC, see if consensus has changed. I'm willing to abide by it however it turns out. But this rush to ArbCom, or to get me to agree to an unconditional self-ban from RfA, is ridiculous. This just reeks of you being afraid that the community might disagree with you.

When I did my RfA opposes earlier today, I had every reason to believe that the community saw no problem with what I was doing. Subsequent events--which took place after my last oppose--indicate that that might no longer be the case. That's fine. I'm willing to abide by community consensus, even if I disagree with it. What more do you want? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't think you should be banned from RFAs. I was suggesting to people who would otherwise block you to ask arbcom for such a ban if they really thought some bureaucratic solution was necessary here. I believe you're being perfectly reasonable here, and you did have good reason to believe your RFA opposes, though unpopular, were not a serious problem. I think people are jumping the gun here. If I was a bit more bold I'd unblock you now, but reversal of admin actions seems unpopular lately. Still, if there are more people who think you should be unblocked, I suspect it will happen soon. Friday (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, to be clear... your actions are clearly disruptive. I am not interested in having a protracted discussion on disruptive behavior. Understand that I am not going to reblock you if you are unblocked. If you are unblocked without assurances that the disruptive behavior will stop, I will be asking the arbitrators to arbitrate this. Mercury 01:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You think they're clearly disruptive. A lot of other people don't. Certainly, in late August/September the consensus was that they weren't disruptive. If that consensus still holds, what then?

That's my problem here...you don't care what the community thinks; you only care what you think. RfC is the proper means of resolving this, if you think it's a problem. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in wasting folks time here. There is already a RFC. There are also the recent comments on AN, ANI, BN, WT:RFA, and your talk you should be able to garner consensus. Mercury 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No one's time will be wasted. The original RfC indicates that the consensus is that what I'm doing is fine. AN/I indicates that consensus may have changed, but it's still not a broad community discussion--it's just a few people--and frankly, even among those there's no clear consensus to overturn the old one. To find out for sure, you start an RfC and solicit the input of the community as a whole. This is the proper way to go about this matter. Quite frankly, ArbCom will probably reject any case you file with it for this very reason anyway. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block?

Further to the above Kurt, welcome back to RFAs, your cut and paste opposes to every self-nomination were missed. Now, I don't agree with your stance, and would like to see you balancing out this karma by supporting those who do not self-nominate (try being constructive!).

However - and this is to anyone thinking of coming to Kurt's talk page and threatening him with a block - you have a right to oppose on any standard you see fit. It is not disruptive to do so. Opposing based on self-nomination is no better or worse than opposing based on edit count or percentage of edits to the foospace. I would like to see you be more constructive, though. Support an RFA, at least once - it feels awesome :) Neil ☎ 11:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The offer stands

I will refrain from doing what I've been doing on RfAs until the current community consensus is re-evaluated. I will abide by its outcome either way.

What I will not do is give in just because a few Internet bullies have nothing better to do all day than try to harass and threaten me into submission. If community consensus is against you, tough for you. I am willing to abide by community consensus either way. These attempts to get me to agree to a self-imposed, unconditional ban from RfA do nothing but show contempt for community consensus, and I'm not going to sanction it. I'm not going to play this ridiculous game. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked based on this. I invite those who insist your RFA behavior is a problem to take the matter up at RFC. Friday (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There has already been an RFC - see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber. The broad consensus was that Kurt's RFA activity was neither big nor clever, but it was not blockworthy and he is entitled to voice an opinion in such a way. I would suggest any admin who decides to block him based on his RFA votes in future reviews that RFC first. Neil ☎ 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am painfully aware of the RFC and this is why I'm quite dismayed that this block happened. I was tempted to unblock as soon as I saw it (Nick even did say to "feel free") but by the time I got there, several people were supporting the block, so all I felt was appropriate was arguing against the block rather than undoing it. If anyone says "we need to tolerate less trolling" I'll agree with them. But this does not mean that anyone who gets accused of trolling is trolling. I can only conclude there is more to the story than we know about so far. I don't know how to explain the bizarre block otherwise. It greatly concerns me when people invoke the holy power of Jimbo, do an indefinite block, and then provide only hand-waving when asked for an explanation. Friday (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RFA

