Jump to content

User talk:Kmweber: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
For your services to the encyclopaedia, thank you.
→‎Shadow ArbCom: new section
Line 241: Line 241:


{{award2 |border=3px |borderwidth=3px |color=#FFFFFF |image=Objectivist1.jpg |size=75px |topic=The Individualist's Commendation |text=I commend you, Kurt Weber, for sticking to your principles and maintaining your stand even when the hive mind is buzzing at its most furious. Although for a long time I dismissed your ''prima facie'' comments as a drop in the ocean, I've come to realise that your consistent stand at RfA has raised awareness of power hunger as an issue to be considered when assessing candidates. More and more I think hierarchy and the desire to exert power over others is the biggest problem with our current caste of administrators, and your activism in this area has caused me to change my assessment of more than one candidate. Keep up the good work, and never let the collectivists' baying overwhelm reason and integrity. <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)|textcolor=#000000 }}
{{award2 |border=3px |borderwidth=3px |color=#FFFFFF |image=Objectivist1.jpg |size=75px |topic=The Individualist's Commendation |text=I commend you, Kurt Weber, for sticking to your principles and maintaining your stand even when the hive mind is buzzing at its most furious. Although for a long time I dismissed your ''prima facie'' comments as a drop in the ocean, I've come to realise that your consistent stand at RfA has raised awareness of power hunger as an issue to be considered when assessing candidates. More and more I think hierarchy and the desire to exert power over others is the biggest problem with our current caste of administrators, and your activism in this area has caused me to change my assessment of more than one candidate. Keep up the good work, and never let the collectivists' baying overwhelm reason and integrity. <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)|textcolor=#000000 }}

== Shadow ArbCom ==

Since you seem to take a less-than-reverent view toward some of our sainted institutions, I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the new Shadow Arbitration Committee. It's essentially a bit of political theater aimed at the legitimacy of the actual Arbitration Committee, which I intend to either reform or delete. '''[[User:Mr. IP|<font color="blue">Mr. IP</font>]]'''&nbsp;'''《[[User_talk:Mr. IP|<font color="red">Defender of Open Editing</font>]]》''' 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:31, 2 August 2008

WikiProject Indiana Alerts have been posted:


Articles for deletion

Good article nominees

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Confirmation

Yes, it's me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am Schroeder on Freenode. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled

Q. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?

  • Wikipedia:Blocking policy: Brief blocks for the sole purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation.
  • Me: Absolutely not. Not for any reason, not for any purpose.

Now your oppose is based on my answer to #9 (which is the question posted above), but I am somewhat mystified by this since it looks to me like I answer the question correctly. Could you maybe clarify your position a little for me? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt disagrees with the policy, so his question was essentially a trap. Enigma message 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it was essentially a show trial? That sure reeks of foul play, not to mention a gross violation of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it. A quick look at his contribs shows that he opposes pretty much every RfA that comes up. This was the only support I saw in his last 100 Wikipedia: space edits. Oren0 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

My RfA

Using AN/I to desysop,: Bad Idea

Theory. Arbitrary Committee, WMF, and the keys to the place. Where did I put those damn keys?

I wrote this for an AN/I report on the bad block of User:Cryptic, then realized that I was doing what I've decried, cluttering up AN/I with content issues and other irrelevancies, which might be quite interesting in themselves, and we argue about them at the drop of an edit, but ... wrong place. Rather than deprive the universe of my pearls of wisdom, I'm putting this here, where you can make of it what you will. Best wishes, here goes:

