In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
User:Kmweber is repeatedly using a copy-and-pasted oppose comment ('I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger') on all self-nominated RfAs. The user has been asked many times to cease, however the user continues to post the same old comment. A Request for Arbitration filed in November was declined on the basis that it could be referred back to the community for discussion. The previous RfC was at a standstill. The user states that his actions are not insulting because the comment is blanket, not individual.
I ( User:Auroranorth) would like to see User:Kmweber cease his RfA comments which are not personal and give no helpful advice. The RfAs all say 'please keep discussion constructive' and Kmweber's comments are definitely not constructive and offer no helpful advice whatsoever. Auroranorth ( !) 09:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Kmweber is repeatedly using a copy-and-pasted oppose comment ('I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger') on all self-nominated RfAs. The user has been asked many times to cease, however the user continues to post the same old comment. A Request for Arbitration filed in November was declined on the basis that it could be referred back to the community for discussion. The previous RfC was at a standstill. The user states that his actions are not insulting because the comment is blanket, not individual.
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
A very recent RFC showed the community as a whole accepted Kurt has the right to oppose RFAs in the way he does. Making a point is not the same as making a WP:POINT, which requires disruption. Upsetting a few sensitive souls who disagree with his reasons for opposition of RFAs is not disruptive. Kurt's reasoning for opposal is no more or less specious than those that require a certain percentage of editing in certain namespaces. The only reason his RFA activity causes disruption is the responses of a small but very vocal minority of editors. I think the only reason Kurt is continuing to be harassed is that he has shown himself to be a considerate and thoughtful chap who sticks to his principles despite a lynch mob running around block-shopping on various forums to every few weeks. I should also note Kurt has made a very real effort to improve his RFA reasonings - it is unfortunate that the editors who have decided he is the devil have not similarly improved their behaviour. Neıl ☎ 13:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is my first exposure to this issue, and I'm frankly surprised this has been brought to an RfC, especially when it has been discussed by the community before. Kurt is entitled to his own opinion on the qualities he finds desirable in a good administrator. Others are free to consider or disregard his opinion, including the 'crats who close the RfA nominations. And criticizing an admin, if done in a civil manner, is not a personal attack. Also, I don't understand why WP:NPOV has been listed as an applicable policy for admin nominations - if it did apply, everyone would have to vote "neutral".
Users who endorse this summary:
Personally I believe this RfC is somewhat pointless; everything that needed to be said was posted on WP:ANI yesterday. First of all, Kurt's spamming of self-noms, whilst irritating to many, is not really disruptive - I am sure it is routinely ignored by the closing 'crats, and also by most other editors (I certainly wasn't bothered by the one on my RfA). However I am a little concerned that Kurt's comment on the young editors above was defended as civil - if he had bothered to provide some supporting diffs, for instance, practically no-one would've batted an eyelid - but that comment really did come over as rather petulant and uncivil, completely irrelevant to the RfA in hand, and he should have been asked to justify or strike it.
