Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2

message: I think this RfC should be read in the light of this discussion at the AN/I - Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Rfa. DuncanHill (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And this discussion too - Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Clear_cut_personal_attack_by_User:Kmweber. DuncanHill (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Admins Noticeboard discussion

message: There was a previous RfC, which can be viewed here - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber. DuncanHill (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Previous RfC

message: Previous request for arbitration (which was declined) is here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous RfArb 

message: The dispute behavior section lists
"2. Kmweber makes a personal attack against young administrators[5]."
::Which seems to go against the clear consensus that was formed at the AN/I page. Epthorn (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack? Not according to most people... 

message: I have seen the argument that Kurt's actions are not disruptive because he can point to good intentions behind them. I don't think this standard is strict enough. I suggest applying the duck test: if certain behavior causes continual complaints from editors about its disruptive nature, repeated posts to ANI, and repeated RFCs, then for all practical purposes it is disruptive. There are many other ways that Kurt could pursue his goals for improving Wikipedia without causing so much heat. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could turn this about - repeatedly no consensus has been found against Kurt - so those choosing to "flog this dead horse" (as I have seen this matter described elsewhere) could be said to be disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if it was always the same people complaining about Kurt's comments, they should stop doing so. But that doesn't give Kurt justification for continuing to make comments which he knows will lead to disruption (as I said above, I am looking only at the outcome of the comments, not their stated intention). I don't have a good set of statistics, though; are the complaints to his comments made by more and more editors over time, or by the same editors over and over? Does anyone already have data on that? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  In these cases, you have to look objectively at what's going on.  The complaints about his comments all come from emotion- there's no reason there.  Deleting junk content on new page patrol generates dramatic complaints also.  But those complaints, like the ones here, are groundless.  We don't call an editor disruptive for generating groundless complaints.  Friday (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rarely see the same member of new page patrol discussed on ANI and on multiple RFCs because of their patrolling. At some point, it's necessary to recognize that regardless of Kurt's intentions he needs to choose a different strategy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if the new editors whose junk was being deleted knew more about how to do these things, I bet you'd see our prolific new page patrollers mentioned more.  If we don't notice the complaints, it's because they're on user talk pages.  If Kurt was being habitually rude in his opposes, the complainers would have a leg to stand on.  But I just see him quietly, politely giving his (admittedly unusual) opinion.  Friday (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathize with the position that, because his comments are made with good intentions, it is not his fault if they draw poor reactions. And I would accept that argument if this situation only occurred rarely. But we are all well aware of the actual effects of the comments. Sometimes good intentions aren't enough, and the consequences of the comments need to be considered. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As said before...many times now...the community just does not appear willing to accept a Heckler's veto on Kurt's comments, nor should it.  Simple as that. --TheOtherBob 08:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption and the duck test 