While I agree with Kurt in theory, he's not understood, I think, certain aspects of Wikipedia structure. The keys to the place aren't in the community's hands, they are in the hands of certain stewards trusted by the owners of the place, I think Kurt will get the concept of private property -- though this this isn't exactly private property, he'll love this: it's owned by a corporation, which is an entity chartered by the State of Florida.... In any case, the owners listen to advice that we give, which they can choose to follow or not. If it is coherently expressed, they will usually follow it. Now, as to giving the advice through an AN/I report, it is a totally, really, miserably Bad Idea. This is a hot environment, utterly unsuited to deliberative process. It's really 911 for administrators. We would not expect parties to a divorce to work it out on the phone with 911, where the operator really wants to know whether or where to send the police or an ambulance or fire truck. An RfC would be about the minimum level where I'd expect stewards to consider acting, and it would have to be crystal clear, not only that an error was made (there is, I'd say, consensus for that) but that the error is worthy of desysopping (there is not consensus for that, at least not yet, and much -- including my own opinion -- will depend on the admin's eventual response. or is it the Carroll's Queen: verdict first, evidence later?) More commonly, after an RfC, if the matter is not resolved there (some will resign at that point, if the writing is on the wall -- or perhaps the offended party wants it withdrawn), there would only be ArbComm for something like this. ArbComm will want to see something like an RfC first, anyway. Kurt's opinion that the "Arbitrary Committee" is illegitimate is rooted in a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is: it is really two entities (or more) that cooperate: The WMF, which owns the place and has the keys, and the Community, which does the editing and other work. The Community could refuse to do the work, or even vandalize it, and the WMF could block everybody, even pull the plug, turn the lights out. But that's not likely to happen like that. The Arbitration Committee was set up by WMF, really, and is elected through Community advice, voluntarily accepted by WMF, and WMF is advised by ArbComm, but can refuse to accept the advice of either the Community, or ArbComm, or both, and, in theory, they might be obligated to do both (i.e., refuse to follow the advice, for they are responsible to the State, not to the community, at least in theory. Ahem. Here I go, distracting this AN/I report, just what I've decried so many times. I tell you, it's seductive, we need to fix this. So I'm going to note this here and leave this comment on Kurt's Talk page.

Which I've done, now. One more point: you ran for a Board position. Were you aware that WMF was free to disregard the results of the election, if I've got it right? It's up to the Board, or a designated officer, to accept the results. This is classic Free Association stuff, if you've ever read my FA/DP (Free Association/Delegable Proxy) stuff, which is radically libertarian.--Abd (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't exactly suggesting AN/I was the place to desysop, although I certainly can see how you might get that idea per my reponse to Wisdom89. What I was really going after was that it's the community's prerogative, and the consent of neither the subject of the action nor the Arbitrary Committee is properly required.

Also, I've never denied the right of the WMF to run things however they please. That doesn't make me obligated to like it, though. Brazen hypocrisy is still brazen hypocrisy, whether one has the right to engage in it or not. There's a reason I've always advocated action from within, rather than use of the legal system, to reform what's wrong with Wikipedia; and that's simply because the WMF has always acted within its rights as owners of private property, so the government has no legitimate authority to interfere. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The community doesn't have to wait before giving advice. I.e., it is the community's prerogative to form advice however it chooses. It doesn't need permission from ArbComm. However, I've watched how ArbComm works. Most of the work is done by the Community, and the Abitrators -- mostly -- opine regarding it. There is an interplay, and a determined community can sway ArbComm more than ArbComm can sway the community. But, then again, there are people in the community who think ArbComm is in charge, which isn't true. They are a device, a set of servants, not the boss of anything except themselves and their own process. So I understand, I think, your point, which is, in general, a good one. Now that we both understand that action from within is where the calvary is sitting waiting for orders, exactly just how do those orders get transmitted? Hint: Free Association concepts -- which is very compatible with Wikiepecia community process, were that process actually fully functioning and awake -- with Delegable Proxy, not as a voting method -- primitive idea, better than other kinds of voting, but highly limited in concept -- but as a method of seeking and finding consensus efficiently. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Stepping down from soapbox[reply]

Question

Apologies if you're uncomfortable answering this, you don't have to, but what exactly is wrong with power hunger?--Serviam (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-fence-sitting cool-down block question

Kurt, I've answered your question. You could have given me longer to respond. I had made ten WP edits from the time you asked to the time you opposed per lack of answer. The discussion on my talk page (which has continued) didn't influence me to not answer or to answer. I just had real-life things to do most of the day. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your initial response to the question on your talk page, my presumption that you were deliberately choosing not to answer it was, I think, quite justified at the time. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question for reference...:)