Users who endorse this summary:
This RfC is a complete and utter waste of time, much akin to Kurt's comments. People do think Kurt's comments are disruptive but they don't particularly want to see those comments banned at RfA in case they want to leave a similar comment in future. Bureaucrats will give the comments the weight they deserve and I think we will see that when we get to an RfA that would be above 70% without Kurt's comment. There are few people interested in stopping his behavior and it seems the community at large would rather see these "delicate souls" be upset rather then Kurt silenced, which is regrettable, but it's how the community is behaving at the moment. For that reason, I'm not going to endorse this RfC. Nick ( talk) 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Wikipedia (and RFA) is a collegial environment in which editors must work together towards consensus. It is not an experiment in democracy nor a forum for free speech. To the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with Kurt at any RFA he has opposed; I only know of him because of the continuing complaints about his comments at self-nominated RFAs. Regardless of the merits of his comments, Kurt is aware that they cause disruption, yet continues to make them. Continuing to make these comments while ignoring the reactions they provoke is inappropriate and will eventually result in sanction of one form or another. If Kurt believes that self-nominations are inappropriate, he can pursue that goal at WT:RFA, as many have pointed out. I encourage Kurt to reconsider his methods and make a voluntary change. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
I hate having the same conversation on here over and over and over again. It's not a wikipedian's duty to rehash or continue a debate until all parties are in agreement. The old RFC wasn't at a "standstill" -- it was at a resolution. A resolution with which some disagree, certainly, but at some point you have to put down the stick and walk away from the dead horse. I know that's hard because Kurt's still doing what the community has said he can do. The yelling about Kurt's opinion -- not the opinion itself -- is becoming disruptive. Multiple RFC's, multiple trips to ANI, a request for arbitration... Some seem to hold the view that if they make enough noise about a perfectly acceptable practice, then they can stop the practice just because...well, we're all tired of the wikidrama their protestations are causing. So to the merits of the practice, again? CBM is correct that this is not a democracy, and Nick is correct that the community's acceptance of Kurt's oppose !votes is motivated by the expectation that others may need to oppose a potential admin candidate in the future. Wikipedia is (roughly speaking) a meritocracy, which means that the merits of those who are "promoted" must be examined. The community seems to feel that it is good to oppose certain candidates (as some do need opposing, certainly - some aren't qualified). The community is, I think, therefore very wary of creating any sort of minimum level of "rightness" for an oppose !vote -- or, worse, of creating an atmosphere where people think that !voting support gets you a friendly smile and !voting oppose gets you threatened and possibly banned. And so, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the community seems to have decided that allowing an unpopular, even solitary, view is better than the alternative. Having done so, can we please move on? -- TheOther Bob 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
The community has decided that self-nominations are acceptable. Kurt Weber has decided for himself that all self-nominations, without exception, are done in bad faith (ostensibly due to "power hunger"). Rather than challenge the policy (and, by all indications, he hasn't) he has instead decided to express his opinions by repeatedly and monotonously challenging the candidacy of every self-nomination as a bad-faith decision. This is disruptive behavior for a process that attempts to identify the individual merits of editors. Spamming RfAs is not an acceptable means of conveying objections to the RfA process. - Chardish ( talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
This edit is not a personal attack. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Many of Kurt's edits to RFA have been done to pages that have only had someone self-nominating themselves. At first, some users could take Kurt's opposes as a personal attack. However, I also feel that Kurt is making his decision purely on the basis on whether its a self nom or not. Kurt seems not to base his decision on whether the users a good faith editor or not, whether or not they have been blocked before. The only thing Kurt takes into account into RFA's is whether the candidate has nominated themselves or not. This in a way is a bias opinion. Kurt seemingly doesn't take the time to look at the candidate even if it is a self-nom. I also think that although Kurt's edits are disruptive, if he did provide a seperate reason (eg. user was recently blocked), I would be happy with that. (Note: This RFC links in with this.) Dav nel 03 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
I feel that he should be able to voice his opinion, but by him only opposing the Self Nom's, its harassment. Even if its a blanketed effect, he is only voting in those Rfa's. It would be different if he were to vote in all Rfa's or just some of the Rfa's. I feel that he is being unfair in what he is doing and he should stop or be blocked.