message: Your priorities are completely wrong when you say "it seems the community at large would rather see these "delicate souls" be upset rather then Kurt silenced, which is regrettable..."  This is exactly backwards.  RFA is about evaluating candidates.  Evaluating a candidate is thus more important than never saying anything negative or critical.  Yes, the disruption is unfortunate, but blame for that lies with the dramakinder, not with Kurt's quietly stated opinions.  When children cry at the movies, you remove them from the theatre, you don't turn off the big loud scary movie. Friday (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RFA is about coming to a consensus about the suitability of a candidate. Kurt's comments have a pattern of disrupting the consensus-building process. Everyone at an RFA needs to remember they are not making an isolated vote; they are contributing to a group conversation about the candidate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that his comments don't advance the discussion much.  But neither do the vast majority of them.  Where I think we see it differently is the disruption.  If someone gets unreasonably upset over a reasonable action, you can't blame the poor editor who did the reasonable action.  Giving one's opinion on a candidate at RFA (even a weird one I don't agree with) is generally a reasonable action.  Friday (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Friday here.  Giving his opinion in the proper format in the proper forum is not disruptive.  The proper forum is each individual RfA.  The proper format is the way Kurt does it.  There is nothing disruptive in Kurt's actions.  GRBerry 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual RFAs are not the proper forum. If he was opposing for something not explicitly allowed it might be the proper forum, but if he wants the rules changed for self noms, the proper forum is WT:RFA or the Village Pump. Mr.Z-man 16:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if I was really upset at someone posting out of order in a thread, like, oh, I don't know, you? Where should I complain? ANI? The correct place for you to put your 16:51 post replying to GRBerry's 16:02 post is after Friday's 16:36 post. I think a proportionate response by those opposing Kurt's self-nom oppositions would be to respond directly to such oppositions on the RfA. Or ignore them. The choice is theirs. Running to ANI is a disproportionate response. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct place would probably be my talk page. Here works as well, but now I can't move my post without moving yours or leaving it in the wrong spot. People had already complained about his opposes on his  talk page. People have been discussing his votes on RFAs - since they only last a short amount of time and are supposed to relate to only one candidate, not the whole system - they are a very poor place for an extended discussion. WT:RFA on the other hand, as he has been told numerous times, is the perfect place. If it actually bothers you, feel free to move my posts. "Ignore them" - should we use that for other things as well? Why discuss and block for violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA when we can just ignore it? Mr.Z-man 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find ignoring (to a degree) slight violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA and concentrating on the substance of a post is often more productive than getting distracted. Carcharoth (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I must respectfully disagree (with the ignoring part). While Wikipedia is not a utopia of niceness, we should strive to at least be pleasant to other editors. The better an atmosphere we have the more productive people will be and the more good editors we will retain. Mr.Z-man 18:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Although there may be nothing disruptive in the intentions for his actions, their effects are certainly disruptive. Blaming those effects on the other users who "should ignore" the comments is not a long-term solution, and ignores the fact that this is a recurring pattern of behavior, not a one-time thing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: That other people lack judgment is a problem with the other people, and should be addressed by modifying their behavior.  We need to modify the behavior of those reacting to Kurt's opinions.  We don't have good reason to modify Kurt's behavior - it is actually useful in showing us who lacks good judgment.  GRBerry 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we're not supposed to say that, but, well, yes.  It highly disturbs me that a few of the people frequently complaining about this (and even threatening blocks) are admins, who in theory, we should be able to trust to have reasonable judgement.  Something is very wrong here.  Friday (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The active admin community is probably now large enough and, crucially in my opinion, variable enough (in age and backgrounds) to fracture into opposing factions on issues like this. We might see similar fissures open up over the ageism issues. Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly no block is needed at this time, and I would not support one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies for having poor judgment in your mind, I just don't see why we allow something that many people find annoying, some find offensive, and the bureaucrats just ignore. Mr.Z-man 16:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm with Carcharoth here and I have to say Friday, your comments are wildly inappropriate. Every admin has their own idea of what is acceptable conduct and what isn't, it's only natural that I and other admins find Kurt's conduct unacceptable, whilst you and other admins find the conduct acceptable. It's not poor judgement, it's a variation in judgement, there's no right or wrong here, despite what you would like others to believe. Nick (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are certain fundamentals we should all agree on. Bad blocks are probably our single biggest cause of undesirable drama.  So, I believe that anyone who'd threaten a block because of a disagreement over RFA criteria should not have access to the block button.  I don't see that this is an unreasonable statement to make.  Friday (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that's directed firmly in my direction, so in the spirit of things, I'll reply that any administrator who willingly permits and supports personal attacks or other behaviour that is disruptive to the project, behaviour I believe we see from Kurt, should not be an administrator. You're still not getting the idea that not everybody views what Kurt does in the same light you do and that there will be divergent courses of action being taken. Nobody is right here, you're no more correct on this issue than I am, so perhaps stop with the dramatic statements. Nick (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Friday, your comment would be valid were it the candidates who were those who complain about the remarks, but it's never candidates complaining about the comments during the RfA (indeed, why would they). It's people arriving at RfA to have a discussion and find a character attack that has no relation to their experiences of the candidate that are complaining about Kurt. Nick (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that I am disturbed when I see threats to block- and I have seen numerous ones against Kurt that clearly go against consensus established in at least a couple places now. Even if (some) people do think he's disruptive there seems to be a strong opinion against blocking and a threat to that effect shows something disturbing. In good faith I assume these admins haven't bothered to look into the history of the matter when they happen upon something they don't like. Epthorn (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does this have to do with my above comment. Has someone threatened to block Kurt again ? Nick (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, Nick. It doesn't- it has to do with Friday's statement but in my tired insomniac state I didn't properly indent/exdent it. That's right, exdent. I think it's time for me to leave this topic alone and go to bed. And no, no one is currently threatening to block Kurt that I am aware of, but I was going through some of his little RfA presents and I found a couple of semi-recent examples of such threats. Maybe this RfC will settle things... probably not. Epthorn (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The goal is for it to settle things; otherwise, I wouldn't participate. It will be more successful at resolving things if everyone treats it as an opportunity for resolution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Nick's view 

