Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElinorD (talk | contribs) at 02:10, 1 December 2008 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Kmweber

My beliefs on the Arbitration Committee are fairly well-known, but if you're out of the loop...I think it's utterly illegitimate. However, I do recognize that my efforts to either formally eliminate it or, (preferably, for a variety of mostly symbolic reasons) simply convince the community to ignore it altogether are not likely to be successful in the short term. It's a long road ahead, and while I'm traversing it I need to find a way to minimize its negative impact on the community in the meantime.
The Arbitration Committee (yes, I have a better name for it, and besides what it engages in is not "arbitration" in any sense anyway, but I digress...) operates primarily by exercising power it does not and has never legitimately possessed. Though, true, the members are elected by the community (ignoring for a minute the fact that one man who is not all that special and also exercises power he does not and has never legitimately possessed holds a veto over anyone he disapproves of), the Committee itself was never created by the community. It was forced upon the community, and so regardless of how its membership is chosen it remains illegitimate.
So why do I want to participate on an illegitimate committee? Frankly, I don't. As a member, I will vote to decline any and all cases submitted to it, politely suggesting instead that the involved parties go to a legitimate form of dispute resolution, such as RfC, mediation, or any other mechanism that may be created by the community (and therefore has legitimate authority).
I'm not an opponent of hierarchy and authority in the abstract. I am an opponent of de facto authority that does not have its source as an express creation of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the latter, and a vote for me is a vote for restoring power to where it rightfully belongs.

Support

  1. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support GTD 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Yeah, right. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --chaser - t 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Caspian blue 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --Elonka 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very strongly. Majorly talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - filelakeshoe 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Mattinbgn\talk 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. iridescent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Er.... nah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Kuru talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Nope. Sam Blab 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Um, no. krimpet✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. kurykh 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Too polarizing, and we obviously have enough of that already. Avruch T 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Pcap ping 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Destroying Arbcom will only result in the same messy disputes to be fought out everywhere else. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I appreciate that Kmweber has an interesting point, but we're here to choose arbitrators. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Nope, RockManQReview me 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. prima....................--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I think that if the community no longer wanted to recognize ArbCom, they would make that very clear on their own. Grandmasterka 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. You're joking.--Koji† 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. He admits he's a troll. Need I say more? Mike H. Fierce! 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. iMatthew 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. He should be arbitrated, not be an arbitrator ...--Cometstyles 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. The ArbCom needs reform, but this candidate is the equivalent of a pipe bomb against a bridge, and is as welcome and as needed as one. Strong oppose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. BIG FUCKING OPPOSE IN ALL CAPS. --Mixwell!Talk 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Graham87 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. His habit of incivility, refusal to answer questions posed at this election, and lack of forthcomingness gives me no respect and trust in this user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose.[1] ElinorD (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Kmweber&oldid=255120689"