Hey Kurt, I'm not here to beat down on you or anything, I respect your right to express your opinion at RFAs. I wanted to let you know that your oppose was replied to at my RFA by Jmlk and others. I was wondering if perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look? Thanks in advance. GlassCobra 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have requested arbitration.Mercury 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

oh, for goodness sake. Kurt, my talk page and email are always open if you want any advice. Neil ☎ 22:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the arbitrators will accept this case, but if they do, please don't hesitate to contact me if you need help. Also, could you please reply on my RfA if you have any other comments? east.718 at 02:03, 11/2/2007

I've been wanting to, but I've been reluctant to do so since this whole thing blew up lest someone twist it into accusing me of breaking my agreement to refrain from engaging in the activity in question while this is sorted out. I realize that that's hardly what I'm doing at all--explaining a prior "vote" is by no means the same as casting a new one--but it wouldn't surprise me if certain individuals tried to claim that it is. I realize the vast majority of people will be sane enough to realize how absurd that claim is, but it's still something that might give them ammo. I'd rather not get sidetracked fighting that; I'd rather not give them the ammunition to throw at me.

And I thought about putting it on your talk page instead, but the argument then will be that I just did that to sidestep the letter of what I offered to do, while still violating the spirit of it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Contact me privately. east.718 at 03:01, 11/2/2007

One bit of advice - I think the tone of the message ("prima facie evidence of power hunger") upsets people more then the reason behind the opposition (even if they won't admit it). Perhaps a rewording in future to something a little more neutral? And supporting RFAs where there has been a nomination (as this seems to be your sole criteria) might go somewhat to convincing people you are acting in good faith. I think the RFArb will be thrown out fairly shortly, so there's no need to engage in it. Neil ☎ 09:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Click "show" to see my message. What is meant to be and what is not... Thank you for your recent comments and vote at my Request for Adminship. It was not successful. I don't believe this is unfortunate as it leaves me with much to ponder and a fresh slate from which I can better myself as an editor in order to be more compliant with the policies that are expected by Wikipedia. If you feel that there is anything that was not covered by the RfA that I need improvement in, I would implore your input and feedback as I hope and intend to improve as best I'm guided. All the best in your own endeavours in the real world, and also when you're not on Wikipedia. lincalinca 14:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out

I saw you were undoing a lot of colored text per WP:MOS and I wanted to stop by and say thanks. Also, funny story: I was reverting some racist vandalism and saw your edit summary and thought, well, that you were removing colored (as in Race) for a split second. Obviously, you were actually removing literally colored (as in Color) sections, but I thought it was kind of funny that that popped into my mind. :P Anyway, keep up the great work, and cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome...from a fellow Kurt. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA comments

I've been giving some more thought to how I feel about your RfA comments, in the context of my prior outside view and the other comments on the RfC, your recent block and the ensuing discussions, and the pending request for arbitration. You are probably right to point out that the consensus on the RfC that your automatic oppose comments against any self-nominated admin candidate were not sufficiently problematic to warrant a block or other sanction, and that you might be within your rights to make such comments. On the other hand, I also think it's quite noteworthy that after you have posted such oppose !votes in dozens of RfA's, as far as I can tell not a single user appears ever to have actually agreed with the substance of your position, either in a specific RfA, in the RfC, or elsewhere. In light of the overwhelming consensus that self-nominations are entirely permissible on RfA (in fact, they originally were the only method of nomination), and the fact that your comments have elicited continuously negative reactions, I wonder if you would now consider no longer posting automatic opposes based on the method of nomination, and instead tailoring your support or oppose positions more specifically to the qualifications of the nominees. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple. In my mind, the mere fact that a user self-nominates is inherently enough to outweigh any other positive qualifications he may have, so anything else is irrelevant. And I do not object to people self-nominating themselves; my objection is to those people becoming administrator. To compare it between real-world politics, it's the difference between not allowing Communists to run for office and simply not voting for one--I have no problem with them running, but I'm sure as hell not going to support them.