message: I disagree with this claim: "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."  It's clear from the first RFC that there were quite a few people who found Kurt's behavior disruptive. The fact that this discussion is still ongoing, 4 months later, can be taken as evidence that the resolution of the previous RFC was inadequate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it can be taken as evidence that some of those involved are willing to start beating the dead horse again. The rationale that a different person has been upset by Kurt's opposes (not surprising, given the traffic seen at RfA) doesn't really cut any ice. Those who raised this issue before should have known that the response wouldn't be much different this time around. Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) How many people must flog a dead horse to bring it back to life?  Ok, that's rhetorical, but community consensus is different from universal agreement.  Some people want to keep discussing this - yes, that's true.  Should they?  No.  Has the community expressed its opinion?  Absolutely - pages and pages and pages of it.  There were dissenting voices -- there will ALWAYS be dissenting voices -- but the fact that those dissenting voices are still themselves tilting at the windmill of community consensus hardly means that it's a good idea for us to keep at this.  Sometimes you have to accept that something in Wikipedia won't be the way that you think it should be -- sometimes you have to "put down the stick and back away slowly from the horse carcass." --TheOtherBob 17:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked the RFAs; is it the same people offended each time, or is it more and more editors encountering Kurt for the first time? In the first case, we can discuss the matter with the few offended editors. In the second case, it would seem that Kurt's behavior itself is the cause of the problem. The community opinion in the first RFC is hardly definitive. It basically comes down to "nothing will be done at this time". For example, see the comment by Andrevan on the first RFC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that the whinging about Kurt's comments qualifies as dead-horse beating. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. Videmus Omnia  Talk  17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the claim that this issue is a dead horse is premature, and only serves to make discussion more difficult. If the horse is walking around and eating grass, it isn't dead. There isn't yet consensus to do anything, but several editors on ANI supported the idea of sanction - that is hardly as closed issue. What is needed is a solid discussion, in which all parties work towards compromise, so that we can agree the issue has been resolved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That people want to keep beating a horse doesn't mean it's alive...  I have to admit to finding the above position frustrating.  The first RFC was overwhelmingly of the view that Kurt's actions -- while annoying at times -- were acceptable.  It's frustrating to have to re-argue whether enough people said something loudly enough to be unambiguous, when it seems facially clear that they did.  (Indeed, this sort of argument is the very definition of how you know when you're beating a dead horse -- if you start arguing about whether consensus was really consensus, check your horse's pulse.)  I just don't see what anyone could possibly say at this point that was not said in the dozens of pages of previous discussion about this issue -- your horse isn't walking around and eating grass, it's a horse skin on marionette strings being danced around in hopes of arguing that it's not really dead.  Bury it, brother, bury it. --TheOtherBob 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I guess this is considered checking the pulse. It sure smells bad, though. Epthorn (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the comment by Andrevan on the first RFC. It is not at all in favor of Kurt's actions, and was supported by 17 editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at it at the time, as well as Friday's more definitive one.  I don't see ambiguity - it was not "well, we'll monitor the situation and I guess if other people have different views some day we should revisit and consider taking action."  No - it was "this is annoying and we wish he'd stop, but no action should be taken."  (No direct quotes in the foregoing, by the way.)  But...are we really having this discussion?  Doesn't the RFC speak for itself?  Do we have to analyze every view in it to see if it was adequately stated, or whether people might have some wavering opinion that should be revisited?  If so, what happens when RFC number 3 comes along - do we revisit this discussion to see if it was enough?  And will RFC number 3 be enough to satisfy RFC number 4's call for clear, unambiguous consensus?  At what point do we just move on?  My proposal -- and I think it's a good one -- is to move on now. --TheOtherBob 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm just saying that the previous RFC was not definitive either way. No sanction was authorized against Kurt, but many people believed his behavior was inappropriate. This isn't a legal system where a decision is made and then stare decisis steps in.  Kurt has had adequate time to change his behavior, the people who complain have had time to change their behavior, but we are still here. So perhaps a different outcome is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that at all.  The discussion was decisive...it just wasn't decisive in the direction that some people would have preferred.  The consensus was that Kurt should not be forced to change his behavior, so the fact that he hasn't (if true) is a little meaningless.  That the people complaining did not change their behavior after a definitive RFC is perhaps pertinent -- but arguing that they should be rewarded with additional sturm und drang for doing what people said they should stop doing is completely backwards.  I agree with you - they should change their behavior, in that they should stop with the RFC's and other wikidrama.  That's a different outcome that makes much more sense than rehashing this debate ad infinitum. --TheOtherBob 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Really? I see 17 people endorsing Andrevan's view as well as other comments by Hiberniantears, Newyorkbrad, and TwoOars who indicated they found his comments to be either disruptive or in very poor form. They may not be supporting sanctions, but they are not endorsing Kmweber's behavior. Mr.Z-man 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per his rationale: "If Kmweber listed all self-noms for Miscellany for deletion, that would be disruptive enough to violate WP:POINT. Simple !voting is not." That is not an endorsement of Kurt, but it also seems to be saying he's not pointing.Epthorn (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And this additional quote from that: "Leaving comments on RfAs is not a WP:POINT violation as it does not disrupt the workings of Wikipedia in any way. "Epthorn (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the third paragraph is also important: "That said, Kmweber's comments are very unhelpful, and ignore community consensus on how to leave opinions on RfAs. ... He should be advised that he is not generating goodwill via his !voting pattern, nor is he affecting the outcome of RfAs that he contributes to. I do not understand why he would continue in the face of substantial opposition to the behavior. ... doing so in this fashion does little else but betray his disregard and disrespect for long-standing community consensus." Mr.Z-man 19:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a doubt in my mind that there's little good-will engendered by those little 'power-hungry' leaflets. I, like Andrevan, am not sure why he continues doing so. However I tend to read that and understand that while most are disagreeing with him, even expressing dismay with him, they ultimately establish that there is no appropriate action or redress for the situation as he is acting within his "rights" to comment and oppose as he wishes at an RfA. Given that response, I doubt there is likely to be a much different response again so soon after; if that is true, all this is grossly out of proportion to the 'disruption' that would result from simply disagreeing with him on RfA or ignoring him. Epthorn (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no "rights" to contribute to RFA, and I think that if Kurt fails to moderate his behavior, sanctions will become increasingly likely. Such sanctions are a perfectly appropriate way to address continuing disruption sparked by his comments. If any action is taken, I think the most appropriate remedy would be a short topic ban from RFA. If the only correct response to his comments at RFA is to ignore them, then he should not continue making such comments. This is already implicit in Andrevan's comment from August. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's why I put "rights" in quotation marks. There is a right, actually- he has the same right as you or I unless the community establishes otherwise as he is currently an editor in good standing. The consensus at the first RfC was that he should not be banned from commenting. The thread at AN\I showed the same thing. This one is shaping up the same way. Frankly I think that the more this comes up the more people may support him. If I had been looking at the first RfC I probably would have been more critical of him; I see these further attempts as very disruptive, however, and it's not his fault.Epthorn (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first RFC shows no clear consensus either way.  If the disruption continues but no resolution can be found, the matter will end up at Arbcom. It would be preferable to find a solution to the matter here, rather than continuing to postpone it. I feel that merely deciding that the other people are at fault, but Kurt is not, is unlikely to be a successful resolution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tiresome.  There was consensus - you can say there wasn't, parse comments, try to find opposite meaning in the gloss of each person's endorsement.  None of that removes the consensus of that RFC, of this RFC, of the multiple trips to ANI.  You say this will end up at arbitration...I assume you mean "again."  When you say "I feel that merely deciding that the other people are at fault, but Kurt is not, is unlikely to be a successful resolution," do you mean that you will continue debating this issue until sanctions are applied to Kurt, regardless of community consensus - that you will never, ever let this issue die?  If so...let it die, man, let it die.  This was successfully resolved...some people just don't like the resolution.  Well, that's why you have to eventually stop beating the horse, because otherwise that refusal to accept things disrupts the encyclopedia. --TheOtherBob 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Resp to TheOtherBob. We'll have to disagree about consensus at the last RFC. The issue will be successfully resolved when it is no longer coming to ANI (note that is the only reason I know about it at all). Sanctions on Kurt should not be necessary; it would be simple enough for him to change his behavior. He has the mistaken belief, expressed at the last RFC and again to me yesterday, that if other people's responses to his comments are unreasonable then he is not responsible for avoiding those responses. In reality, all editors are responsible for maintaining a collegial atmosphere. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So then as long as people continue to beat it, in your view the horse is not dead.  Anyone can bring anything to AN/I, no matter how ill-advised they'd be to do so.  When one person's flogging is identical to the last person's, when no new light is shed and only the patience of the community is tried...that's when you know it's time to stop beating the poor, wretched animal.  That point was at least two weeks ago.  To your other point, you're confusing a collegial atmosphere with a warm, friendly, controversy-free one.  If an editor believes that he or she should oppose someone's RFA, but knows that others will disagree and that feelings may be hurt, we would be utterly foolish to say that that person has a duty to be silent about his concerns so as not to stir up disagreement.  Kurt is not obliged to be silent for fear that someone will have an irrational response to his comments.  But...this was already said.  Everything I've said -- and everything you've said -- has already been said (and recently).  The flogging is identical, the only thing changing is the stiffness of the dead horse.  (And the associated puns, which are getting tiresome in themselves...)  So feel free to have the last word on this, because the only thing I can think to do further with this is refer you back to all the other times that everything we're saying has been said... --TheOtherBob 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything is clear, it's clear that the issue will not go away on its own. The best outcome here would be for everyone, including Kurt, to work towards a resolution in which no sanctions are required. As has been said repeatedly, if Kurt feels he should oppose all self-nominated RFAs, he can do so on WT:RFA. He is not obliged to be silent. He is obliged to contribute towards a productive, collegial environment,  just as we all are. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've yet to see a discussion hold itself, so to hear that the issue "will not go away on its own" means to me that some people will never, ever, ever drop it.  (As I am about to do here.)  The insufficiency of WT:RFA as a venue has been discussed, as have the exact limits of Kurt's obligation to Wikipedia.  This isn't new ground.  There is no new ground.  If you can get Kurt to agree to do something different than what he's doing...that's fine (and I'd welcome it).  But if he tells you no, that's his call and your remedy is to accept it and move on -- not to keep seeking sanctions that the community has rejected or to keep discussing this issue to the point of harassment.  At some point you have to let it go. --TheOtherBob 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The community has not rejected sanctions, although I don't think they are appropriate at this time. But it isn't true that if he continues to say no, all anyone can do it smile.  The goal here is to find a solution that everyone can live with, and that will substantially reduce the number of complaints. The last RFC seems to only have postponed the issue rather than resolving it. I think that finding an actual resolution would be an ideal outcome. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's taken me a while to respond to that, frankly, because I find it so puzzling.  The entire first RFC, the arbitration request, the AN/I's - in each, the vast majority of the community has expressed the view that sanctions were inappropriate.  So when you say that the community has not rejected sanctions, I'm left wondering if we're even in the same discussion.  I guess my only response is "yes, it did."  We had that strange debate earlier about what Andrevan's comment in the first RFC meant...but the first thing he says is "First off, let me say unequivocally that Kmweber cannot and should not be blocked for his opinions."  Other people said "Kurt's actions are not block-worthy," "His actions are not helpful and ridiculous, but he should, of course, not be blocked for this," and "Utterly unhelpful, and perhaps annoying and irritating, but not so disruptive that it can't be solved by simply ignoring it."  NewYorkBrad took perhaps the hardest line, but said "I don't advocate blocking him."  So if that's not a rejection of sanctions, then we must have wildly different views of what it takes to reject sanctions.  You are right, though, that people don't have to just smile at Kurt's comments.  They can, for example, disagree with them.  But, then, this too is old ground...  If you have a solution that is better than ignoring or refuting Kurt's comments, I'd be glad to hear it, of course -- but if we're just going to go over the same old ground and argue about whether Andrevan really meant "Kmweber cannot and should not be blocked" when he said "Kmweber cannot and should not be blocked," well, count me out. --TheOtherBob 08:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, it seems that the community has overwhelmingly rejected sanctions and done so explicitly. That brings up the main question- what are these RfCs going to accomplish? The only possible advantage is that the user has said he would change his behavior if there was consensus that it was inappropriate (and may have further clarified this to mean it would result in blocks, see his talk page). Short of a massive change from the first RfC I don't see that happening, especially in such a short time. So if there is no support for blocks- and note that few, if any, editors here are advocating a block or ban from RfA- what is the point of all this (alllll this)? Epthorn (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to view by TheOtherBob 