Users who endore this summary:
Will present evidence in the form of diffs later, but I think it is important to note here that Kurt's behaviour, in some respects, has improved since the last RfC (or, as some will say, never needed improving). If others want to provide diffs below of examples of improved behaviour, please do so. Update: Thanks to Sluzzelin for adding those diffs that I hadn't found time to hunt down yet. Just the sort of thing I would have looked for. This is probably enough for now, so maybe I should 'officially' declare this draft view finished and ready for people to endorse! Other diffs (for or against) should be provided in the endorsement comments. Please note that the first three endorsements were made before this update. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Kurt is an intelligent person, he has surely been made aware of the fact that bureaucrats give his opinion little weight in discussions despite his firm belief in it, meaning that he is most likely aware that he is now only expressing his opinion for the sake of his opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a forum for free speech. We accord our users acceptable, but not unlimited, bounds for expression of personal opinions. However, a user does not have the right to engage in a certain behavior solely because the community is unable to agree whether such a behavior is disruptive or not, or to what degree it is disruptive and how or if sanctions should be applied. It is at best disrespectful to the community to continue to act in a way which causes discord therein for no tangible benefit. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
The users who oppose Kurt's conduct with regards to spamming the "prima facie" line do not necessarily oppose Kurt's other behavior at RfAs, or Kurt's behavior as an editor, and are not motivated by a personal agenda against Kurt. Opposing Kurt's "prima facie" behavior through channels such as AN/I and RfC does not constitute harassment. Chardish ( talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
There are two dead horses in the room: (1) Kurt's continuing to oppose self-nominations at RfA; and (2) Those arguing that "something must be done about this". Continual beating of the dead horses will not bring them back to life. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
In the interest of making RFA a useful process to those who succeed and to those who do not, comments made on RFA should either be neutral or constructive. Saying a user is a jerk is not constructive. Rephrasing it and coupling it with examples that show the candidate being uncivil is constructive. However, evidence should be rooted in consensus (standard policy/procedure) or common sense. Saying a user is a chronic edit warrior and then pointing to reversions of vandalism is not constructive as vandalism reverts are not edit warring. Self-nominations are explicitly allowed in the RFA process and, by themselves, are evidence of nothing except that the user is familiar with the RFA process. Mr. Z-man 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
If I were to say "I view statements that a comment clearly referring to a specific person is a 'blanket, not individual' comment, and therefore is not insulting - as prima facie evidence of being a m:dick.", would this be seen as an accusation that someone is a m:dick? If so, each of Kmweber's votes should be seen as an accusation that someone is power-hungry. Whether saying someone is power-hungry is a personal attack remains to be decided, but we shouldn't pretend he did not say what he said.— Random832 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Nevermind that opposing on the basis of no other evidence of "power-hunger" makes a mockery of the term prima facie anyway. — Random832 14:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no guidelines or policies covering why you can, should, can't or shouldn't oppose, support or be neutral on an RfA, beyond whether you think the editor in question would be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. An essay exists on the subject ( Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions), but its unlikely to every be policy (and explicitly states it isn't intended to be). While the manner of Kurt's phrasing of his opposes may be subject to Wikipedia:Civility, the substance of his oppose is neither a personal attack nor incivil, and far more uncivil, absurd and poorly reasoned opposes appear commonly in RfA. This is why bureaucrats have discretion in giving bits to editors. Wily D 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Constant back and forth over this issue has yet to provide a unanimous solution. If and when Kurt's RfA comments provoke a response from a user who is not aware of these discussions, they should gently be guided towards the relevant links so as not to reinvent the wheel, or at least be informed that the topic has already been raised. While all editors should feel free to disagree at RfA, they might find it useful to at least review what has been already thoroughly debated by the community. We should do our best to minimize disruption, rather than allow it to spill over and grow.
To illustrate, the following sequence is unhelpful:
1) Kurt opposes based on self-nom
2) nominated-user questions or argues with Kurt's oppose (optional per CBM's note below)
3) outside user comes to defense of nominated-user
4) outside user comes to defense of Kurt
5) and so on...
If we can manage to slow or stop this sequence at any step we might not end up here again.
Users who endorse this view:
Well, it does look like this is still open. That being said, look. Yes, Kurt's cut-and-pastes cause disruption. Yes, his history of nominating himself (for admin and for the Board of Trustees) suggests that he's a hypocrite. Yes, the quasi-farce that is RfA ensures that three Support votes are necessary to offset his one. However, and I want to make this clear: nothing in Wikipedia policy or guideline compels him to say only what we want him to say. Like any other editor in any other discussion, he has the right to express himself as badly as he wishes, with as little common sense, consistency and forethought as he wishes, and in as knee-jerk a fashion as he wishes. What's next, filing RfCs against editors who always vote Keep in XfDs with kneejerk "Sounds notable" cites?
I assure anyone reading this that I'm as frustrated by Kurt's antics as much as anyone. That being the case, people have tried reasoning with him, gentle suggestions, harsh suggestions, sarcasm, screaming, what have you. He is going to type what he's going to type. Any admin action or sanction against him for it would set a horrible precedent, and I don't think I'd want to be part of that Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
User:Kmweber is repeatedly using a copy-and-pasted oppose comment ('I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger') on all self-nominated RfAs. The user has been asked many times to cease, however the user continues to post the same old comment. A Request for Arbitration filed in November was declined on the basis that it could be referred back to the community for discussion. The previous RfC was at a standstill. The user states that his actions are not insulting because the comment is blanket, not individual.