If anything, allowing self-noms helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do respect your right to that opinion, but I would strongly urge you to consider rephrasing what you write. The way you currently phrase it effectively accuses any self-nominating candidate of power hunger. This is an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. If you'd simply state that you disagree with self-nominations, you'd probably not get as much negative attention. Accusing people of power hunger for doing something explicitly encouraged by the community is hardly proper behavior. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

NYbrad, this user self-nominated, and was turned down by the community. This may be aprapos of nothing, but I thought it worth at least mentioning. K. Scott Bailey 13:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. Sorry I haven't been able to reply to your email, I fired my servers' admin the other day and my mail service is messed up. east.718 at 02:39, 11/4/2007

A question about your RfA oppose votes

Hi. I will not attack or criticise your oppose votes in RfA which seems to be very unpopular with users and has caused alot of debate, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I would like to ask you a question about your votes. I am quite interested to hear your opinion on why you think self noms are a sign of power hunger. Also what do you think an admin's job is? Can I also point out Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kmweber, a failed RfA where you self nominated yourself. Does this mean you yourself were power hungry? Although you don't have to answer these questions, I would like to hear your opinion. Once again I have nothing against your opinions. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What you and others are failing to grasp is that there is a huge difference between the legitimate scope of administrator action and the de facto practical capability they possess to do great harm. I have addressed this, and every other question you ask, at several other locations; a simple search of this talk page's archives and the RfC will, I think, provide you with the answers you seek. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am aware that admins can do great harm which is why admins should be users trusted by the community but I don't understand how whether the user was self nominated or nominated by another user, alone can be used to determine this. Your previous comments don't really address this. Do you mind clarifying it for me? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC) You've just address this above. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

GlassCobra's RfA

		My RFA
		Hello Kurt! I wanted to thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I know that you opposed for what many feel is a contentious reason, but as I said before, I support your right to hold certain beliefs and express them. I also wanted to tell you that if you ever need help or a second opinion anywhere, I'm your guy. :) Stay well! GlassCobra 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for voicing your opinions in my recent RFA which unfortunately did not pass at (47/23/5). I will be sure to take the advice the community has given me and wait till someone nominates me next time as well as improve my editing skills. Have a great day(or night)! --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why are my opposes any worse than anyone else's?

Your opposes are worse, because they're not based in anything real. You know very well that self-nominations aren't "Prima facie evidence of power-hunger", yet you blanket every self-nomination with opposes, using that spurious reasoning. It shows no clear thinking, no good faith attempt to delve into the candidate's background, nothing other than your own point-y way of making a statement about what you think about self-nominations. You do realize that self-noms are encouraged by the instructions at the very page where you wallpaper every self-nom with your opposes, right? This makes your opposes far worse than most, because your "reasoning" is not reasoning at all. It shows disrespect for the candidate, the process, and the project overall. K. Scott Bailey 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They're very much based on something real--my own observations of human nature and of what's happened on Wikipedia in the three years I have been here. I do indeed believe that it constitutes prima facie evidence of power-hunger; if I did not then I would not claim it did. That you disagree it does not make it spurious; it is a legitimate position based on my own observations. In my judgment, the mere fact that someone self-nominates is indeed enough to overcome anything he might have going in his favor; thus there's no need to look into his background. Again, you clearly disagree with this, but that does not make it an illegitimate position. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's demonstrable fact that you are wrong. There are plenty of good editors who have self-nommed, and plenty of bad ones who were nommed by someone else. As to your own self-nom, while I won't claim it's prima facie evidence of your disruptive pointiness, I will say it's powerful circumstantial evidence of it. K. Scott Bailey 17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just building a straw man. I have never, never claimed that everyone who self noms will be an abusive administrator, or that all abusive administrators were self-nominated. All I'm saying is that, in my judgment, the fact that someone self-nominates means that there is a greater risk that he will be an abusive administrator--great enough, in fact, to warrant opposing everyone who self-nominates regardless of what he might have in his favor.