message: If the above views regarding Kurt's attack on the young admins really do represent consensus, we need to start rewriting WP:NPA.  To quote the policy page: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.".  BLACKKITE 18:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just an opinion. For example, if I were to say "Jimmy Carter was a poor President", is that a personal attack on him? It's a criticism of his actions as President, and doesn't reflect on the fact that I may think he's a great person otherwise for building houses for homeless people. Videmus Omnia  Talk  18:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: One instance doesn't mean we have to start rewriting policies. That's why we have brains and WP:IAR instead of just policies, isn't it? This was not a usual situation. He did not seek out this opportunity to attack anyone. Someone claimed two editors were good as an argument to refute him; he shouldn't be able to dispute that assertion? This doesn't require a change in policy and isn't a common situation. Epthorn (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We have to admit that there are places where we are demanded to speak our minds. RfA is one of these. RfC is another. AfD is a third. In these places we are encouraged to hold and present our opinions, despite WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Similarly, when we're stating our opinions in the limited venue of RfA, a reasonable weakening of WP:NPA is common sensical and necessary. Beyond that, consensus is that Kurt did not attack anyone and dramatically calling for an overhaul of NPA at this time is an attempt to divert the discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But if Jimmy Carter was a Wikipedian, and you said "you are a really poor editor" then surely that's disparaging, and against NPA?  My worry here is not so much this particular comment of Kurt's, but where we draw the line on personal attacks.  Pretty much any personal attack can be defended with "it's just an opinion". (And if I wanted to divert the discussion, I'd have done it on the project page, not the talk page).BLACKKITE 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Suppose I was up for RfA, pray that never happens, and someone came along and said "Kyaa should not be an admin cause he's a bad editor." it would be a proper response. The venue MATTERS. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I agree, as long as there was some evidence of that why that person held that opinion.  Kurt's comment was nothing to do with the subject of the RfA though, and didn't give any reasoning for it. BLACKKITE 18:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes it an unjustified (not backed up by evidence) claim, not a personal attack. Carcharoth (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMO it's still disparaging, and thus against NPA.  My worry remains as to where exactly we draw the line on attacks if such a comment is "acceptable" (I'm not too keen on slippery slopes), but I suppose we can deal with that when it occurs.  I'll leave it there. BLACKKITE 18:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, it would probably be more troubling had he presented a bunch of links. It would make it look like he was stalking them based on their age.... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, evidence is preferred over vague "bad editor" statements. If it was randomly presented on ANI, I might see it as strange, but on RFA people are encouraged to go through candidates' edit history. Mr.Z-man 19:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the candidate being considered, yes, for randomly appearing current admins, doubtful. I think that had Kurt had a laundry list of evidence against two randomly appearing youthful admins so readily available, one would wonder why. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which is why the throwaway use of those two admins as an argument was unhelpful and his counter (that they were 'poor' instead of good) was equally unhelpful. Both arguments should have been ignored. Epthorn (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who volunteers to rewrite WP:NPA? 