I ( User:Auroranorth) would like to see User:Kmweber cease his RfA comments which are not personal and give no helpful advice. The RfAs all say 'please keep discussion constructive' and Kmweber's comments are definitely not constructive and offer no helpful advice whatsoever. Auroranorth ( !) 09:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Kmweber is repeatedly using a copy-and-pasted oppose comment ('I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger') on all self-nominated RfAs. The user has been asked many times to cease, however the user continues to post the same old comment. A Request for Arbitration filed in November was declined on the basis that it could be referred back to the community for discussion. The previous RfC was at a standstill. The user states that his actions are not insulting because the comment is blanket, not individual.
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
A very recent RFC showed the community as a whole accepted Kurt has the right to oppose RFAs in the way he does. Making a point is not the same as making a WP:POINT, which requires disruption. Upsetting a few sensitive souls who disagree with his reasons for opposition of RFAs is not disruptive. Kurt's reasoning for opposal is no more or less specious than those that require a certain percentage of editing in certain namespaces. The only reason his RFA activity causes disruption is the responses of a small but very vocal minority of editors. I think the only reason Kurt is continuing to be harassed is that he has shown himself to be a considerate and thoughtful chap who sticks to his principles despite a lynch mob running around block-shopping on various forums to every few weeks. I should also note Kurt has made a very real effort to improve his RFA reasonings - it is unfortunate that the editors who have decided he is the devil have not similarly improved their behaviour. Neıl ☎ 13:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is my first exposure to this issue, and I'm frankly surprised this has been brought to an RfC, especially when it has been discussed by the community before. Kurt is entitled to his own opinion on the qualities he finds desirable in a good administrator. Others are free to consider or disregard his opinion, including the 'crats who close the RfA nominations. And criticizing an admin, if done in a civil manner, is not a personal attack. Also, I don't understand why WP:NPOV has been listed as an applicable policy for admin nominations - if it did apply, everyone would have to vote "neutral".
Users who endorse this summary:
Personally I believe this RfC is somewhat pointless; everything that needed to be said was posted on WP:ANI yesterday. First of all, Kurt's spamming of self-noms, whilst irritating to many, is not really disruptive - I am sure it is routinely ignored by the closing 'crats, and also by most other editors (I certainly wasn't bothered by the one on my RfA). However I am a little concerned that Kurt's comment on the young editors above was defended as civil - if he had bothered to provide some supporting diffs, for instance, practically no-one would've batted an eyelid - but that comment really did come over as rather petulant and uncivil, completely irrelevant to the RfA in hand, and he should have been asked to justify or strike it.
Users who endorse this summary:
This RfC is a complete and utter waste of time, much akin to Kurt's comments. People do think Kurt's comments are disruptive but they don't particularly want to see those comments banned at RfA in case they want to leave a similar comment in future. Bureaucrats will give the comments the weight they deserve and I think we will see that when we get to an RfA that would be above 70% without Kurt's comment. There are few people interested in stopping his behavior and it seems the community at large would rather see these "delicate souls" be upset rather then Kurt silenced, which is regrettable, but it's how the community is behaving at the moment. For that reason, I'm not going to endorse this RfC. Nick ( talk) 15:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Wikipedia (and RFA) is a collegial environment in which editors must work together towards consensus. It is not an experiment in democracy nor a forum for free speech. To the best of my knowledge I have never interacted with Kurt at any RFA he has opposed; I only know of him because of the continuing complaints about his comments at self-nominated RFAs. Regardless of the merits of his comments, Kurt is aware that they cause disruption, yet continues to make them. Continuing to make these comments while ignoring the reactions they provoke is inappropriate and will eventually result in sanction of one form or another. If Kurt believes that self-nominations are inappropriate, he can pursue that goal at WT:RFA, as many have pointed out. I encourage Kurt to reconsider his methods and make a voluntary change. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 15:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