And as for your claim that this is all "sour grapes", why did I wait until nearly two years after that to start opposing self-nominations? Heaven forbid someone might actually change his mind. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You do know what prima facie means, right? (Not trying to be snarky or mean, I'm honestly wondering, because just because something is considered prima facie evidence does not mean that it cannot be rebutted... in fact, that's pretty much the whole thrust of it.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Point taken...perhaps that's not the best word choice. Got any suggestions? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I was actually referring to KSB, since he said that since there is evidence of good self-noms, it can't be prima facie evidence. Yes, it can. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

From the 'Pedia: "a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts", which finding self-nommed admins that are good ones shows that self-nomming in itself can't be used as prima facie anything. K. Scott Bailey 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to interject, but, yes, that's correct -- but put the emphasis on "appears." Prima facie literally means (if my high school Latin doesn't fail me) "first appearance." Looking at the WP entry (hey, my Latin was right -- woohoo!) it says "prima facie denotes evidence that (unless rebutted) would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact." (emphasis added) So it can be rebutted - as I think your example does. But is Kurt's opinion then "false," as I think you're arguing? (Ok, I just begged a tautology...) --TheOtherBob 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, if there are many examples of admins who self-nommed, but do not display "power hunger", then yes, Weber's opinion is then "false." K. Scott Bailey 20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

<----undent

I think so, and here's why. My examples of good self-nommed admins and bad multi-nommed admins provide evidence GOING INTO the RfA process that self-nomming does not qualify as prima facie evidence of "power hunger." As such, reasoning to that effect makes little sense. K. Scott Bailey 18:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but here's the tautology: An opinion is neither true nor false; if it were, it would be a fact. His view, based on the evidence as he sees it, is apparently that your examples don't mean what you think they mean. (For one thing, you may well consider "good" an admin that Kurt might think is too power-hungry. Or another person might consider that admin both good and power-hungry...thereby agreeing with both you and Kurt.) There are hundreds of permutations -- but given the evidence he's looked at, Kurt apparently considers self-nomination to be prima facie evidence of what he considers power-hunger...and that's his opinion, for better or worse. --TheOtherBob 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

re: I am not responsible for the choices of others

Replied. — Dorftrottel⁠ 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And here's the rub: if he can pull any "standard" he wants out of his hat, with no truly objective criteria, what's the point of RfA? K. Scott Bailey 19:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To aggregate opinions. Best, --TheOtherBob 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If individual opinions can not be differentiated based on objective standards, what's the point of "aggregating opinions"? It puts me in the mind of a saying I heard once, whilst I was still growing up in the countryside of western Kansas: "A whole lotta cluckin' but not a lotta egg-layin." K. Scott Bailey 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My favorite was always "God willin' and the crick don' rise." Neither of those relates to anything in this discussion, but they are fun to say. Anyways, what does it mean to say that individual opinions cannot be differentiated based on objective standards? Here is an objective standard: the candidate has/does not have 4000 edits. Would something like that be enough to determine adminship (if so, then community commentary is unnecessary -- the candidate either does, or does not, have enough edits.) That's the argument you seem to be making, but I don't think it's your argument. In any event, Kurt's would seem closer to an objective standard than most -- isn't your argument that he uses an objective standard that he feels is reliable, but that you feel is unreliable? So then it's just an argument about whether his or your opinion is right -- which is, in a real sense, an argument that can never be resolved. However (and here is the magic of a wiki), if you get enough opinions together, then hopefully they reach something called consensus - which isn't really "right" or "wrong," but rather reflects the will of the community and (we hope) reaches good results most of the time. (By the way, I should ask Kurt if it's ok to carry on with this on his talk page -- I don't want to monopolize it.) --TheOtherBob 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