message: I spent a few minutes looking through Kurt's contribs. I glanced at all the "oppose, self-nom" RFAs since July 1 to see who commented on his rationale. What I saw was not just a few people who keep responding to Kurt's comments on multiple RFAs. Most of the time that there was a response it was not from a previous responder or from the nominated self individual; it was some other person who was at the RFA and happened to comment on Kurt's oppose rationale. So the idea that this is about admin candidates who can't take the heat of an oppose seems misguided to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't done that, but did you notice if it was the same editors or was it a unique response each time? Can you tell if said editors were sincere or making a WP:POINT? Were they offended by the context (the position) or by the content (the tone)? What conclusion can we draw from this? --12 Noon 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make a list, but it appeared to me that it was quite a few different editors, not just one or two.  It really isn't that many RFAs, so it doesn't take too long to look through them. A common initial reaction is to ask Kurt to explain his reasoning more thoroughly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost every oppose on any candidate who lives within a 300 mile walk of acceptable gets questioned - this isn't a diagnostic feature.  WilyD 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know about everyone else (or at least I won't put words in their mouths) but my concern about this isn't that people disagree with him on the AFD- it's that people think that such disagreement means he should stop when it does not constitute a WP:POINT (even if it is a "non-WP:POINT"). Epthorn (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "admin candidates who can't take the heat" 