I hate having the same conversation on here over and over and over again. It's not a wikipedian's duty to rehash or continue a debate until all parties are in agreement. The old RFC wasn't at a "standstill" -- it was at a resolution. A resolution with which some disagree, certainly, but at some point you have to put down the stick and walk away from the dead horse. I know that's hard because Kurt's still doing what the community has said he can do. The yelling about Kurt's opinion -- not the opinion itself -- is becoming disruptive. Multiple RFC's, multiple trips to ANI, a request for arbitration... Some seem to hold the view that if they make enough noise about a perfectly acceptable practice, then they can stop the practice just because...well, we're all tired of the wikidrama their protestations are causing. So to the merits of the practice, again? CBM is correct that this is not a democracy, and Nick is correct that the community's acceptance of Kurt's oppose !votes is motivated by the expectation that others may need to oppose a potential admin candidate in the future. Wikipedia is (roughly speaking) a meritocracy, which means that the merits of those who are "promoted" must be examined. The community seems to feel that it is good to oppose certain candidates (as some do need opposing, certainly - some aren't qualified). The community is, I think, therefore very wary of creating any sort of minimum level of "rightness" for an oppose !vote -- or, worse, of creating an atmosphere where people think that !voting support gets you a friendly smile and !voting oppose gets you threatened and possibly banned. And so, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth, the community seems to have decided that allowing an unpopular, even solitary, view is better than the alternative. Having done so, can we please move on? -- TheOther Bob 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
The community has decided that self-nominations are acceptable. Kurt Weber has decided for himself that all self-nominations, without exception, are done in bad faith (ostensibly due to "power hunger"). Rather than challenge the policy (and, by all indications, he hasn't) he has instead decided to express his opinions by repeatedly and monotonously challenging the candidacy of every self-nomination as a bad-faith decision. This is disruptive behavior for a process that attempts to identify the individual merits of editors. Spamming RfAs is not an acceptable means of conveying objections to the RfA process. - Chardish ( talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
This edit is not a personal attack. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Many of Kurt's edits to RFA have been done to pages that have only had someone self-nominating themselves. At first, some users could take Kurt's opposes as a personal attack. However, I also feel that Kurt is making his decision purely on the basis on whether its a self nom or not. Kurt seems not to base his decision on whether the users a good faith editor or not, whether or not they have been blocked before. The only thing Kurt takes into account into RFA's is whether the candidate has nominated themselves or not. This in a way is a bias opinion. Kurt seemingly doesn't take the time to look at the candidate even if it is a self-nom. I also think that although Kurt's edits are disruptive, if he did provide a seperate reason (eg. user was recently blocked), I would be happy with that. (Note: This RFC links in with this.) Dav nel 03 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
I feel that he should be able to voice his opinion, but by him only opposing the Self Nom's, its harassment. Even if its a blanketed effect, he is only voting in those Rfa's. It would be different if he were to vote in all Rfa's or just some of the Rfa's. I feel that he is being unfair in what he is doing and he should stop or be blocked.