If a potential administrator were a Cubs and/or Bears fan, would you support, oppose, or neutral? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for adminship/Morhange

Hi there, I was surprised to see you finally supported an RFA. Just Curious..What makes you think the person is a good candidate ? -- TinuCherian (Chat?) - 13:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kurt, I am still waiting :)Thanks ... -- Tinu Cherian - 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA Thanks

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which has now closed as a success. I understand your concerns about coacing for admin versus coaching for passing RFA. Having seen all the comments, and having seen it all from the coachee's point of view, I will be seeing about making some recommendations about admin coaching when I get a minute or three to spare. In the meantime, this is just to say thank you for your participation. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed this week..

All the best, Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized Pitch Pro et al.

Your argument is not valid for a speedy keep. This was not an out-of-process AfD, although you may think it was. I know that you march to the beat of a very different drummer than most of us, but your rationale just comes off to me as a little WP:POINTy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Other than the fact that for some weird reason I thought I'd get a support from you, I enjoyed reading your vote. There's probably no better reason to oppose someone than if they are acting like Gail Wynand... I can agree with that. Do you mind my asking how you think I am acting that way, or if its easier, when I started to act that way? Thanks, HRoark. :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you two are in on some "inside joke" that I don't get. I have already voiced my disdain for your vote at RFA Kurt, hoping for a reasonable explanation for why you would oppose someone for their username of all things. I will immediately strike my comment there if you, or Gwynand, tell me to. Keeper ǀ 76 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quickly respond, and not to put words in Kurt's mouth, but he was either saying that I acted like Gail Wynand (quite a horrible guy), or, I was "the man who could have been", meaning maybe I at one time had potential to be a great editor, but failed miserably (like Gail Wynand. So his vote wasn't baseless, I'm just trying to get some reasoning behind it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll assume that both of you know what the hell that oppose was about, and I'll step away. I'm still lost. You, Gwynand are not a self nom, you've never been through admin coaching, you have (apparently) a sucky username, and you (gasp!) accepted a nom for adminship. Meh, oppose everyone Kurt, tis your right. I would hope that you have some merit to your oppose beyond "your username is apt", I know you are intelligent Kurt (and in real life, we'd probably laugh about this silly website over a beer, both being Libertarians and all). I won't visit your talkpage again. Keeper ǀ 76 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite alright with it, and Kurt, I don't know if I've done something to piss you off in the past, but I'm not sure why you don't respond to me on your talk page. Even if a response of "I don't want to go further into my oppose" was given, I'd appreciate that. Reason is, I don't see you having the same mentality of the other opposes, and for the life of me I can't see how I act on Wikipedia as garnering an "absolutely not" from you. I desire some sort of explanation, if possible. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I was a bit preoccupied, sorry. Basically, it is this: you are clearly an intelligent and capable writer. But rather than directing your efforts to true productive activities, most of your time on Wikipedia has been spent socializing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know better than to let others speak for you... thanks for the response. I'm taking all of this into account and don't imagine I'll let the RfA run much longer, probably will check it again in the morning. None of it was what I expected and I didn't mean to waste the community's time, heh, for some reason I thought I had passed the "Kurt" test. Oh well. On an unrelated note... after finishing The Fountainhead and spending some time thinking about it, I realized I had no desire to read Rand ever again. I might be in the group that criticizes her writing because I don't understand it, but for some weird reason I kind of hate the points she was making in that book. Are you a Rand fan? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Kurt's into Ayn Rand, he's an objectivist himself I think. This is unrelated but the one thing I don't understand is what's wrong with power hunger. Power hunger is synonymous with ambition...--Serviam (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I subject

It's been marked as resolved, but you should be aware of this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption and personal attacks from Kurt. Since Sceptre failed to notify you, here's your heads up. Horologium (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thoughts

Hi Kurt.