<----undent

Surely you're not claiming that opinions can never be objectively wrong, or objectively right? Let's say that I'm of the opinion that the fact tha Sen. Obama is black disqualifies him from being president. (Disclaimer: I'm actually a nominal supporter of the good senator's, which is why I chose him for my example.) Is this opinion wrong? I say yes, and demonstrably so. Now, I'm not attempting to equate KMW's blanket oppositions with racism. The point I'm making is that opinions CAN be objectively wrong. In this case, the opinion Mr. Weber holds toward self-nominations is objectively wrong, as has been clearly demonstrated. K. Scott Bailey 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. An opinion isn't objectively right or wrong -- for example, if you said that the Earth were flat it would be demonstrably false . . . but it would be a demonstrably false fact. The sine qua non of an opinion is that it is neither provable nor disprovable. So, actually, I'd say that the opinion that Sen. Obama (who was one of my professors in law school, by the way, and who you should definitely vote for if given the chance) was unqualified to be president on the basis of his race is not wrong, per se . . . I just think it's stupid. It's not a demonstrably true fact that Mr. Obama's race has no bearing on his likely performance as president, it's just an opinion that enjoys extremely broad support (and rightly so, in my view.) There's no way to objectively measure presidential performance, no way to tell if race influences it (particularly since we only elect rich old white guys), and therefore only 250 million opinions. Here Kurt is offering an opinion with which I and everyone else I've seen disagree . . . but it's an opinion nonetheless. --TheOtherBob 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see what our point of disagreement really is: I view his "prima facie" statement as a claim of fact about the nominee, in which case it would be demonstrably untrue; you view it simply as one man's opinion, thus not necessarily wrong, but rather wrongly conceived. Have I accurately described our differences? K. Scott Bailey 04:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair -- that it's my opinion that it's in fact an opinion and your opinion that it's in fact a fact. (Any puns intended). Best (and going to bed), --TheOtherBob 04:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Though we didn't really get to the bottom of the underlying question ("Does Weber have a wikiright to post such opposes at RfA?"), it's been an interesting philolawyerly discussion, which I've enjoyed immensely. Best regards, K. Scott Bailey 04:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I were to oppose based on a concern that self-nomination suggests a desire for power to the extent they should all be opposed, I would word it "Oppose - I consider self-nominations to be an indication the user is chiefly concerned with acquiring power rather than improving the encyclopedia". My personal opinion is that this is not the case (I self-nominated, and I don't think I'm a power-hungry despot), but that's how I'd word it. Neil ☎ 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps not power-hungry, but definitely a despot! (Just kidding...rule on, brother, rule on.) --TheOtherBob 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Kmweber, you are free to have any opinion you want, no matter how baseless it is. You are just making yourself look bad by your opposes. BTW, are you powerhungry? You self-nominated in the past right here.--SJP 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He knows that, has addressed it, and from what I gather he has based his concerns over the process as he has seen it unfold. His assertion is probably different than it once was, and everyone is entitled to change their opinion. His opposes aren't hurting anyone. As I have had conversations with him in the past, I'm starting to respect him more for his tenacity and his willingness to respond. the_undertow ^talk 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:State Road 66 Western Terminus.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:State Road 66 Western Terminus.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 00:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin coaching and power hunger

I have another question about your self-nom rationale. It occurred to me that according to your (and apparently not only your) logic, users who consult Wikipedia:Admin coaching display a far more obvious power hunger, don't they? They just go about it in a more professional manner, which seems to be even worse, speaking in what I think may well be your logic, if I'm not completely mistaken. Your opinion on that would really interest me a lot. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:42, December 2, 2007

Jay Friedman

Just a note, you're probably going to want to add more content to that article ASAP, or someone is going to try and nuke it again. Chubbles 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jay Friedman

A tag has been placed on Jay Friedman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

All we are saying....