message: The goal of any RFC is to work towards a compromise outcome that addresses the concerns of all the involved parties. I am interested to hear others' thoughts about possible outcomes of this RFC that could accomplish that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My hope for this is the same as it was for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber - that people think about the situation for a while, and realize that giving one's opinion at RFA is not disruptive.  Kurt's not being a jerk about it - he's just politely giving his opinion in the place designated for such.  Yes, it's easy to succumb to the emotional knee-jerk reaction we see all too frequently, but I would hope that given enough time to think about the situation calmly, people would mostly come to the conclusion that this isn't a problem.  Anyone who does new page patrol and deletes junk pages knows that many people will complain for no good reason- the loudness of those complaints does not automatically give them legitimacy.  Friday (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is adequate evidence of disruption, including the posts are ANI and two RFCs. And there are numerous comments from editors who do feel some change needs to happen, on both the last RFC and this RFC. I hope that we can find some compromise solution that will resolve the issue, rather than just postponing it as the last RFC did. I would be very glad to hear suggestions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not 100% involved on the history of all of this, but I think the language in WP:SELFNOM needs to be revised.  Specifically, the sentence "Thus, it is counter-productive to oppose a candidate based solely on the fact that the candidate is self-nominated." seems to be incorrect disputed as Kurt has brought up.--12 Noon 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that almost no one is supporting Kurt's opinions per se, just his right to state them. WP:SELFNOM is fine as it is. Sure Kurt is disputing it, but that doesn't make it disputed by any significant part of the community. That's like saying some people are opposing Newyorkbrad for arbcom. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) Your views on disruption have been widely rejected, and you just heard a fair statement of the community's resolution of this issue from last time.  You want a new resolution, but we're all ok with this one...so I don't know what to tell you.  I admire your temerity against a vast sea of consensus, though -- and I'd bet Kurt would too. --TheOtherBob 22:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It simply isn't true that everyone is "ok" with the last resolution; look at the number of complaints on ANI, or the support for my first view on this RFC. Even if you feel Kurt has done nothing wrong, it's still important to find a compromise that all parties can agree to, if we are going to have anything like consensus. Inherent with compromise is the need for all sides to give a little. What would you be willing to give. More importantly: Kurt, what would you be willing to give to find a consensus here? — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right about there being disruption, the question is it's source. That might be a good thing to consider. You mention numerous comments from editors that want some change, on the other hand there are at least as many (or more actually) that feel that no change is needed. So, making Kurt keep his opinion to himself doesn't seem to be supported. How about this, what if everyone ignores Kurt for say 6 months and then revisit it? Kurt will go on adding content, and making the occasional RFA comment, life can go on and we can see what we can see a little bit down the road? I mean, there isn't consensus that his behavior needs to change (via 2 RFCs) and Arbcom doesn't feel the need to get involved. So I don't know where there is to go besides seeing if there's any long term need for action. RxS (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no value in trying to horse-trade with you in an effort to buy an end to this disruption -- if you want Kurt to change what he does, ask him.  If he says no, then he says no.  I don't see that you're offering anything to him except a promise to stop rehashing this issue over and over again...but you should do that anyways, not as some sort of dead horse-trading.  (Ok, couldn't resist the pun.) --TheOtherBob 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rx StrangeLove, I believe both 'sides' are somewhat at fault, and both need to take responsibility for a solution. TheOtherBob, it is in everyone's interest, including me, you, and Kurt, to find a resolution to this issue. Wikipedia does not work by telling some significant minority of editors to just ignore something - we work towards a consensus that everyone can accept. In this case, I do believe it is possible to find a solution. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it help Wikipedia if someone -- even Kurt -- is strong-armed into silence to prevent a sort of blackmail by disruption?  No - it harms it, by encouraging the "significant" minority to use disruption to obtain something they could not get by consensus.  If you have a proposal that doesn't seek to strong-arm Kurt, doesn't rely on sanctions that the community has rejected, and doesn't depend on a threat of continued disruption...fire away.  Mine would be to reject what appears to be a bad new idea of what RFA is.  It's not a friendship contest, and oppose votes are not insults.  If someone says something with which you disagree there, yes, either refute it or ignore it.  That's the solution the community has preferred for many years, and except for a few people who scream very loudly about perceived insults, this solution has worked well.  You'd treat Kurt as a special case...but that's going to be tough to do.  But, hey, I'm not really seeing a compromise proposed here from you -- just a suggestion that we should have one.  So, propose away. --TheOtherBob 23:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your suggestion. If I am reading it right, it gives people free reign to say whatever they want on RFA. Things like "Oppose - user is a pompous asshole" would be allowed. I would suggest that comments made on RFA should either be neutral or constructive. Saying a user is a jerk is not constructive. Coupling it with examples that show the candidate being uncivil is constructive however. However, evidence should be based in consensus (standard policy/procedure). 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 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may in fact be misreading my comment.  I'm not suggesting that it is impossible to insult someone in an oppose vote - as you ably describe.  Rather, an oppose vote (even one without "sufficient" support) is not itself an insult and a person who makes one should not be held to some sort of high standard of either sufficiently justifying their view or risking sanctions.  RFA is not about improving someone -- it is about evaluating their current qualifications to become an admin.  Kurt comments on whether a person is so qualified.  That's not neutral (it's a referendum...opinions, not neutrality, are demanded).  And it's not meant to be constructive...it's just evaluative. --TheOtherBob 01:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is worth bearing in mind that the only reason that there are 2 RfCs is that someone closed the first one in order to open this one. DuncanHill (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that one reason for all this is that Kurt has agreed (per his talk page[]) to change his behavior IF consensus were to develop that it was unacceptable. There is no consensus for that, but the only real way to tell that there is no consensus is to bring up these RfCs, etc. I don't know how we escape from this trap unless we want to see this played out ad infinitum or are prepared to come to an artificial decision that would, to many of us, be chilling to any minority view. Frankly, if he simply insisted that minority views had to be respected this would probably have ended one way or another (not that I am suggesting that would necessarily be a better outcome).Epthorn (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible outcomes - suggestions?  