Apologies if this an egregious FAQ (I scanned your userpage and read a few interesting subpages, but couldn't find what I'm after) but I wondered if you'd collated your rationale for your RfA contribs somewhere?

I dislike the way you get barrages of comments almost every time you oppose. It's pointless drama. I thought that if you had an essay in userspace, it might help. Particularly if it encouraged people who wish to discuss the issue with you to come here.

Then, you could wikilink your oppose (if you chose to oppose) to your essay. Along the lines of:

My suggestion has a few simple benefits. First, it would keep drama off the RfA of some poor soul who's possibly quite stressed by RfA anyway and has nothing to do with your stance. Second, it might help prevent some of the more frequent comments thrown at you.

Just a thought.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a thought, although I wonder how much good it would do. For the people who are most vocal about it, there's no reason for them not to understand my reasoning, as many times as I've already explained it; I can only assume that they're either ignoring it or misrepresenting it, and I don't see how this would change that...it might be worth it for the first-timers, though. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

 Thank you for participating in my RfA, Kmweber!
My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! I thank you for your input and thoughts. I value them greatly, but I hope I can do a decent enough job in spite of your concerns. However, since I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, if you see me do anything terribly wrong, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Thanks again. Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates barnstar

The Socratic Barnstar
For trying to instill a reasonable solution, being selfless when one could take the easy way out and say nothing, and as a sign of appreciation for your actions, to show it was not unappreciated, I give unto you the Socratic barnstar. Bedford Pray 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thanks

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral.

I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images.

If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page!

Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. I can assure you that regardless of how fast I edit, I always try to ensure that I am doing the correct thing. If you see me do something that is not correct, please tell me.

Cheers!

J.delanoygabsadds 20:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USRD Newsletter, Issue 5

Apologies for the late delivery; here is the June edition of the newsletter.

The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter
Volume 2, Issue 5 • 21 June 2008 • About the Newsletter
Departments
Features
State and national updates
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Kurt, I know that you and I have had our differences on-wiki, but I want to say thank you for taking the time away from article work to explain your rationales at RfA. I don't agree with you probably 99% of the time at RfA, but at least now I (and others) feel like you are doing something there other than the "copy/paste" stuff. I've personally been guilty of "writing you off" immediately, but I've come to realize in the last few weeks that you actually are trying to protect Wikipedia in your own way, something I can't fault you for. It's refreshing to see you go the extra step (like calling your question the "anti-fence question" for example) to be clear at RfA, which nobody can force you to do (or should be able to) and I respect you for doing that. No need for a response, just wanted to say thanks. Keeper ǀ 76 21:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazimoff's RfA

Hi Kurt - this is just a question of confusion for me: Gazimoff has given a reply very similar to L'Aquatique, but you voted neutral on their RfA, and opposed on this one. I'm just curious about the difference - I don't intend this as a badgering question, and am not in any way trying to change your vote. I'm just wondering if there is some subtlety that I have missed Fritzpoll (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Shapiros10 contact meMy work has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I disagree with some things you say at RFA (most of them, actually), but who cares? Promote the spirit of kindness! Shapiros10 contact meMy work 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your services to the encyclopaedia, thank you

A Barnstar!
The Individualist's Commendation
I commend you, Kurt Weber, for sticking to your principles and maintaining your stand even when the hive mind is buzzing at its most furious. Although for a long time I dismissed your prima facie comments as a drop in the ocean, I've come to realise that your consistent stand at RfA has raised awareness of power hunger as an issue to be considered when assessing candidates. More and more I think hierarchy and the desire to exert power over others is the biggest problem with our current caste of administrators, and your activism in this area has caused me to change my assessment of more than one candidate. Keep up the good work, and never let the collectivists' baying overwhelm reason and integrity. Skomorokh 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow ArbCom

Since you seem to take a less-than-reverent view toward some of our sainted institutions, I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining the new Shadow Arbitration Committee. It's essentially a bit of political theater aimed at the legitimacy of the actual Arbitration Committee, which I intend to either reform or delete. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 19:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kmweber&oldid=229452218"