Users who endore this summary:
Will present evidence in the form of diffs later, but I think it is important to note here that Kurt's behaviour, in some respects, has improved since the last RfC (or, as some will say, never needed improving). If others want to provide diffs below of examples of improved behaviour, please do so. Update: Thanks to Sluzzelin for adding those diffs that I hadn't found time to hunt down yet. Just the sort of thing I would have looked for. This is probably enough for now, so maybe I should 'officially' declare this draft view finished and ready for people to endorse! Other diffs (for or against) should be provided in the endorsement comments. Please note that the first three endorsements were made before this update. Carcharoth ( talk) 14:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Kurt is an intelligent person, he has surely been made aware of the fact that bureaucrats give his opinion little weight in discussions despite his firm belief in it, meaning that he is most likely aware that he is now only expressing his opinion for the sake of his opinion. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a forum for free speech. We accord our users acceptable, but not unlimited, bounds for expression of personal opinions. However, a user does not have the right to engage in a certain behavior solely because the community is unable to agree whether such a behavior is disruptive or not, or to what degree it is disruptive and how or if sanctions should be applied. It is at best disrespectful to the community to continue to act in a way which causes discord therein for no tangible benefit. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
The users who oppose Kurt's conduct with regards to spamming the "prima facie" line do not necessarily oppose Kurt's other behavior at RfAs, or Kurt's behavior as an editor, and are not motivated by a personal agenda against Kurt. Opposing Kurt's "prima facie" behavior through channels such as AN/I and RfC does not constitute harassment. Chardish ( talk) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
There are two dead horses in the room: (1) Kurt's continuing to oppose self-nominations at RfA; and (2) Those arguing that "something must be done about this". Continual beating of the dead horses will not bring them back to life. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
In the interest of making RFA a useful process to those who succeed and to those who do not, comments made on RFA should either be neutral or constructive. Saying a user is a jerk is not constructive. Rephrasing it and coupling it with examples that show the candidate being uncivil is constructive. However, evidence should be rooted in consensus (standard policy/procedure) or common sense. Saying a user is a chronic edit warrior and then pointing to reversions of vandalism is not constructive as vandalism reverts are not edit warring. Self-nominations are explicitly allowed in the RFA process and, by themselves, are evidence of nothing except that the user is familiar with the RFA process. Mr. Z-man 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
If I were to say "I view statements that a comment clearly referring to a specific person is a 'blanket, not individual' comment, and therefore is not insulting - as prima facie evidence of being a m:dick.", would this be seen as an accusation that someone is a m:dick? If so, each of Kmweber's votes should be seen as an accusation that someone is power-hungry. Whether saying someone is power-hungry is a personal attack remains to be decided, but we shouldn't pretend he did not say what he said.— Random832 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Nevermind that opposing on the basis of no other evidence of "power-hunger" makes a mockery of the term prima facie anyway. — Random832 14:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
There are no guidelines or policies covering why you can, should, can't or shouldn't oppose, support or be neutral on an RfA, beyond whether you think the editor in question would be an asset to Wikipedia as an administrator. An essay exists on the subject ( Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions), but its unlikely to every be policy (and explicitly states it isn't intended to be). While the manner of Kurt's phrasing of his opposes may be subject to Wikipedia:Civility, the substance of his oppose is neither a personal attack nor incivil, and far more uncivil, absurd and poorly reasoned opposes appear commonly in RfA. This is why bureaucrats have discretion in giving bits to editors. Wily D 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this view:
Constant back and forth over this issue has yet to provide a unanimous solution. If and when Kurt's RfA comments provoke a response from a user who is not aware of these discussions, they should gently be guided towards the relevant links so as not to reinvent the wheel, or at least be informed that the topic has already been raised. While all editors should feel free to disagree at RfA, they might find it useful to at least review what has been already thoroughly debated by the community. We should do our best to minimize disruption, rather than allow it to spill over and grow.
To illustrate, the following sequence is unhelpful:
1) Kurt opposes based on self-nom
2) nominated-user questions or argues with Kurt's oppose (optional per CBM's note below)
3) outside user comes to defense of nominated-user
4) outside user comes to defense of Kurt
5) and so on...
If we can manage to slow or stop this sequence at any step we might not end up here again.
Users who endorse this view:
Well, it does look like this is still open. That being said, look. Yes, Kurt's cut-and-pastes cause disruption. Yes, his history of nominating himself (for admin and for the Board of Trustees) suggests that he's a hypocrite. Yes, the quasi-farce that is RfA ensures that three Support votes are necessary to offset his one. However, and I want to make this clear: nothing in Wikipedia policy or guideline compels him to say only what we want him to say. Like any other editor in any other discussion, he has the right to express himself as badly as he wishes, with as little common sense, consistency and forethought as he wishes, and in as knee-jerk a fashion as he wishes. What's next, filing RfCs against editors who always vote Keep in XfDs with kneejerk "Sounds notable" cites?
I assure anyone reading this that I'm as frustrated by Kurt's antics as much as anyone. That being the case, people have tried reasoning with him, gentle suggestions, harsh suggestions, sarcasm, screaming, what have you. He is going to type what he's going to type. Any admin action or sanction against him for it would set a horrible precedent, and I don't think I'd want to be part of that Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.