- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Kmweber
Final (0/12/0) ending 03:55 [30 September 2005 23 September 2005] (UTC)
Kmweber ( talk · contribs) – Self-nomination.
A Wikipedian since May 2004, much of my time lately has been spent on four major tasks, specifically:
- Reverting vandalism
- WikiProject Indiana
- Copyediting
- Article cleanup and wikification
I also write articles on M*A*S*H episodes from time to time, and was an active stub-sorter back in May and June.
My primary (sole?) reason for seeking adminship is for the Revert link...it'd make RC patrol so much easier.
My viewpoint towards deletion is rather extreme...I consider all deletion except a small subset of the current Speedy criteria to be a form of vandalism; on the other hand, I'm aware of sentiment against this idea and as I have no wish to create a crisis I will not undelete any article that has not passed VfU. I WILL go ahead and speedy-delete any articles I encounter that meet one or both of the following criteria, though:
- Article title is just a random string of characters
- Entire article history consists of unsubstantiated slander
Kurt Weber 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
Oppose
- Oppose. While I appreciate Kmweber's recent article-space contributions and vandalism reversion, this AfD discussion revealed some extremely radical views he has about policy: the idea of consensus is "flawed," and the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT are somehow invalid. I also recall some bizarre, idiosyncratic edits regarding Mojo Nixon a while ago that some might consider vandalism: [1] and [2]. Note the edit summaries, which are "spelling corrections," when the edits are anything but spelling corrections. android 79 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, per android79. Friday (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- As an admin one must act on consensus, sometimes ferret out what might be consensus instead of making policy. I had no problem with curtness or the occasional outburst in several recent admin candidates, but the statement "'consensus' is as flawed as the policies it creates" in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalator Productivity convinces me that
User:Kmweber will push an agenda.
Pilatus 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- I must say, then, that you have been convinced wrong; as I stated above, I have no intention of undeleting any articles that have not passed VfU; I simply will refrain from being the one who deletes any article that does not qualify under a certain subset of the current Speedy criteria, but there's not a whole hell of a lot I can do about someone else deleting it. I'm aware my extreme inclusionism is somewhat unpopular, and I have no intention of creating a crisis; while I will continue to argue for my point as I have in the past, I will not do anything to actually subvert the current system. Kurt Weber 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The statement-verging-on-manifesto above makes pretty plain that Kmweber has an agenda that he will likely push. Being an arch-inclusionist is fine (if a little unhealthy), but not then re-interpreting policies to meet those ends. As for suggesting that deletion is a form of vandalism, well, it is hard to be more wrong; it is merely cleaning up. Even if an agenda wouldn't be pushed, the interpretation of policy leads to some fairly clear judgement errors: On VfU at present is The Olmos which, prior to speedying, said "A Yearbook of unprecedented quality." — Kmweber has requested its undeletion "because it exists" (a largely unverifiable fact). To wanting to undelete as a result of VfU, well, VfU undeletes (at a stab of a guess) an article a week or so so you'll get little catharsis there. I'm also given to understand that Kmweber is kicked from the IRC channel fairly regularly which must mean he can be more than a little irritating at times. Finally, there's that spate of vandalism quite recently (in RfA terms) — when I took a resulting article to VfD, you can guess what sort of accusations were left on my talk page — much the same as those regarding deletion above. If you're just after the rollback button, Sam Hocevar's Godmode lite will give you that 'for free'. - Splash talk 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Kmweber uses misleading edit summaries to mask vandalism [3], doesn't respect consensus [4], and declared that "I derived no value from performing mundane tasks that were MUCH beneath me in "cooperation" with what were mostly utter incompetents who had no respect for the creative power of the human mind" [5]. So far, Weber seems like a Wikipedia:Role account enacting his interpretation of Ayn Rand's philosophys, most notably, that consensus opinions are weak. Extremely unstable, horribly unsuited for adminship. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.
Job
e
6
21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC) - Bandwagon. -- Golbez 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as per DropDeadGorgias, vandals shouldn't be editors, not to mention admins-- Rogerd 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.
- Oppose, too controversial for me. Type O Spud 02:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Please reconsider this stance that almost all deletion is vandalism. Jonathunder 05:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, after reviewing the first link cited by DropDeadGorgias, I'll change my vote to strongly oppose. That was sneaky vandalism. Jonathunder 05:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. His comment that "all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere" is bizarre in the extreme. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Neutral
Comments
- 2780 edits. Oleg Alexandrov 19:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- An observation: when reverting changes, get sure you are reverting to the last version that was not vandalized. [6] -- ReyBrujo 19:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about
administrators and the
administrators' reading list.)
- A. Mostly reverting vandalism and undeleting articles that have passed VfU...like I said, the primary reason I'm interested in adminship is for the Revert link and page protection and user blocking
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm most proud of my creation of seven or eight stubs that have served as seeds for other knowledgeable users who may have been too intimidated by the task of creating an article all alone but were comfortable making small changes to pre-existing articles.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Can't say I have, other than a brief spat when I was obsessed with placing references to Mojo Nixon's song "Elvis is Everywhere" on the articles of individuals mentioned in that song.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Kmweber
Final (0/12/0) ending 03:55 [30 September 2005 23 September 2005] (UTC)
Kmweber ( talk · contribs) – Self-nomination.