message: *Kurt puts his opposes in the neutral sections instead. His comment about "prima facie power hunger" (or whatever) would have exactly the same effect there (ie. none), and the point (not WP:POINT!) would have been made without giving others an excuse to start another round of disruption at ANI (or whereever). Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creative suggestions for what to do with the dead horse

message: Both my suggestions, if they satisfy those upset at Kurt's opposes, may show that some in this debate are concerned about not having Kurt's opinion count as much as anyone else's opinion, which in itself is a bad attitude in my opinion (that is trying to usurp the role of the bureaucrats). It won't satisfy those who think that Kurt's blanket opposals to self-noms are bad-faith opinions. But then that debate is not likely to be resolved any time soon, and is more an issue of language. When does an opinion or criticism become personal or impersonal? Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More discussion on the above options

message: RyanGerbil said: "It is at best disrespectful to the community to continue to act in a way which causes discord therein for no tangible benefit." - I think this works both ways. Both sides have been disrespectful to the community here by acting to continue the drama instead of walking away. Kurt is beating his dead horse by opposing self-noms, and those who dislike that are similarly beating a dead horse. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the reason that I believe both sides have a stake in resolving this situation, and neither side can simply blame the problem on someone else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's true that blaming is probably not helpful. Perhaps we should think of it in this way... if you're about to get in a car accident,  you need to swerve away unless it will put you in a tree, regardless of who is the one driving badly. Personally I think that Kurt may be shooting himself in the foot by opposing on the basis he does every time but I think the community suffers when this argument has to be raised again and again. I don't know how to resolve that, however, if people keep bringing this up. If previous RfCs are not enough, what would be enough to put this to rest assuming that many people (including myself) would be unwilling to see Kurt "silenced" in RfAs? Further RfCs is a ridiculous wheel, is an arbcom needed or somesuch? Where should it end?Epthorn (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put. This is why I think it is in everyone's interest to find a resolution to the matter in the present RFC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works both ways... 