Good essay! DuncanHill (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

If you get a chance, could you please review this article? It's been on WP:FAC for a couple months... Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I might if I have time; however, I'm not too familiar with the FA procedure or criteria. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFA

I'm asking you very nicely to consider striking this. [1] Pedro :  Chat  13:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one else has told you directly

There is a discussion concerning you at the administrator's noticeboard: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clear cut personal attack by User:Kmweber. You may have already seen it, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is now another (harassing?) discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Rfa. FYI.--12 Noon 20:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And another- you're popular... (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_2) -Epthorn (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is it possible that someone is leaving you an RfA-related message that *doesn't* assume you're the devil? :P

So... I think it's fairly obvious that your RfA comments aren't, shall we say, the most well-received posts on Wikipedia. Personally, I disagree with your assertion, but I also think you're within your right to voice your opinion, and a lot of the drama surrounding your comments is being generated by the reactions.

Rather than push that you stop leaving comments, would be more receptive to perhaps adding something to the end of your statements, such as "don't take this personally" or the like? Folks who have been around RfAs for a while recognize your statements, but I do have some concern about how it can appear to some of the candidates or the newer editors that participate.

The exact wording I'm not so concerned with, I'd just like to see some sort of "don't take it personally" comment that would, hopefully, dissuade some users from over-reacting to your !votes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I tried that a couple of times, after the blowup over this a month or so ago. All I got were some snide remarks about how insincere I supposedly was. And frankly, I don't understand how this would make a difference anyway; the message is the same, so how does dressing it up in sugary coating change anything? Perhaps coming from a military family and a performing arts background where you're expected to act like an adult and be able to accept blunt criticism (and I expect the same from my students and band kids) has "corrupted" me in some sense, but I've never much cared for that. It's pointless fluff.

I don't see how my normal message could be interpreted in any sort of insulting or upsetting manner anyway. It's perfectly polite and to the point. The problem isn't with the way the message is worded; it's with people who can't tolerate criticism or disagreement. There's nothing in there that implies that it's a personal remark in the first place; in fact, the whole gist of it is that there's NOTHING personal about it (because it's blanket rather than individual). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - it couldn't be aimed any less at the particular individual and still be an oppose. The problem isn't the !vote - its the reaction. If people just took it at face value, and either agreed or ignored you, then there would be no issue whatsoever. I understand folks who disagree with you, but why it should be constantly debated in every possible forum I have no idea. That said: The new argument is that even if folks agree that in principle you should be able to express your opinion, the reoccurring reaction is causing enough disruption that AN/I could eventually develop a topic ban consensus. Avruch^Talk 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote however you want to. I'm in your corner, Kurt. :P (And the OMGdrama is so sweet.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for the people who can't handle reading Kurt's opinion without stirring up silly drama. Friday (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opposes

Hi Kurt. I know you've faced this comment over and over again, but I think it's time that your opposes at RfAs cease, or you at least construct them in a less copy-and-paste fashion. On a recent RfA you commented 'While this user has demonstrated an excellent understanding... I cannot overlook the fact that this is a self-nom... I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger.' You yet again used 'I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger' - as is seen on almost all self-noms I see. It seems that the only reason you oppose self-nominations is because they are self-nominations. Doesn't this seem a little 'wrong' to you? I am sure many Wikipedians are upset that you opposed their RfA that a lot of hard work had gone into on the sole basis that it is a self-nom, with a copy-and-pasted response 'I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger.' Many editors disagree with your method of opposing RfAs and the oppose's content - so much that a request for arbitration was filed against you (rejected) and a request for comment. Since others have continually reminded you that they think your actions are inappropriate, I feel that as a Wikipedian I am required to step in and request outside comment. A request for comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2. Auroranorth (!) 09:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh good grief. Neıl ☎ 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A hero wikipedian swoops in. This will change things, I'm sure....Epthorn (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, you probably should switch to just saying "Oppose - I cannot support a candidate self nominates." and leave it at that - everyone knows why, and the best way to deal with people being jerks is to give them a little rope, eh? WilyD 15:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)