A Wikipedian since May 2004, much of my time lately has been spent on four major tasks, specifically:
- Reverting vandalism
- WikiProject Indiana
- Copyediting
- Article cleanup and wikification
I also write articles on M*A*S*H episodes from time to time, and was an active stub-sorter back in May and June.
My primary (sole?) reason for seeking adminship is for the Revert link...it'd make RC patrol so much easier.
My viewpoint towards deletion is rather extreme...I consider all deletion except a small subset of the current Speedy criteria to be a form of vandalism; on the other hand, I'm aware of sentiment against this idea and as I have no wish to create a crisis I will not undelete any article that has not passed VfU. I WILL go ahead and speedy-delete any articles I encounter that meet one or both of the following criteria, though:
- Article title is just a random string of characters
- Entire article history consists of unsubstantiated slander
Kurt Weber 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
Oppose
- Oppose. While I appreciate Kmweber's recent article-space contributions and vandalism reversion, this AfD discussion revealed some extremely radical views he has about policy: the idea of consensus is "flawed," and the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT are somehow invalid. I also recall some bizarre, idiosyncratic edits regarding Mojo Nixon a while ago that some might consider vandalism: [1] and [2]. Note the edit summaries, which are "spelling corrections," when the edits are anything but spelling corrections. android 79 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, per android79. Friday (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- As an admin one must act on consensus, sometimes ferret out what might be consensus instead of making policy. I had no problem with curtness or the occasional outburst in several recent admin candidates, but the statement "'consensus' is as flawed as the policies it creates" in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escalator Productivity convinces me that
User:Kmweber will push an agenda.
Pilatus 19:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- I must say, then, that you have been convinced wrong; as I stated above, I have no intention of undeleting any articles that have not passed VfU; I simply will refrain from being the one who deletes any article that does not qualify under a certain subset of the current Speedy criteria, but there's not a whole hell of a lot I can do about someone else deleting it. I'm aware my extreme inclusionism is somewhat unpopular, and I have no intention of creating a crisis; while I will continue to argue for my point as I have in the past, I will not do anything to actually subvert the current system. Kurt Weber 20:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The statement-verging-on-manifesto above makes pretty plain that Kmweber has an agenda that he will likely push. Being an arch-inclusionist is fine (if a little unhealthy), but not then re-interpreting policies to meet those ends. As for suggesting that deletion is a form of vandalism, well, it is hard to be more wrong; it is merely cleaning up. Even if an agenda wouldn't be pushed, the interpretation of policy leads to some fairly clear judgement errors: On VfU at present is The Olmos which, prior to speedying, said "A Yearbook of unprecedented quality." — Kmweber has requested its undeletion "because it exists" (a largely unverifiable fact). To wanting to undelete as a result of VfU, well, VfU undeletes (at a stab of a guess) an article a week or so so you'll get little catharsis there. I'm also given to understand that Kmweber is kicked from the IRC channel fairly regularly which must mean he can be more than a little irritating at times. Finally, there's that spate of vandalism quite recently (in RfA terms) — when I took a resulting article to VfD, you can guess what sort of accusations were left on my talk page — much the same as those regarding deletion above. If you're just after the rollback button, Sam Hocevar's Godmode lite will give you that 'for free'. - Splash talk 20:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Kmweber uses misleading edit summaries to mask vandalism [3], doesn't respect consensus [4], and declared that "I derived no value from performing mundane tasks that were MUCH beneath me in "cooperation" with what were mostly utter incompetents who had no respect for the creative power of the human mind" [5]. So far, Weber seems like a Wikipedia:Role account enacting his interpretation of Ayn Rand's philosophys, most notably, that consensus opinions are weak. Extremely unstable, horribly unsuited for adminship. -- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.
Job
e
6
21:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Bandwagon. -- Golbez 21:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as per DropDeadGorgias, vandals shouldn't be editors, not to mention admins-- Rogerd 22:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per above.
- Oppose, too controversial for me. Type O Spud 02:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Please reconsider this stance that almost all deletion is vandalism. Jonathunder 05:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Actually, after reviewing the first link cited by DropDeadGorgias, I'll change my vote to strongly oppose. That was sneaky vandalism. Jonathunder 05:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. His comment that "all that has to be true for a theory to exist is for it to be stated somewhere" is bizarre in the extreme. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- 2780 edits. Oleg Alexandrov 19:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- An observation: when reverting changes, get sure you are reverting to the last version that was not vandalized. [6] -- ReyBrujo 19:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about
administrators and the
administrators' reading list.)
- A. Mostly reverting vandalism and undeleting articles that have passed VfU...like I said, the primary reason I'm interested in adminship is for the Revert link and page protection and user blocking
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm most proud of my creation of seven or eight stubs that have served as seeds for other knowledgeable users who may have been too intimidated by the task of creating an article all alone but were comfortable making small changes to pre-existing articles.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Can't say I have, other than a brief spat when I was obsessed with placing references to Mojo Nixon's song "Elvis is Everywhere" on the articles of individuals mentioned in that song.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.