message: Quite simply, I don't want self-nominating oneself for adminship disallowed.  I simply don't want those people who choose to nominate themselves for adminship to become admins.  Just like in the real world, I don't want collectivists to be barred from running for President; I simply refuse to support them.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can refuse to support by simply not opposing. Redrocketboy 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or he can choose to oppose. I believe self-nomination is a legitimate and understandable reason to oppose (whether I agree or not). It's a knockout criterion, just like minimum thresholds of 1,000 mainspace edits or twelve months of editing, for example. Neither of these is required for an RFA either, yet the corresponding oppose votes never generate the heat Kmweber has been receiving. This is just weird and I don't get it, honestly. Is it the "prima facie" part, or why do people choose to wig out over this? I really want to understand. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I think that too many people oppose based on editcounts to take them to RfCs all the time. Kurt's clearly in the minority on self-nomming, which is why he is vulnerable. Epthorn (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c with comment below)But self-noms are explicitly allowed in the process, while there is no mention of edit count on that page. If Kurt thinks that self-nom admins are bad for the project, why not go on WT:RFA and try to convince people of that? If they aren't necessarily bad, why blanket oppose for this? Mr.Z-man 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are lots of things allowed in the project. For example, I could nominate myself for an admin position despite my lack of experience- including that I have under 1,000 mainspace edits. If there is no explicit rule allowing this there is an implicit rule. Yet we don't see these RfCs on people who insist on at least 1,000 edits, do we? Opposes based on that ARE argued against on the RfA, it seems, and sometimes on user-talk pages, but it typically stays there doesn't it?Epthorn (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because editcount is not an explicit part of the process built in to the instructions. Mr.Z-man 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fair enough, although I'm not sure that a procedural rule is much more important than the implicit rule that anyone may be nominated as an admin. Kurt's explanation that he wants it to be procedurally allowed but wishes to be able to oppose still resonates with me to some degree, however.Epthorn (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's because accusing self-noms of "power hunger" is an assumption of bad faith. That's a lot different than opposing someone on basis of lack of edit counts/experience/most other common RfA litmuses, which are merely aptitude concerns. - Chardish (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: ...that makes sense to me and addresses a question that was in my mind about that. Glad there was at least that short response from the user in question.Epthorn (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This makes very little sense to me. It's like saying you don't like cheese on your hamburger, but you want the waiter to ask if you want cheese, every single time, so you can turn it down. As far as you're concerned, wouldn't you simply prefer it if the cheese wasn't offered to begin with? Coupled with the constant, unceasing accusations of bad faith, I don't see how this is healthy for the project. - Chardish (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say that I believe, like Kurt, that self-nom is evidence of power-hungry behavior, so much so that I will NEVER vote for a self-nom. Let's say, however, that I believe not everyone needs to agree with me (probably a safe bet). Some people, for example, may believe that self-nom is a negative mark but that it should not preclude every candidate. It would be completely unnecessary to do away with the self-nom option. Instead potential admins would be able to decide whether or not to nominate themselves based on their own appraisal of their net worth. Just like someone can nominate themselves with 15 mainspace edits to be an admin or crat doesn't mean they necessarily should; nor should we prevent them from doing so if they choose to. Doing so introduced a level of subjectivity that I think is unnecessary. That doesn't mean we should prevent an editor from expressing a minority view so long as it does not constitute a personal attack; the validity of that !vote will be decided by a crat. Minority views are allowed[], and this would all be nothing if people just disagreed on the RfA or talk pages. Epthorn (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if you thought self-noms are so bad, what do you think would be more effective: adding 1 oppose to every self nom with a copy/pasted reason that you know the crats ignore and people will argue with, or trying to convince other people that self-noms are bad - you may not get the rules changed, but you might see another side of the story that you may not have thought of or you might convince others and might be able to make a difference when voting on future RFAs. If I think a certain huge company is evil for selling products made by child slave labor, me not buying their product is not going to have any effect on the company whatsoever. I might not be able to get the law changed to put them out of business, but I can convince other people not to buy from them, and then it may have an actual effect. Mr.Z-man 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know which I would do- however, I know that if Kurt legitimately does not want to see self-noms banned because he's a wiki-libertarian and thinks that people should be allowed to run for admin even if they should not BE admins I am loathe to deny that. I understand it seems like dubious logic, but perhaps he simply does not want to introduce a 'general' rule banning self-noms... or noms under 1,000... or noms under 18 yrs old... because he sees such 'rules' as a hindering factor to the process. His electoral metaphor works for me. Epthorn (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why it misses the point to suggest that I try to get policy changed to disallow self-noms 

message: Instead of a) trying to stop Kurt opposing RfAs on the grounds he chooses, or b) trying to make Kurt try to get RfA policies/procedures changed to prevent self-noms, why don't those who object to people objecting to self-noms (and Kurt is a very long way indeed from being the only person who does this), get the RfA policies/procedures changed to say "you are not allowed to oppose a nomination on the grounds that it is a self-nomination". That way, those who are upset by Kurt's behaviour (but strangely not by the other users who object to self-noms, or other users describing wannabe-admins as "power-hungry") would get what they want - as I am sure Kurt would respect the rules for RfAs, as he does already. DuncanHill (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Humbug - it'd never fly.  People oppose on profoundly more retarded things than that almost every RfA, including based on rationales that are demonstratably false.  People can support, oppose or be neutral for any reason they like, and banning certain rationales is not appropriate. WilyD 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True... I think the point is that it would crash and burn so fast that it would say something about this current situation. But then again I think that, given that everyone probably knows it wouldn't work, no one will or should actually try.  Epthorn (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the more I think about this the better it sounds from one standpoint. It would certainly solve the disruption and have a chance of ending this possible RfC appearing again. My only problem is that if by some chance it succeeded it would spill beans all over the place...Epthorn (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Would that stop Kurt from opposing for that reason, or would that stop Kurt from saying he is opposing for that reason?  --Kbdank71 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter.  People support or oppose all the time for no reason they explain. We don't encourage this, but it's certainly allowed.  I think this suggestion nicely highlights the absurdity of the people constantly complaining about his "votes".  Friday (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I don't want to be misunderstood- I think the above idea implemented would be terrible. It's a good Socratic point, though. If Kurt simply opposes with no rationale given, would people still be bringing him here? Nevermind, I don't think I want to know...Epthorn (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point.  He could give an "approved" reason while really opposing all self-noms.  Which is better, that or what we have now?  --Kbdank71 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes a little realpolitik is needed, particularly when working in a collegial setting. In this case, one type of oppose draws repeated complaints and is likely to be ignored by the closing bureaucrat, while another doesn't draw complaints and is less likely to be ignored. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How's about this then folks... 

message: Some people are saying that those who oppose Kurt oppose the idea of voting against someone because they are a self-nom. This is false. It's not his opinion, but his message, that is disruptive. Saying "I oppose self-noms on principle" is acceptable; saying "I oppose self-noms because I see them as power-hungry" is bad faith assumption. That is what is disruptive - Kurt is using the RfA process as a vehicle to routinely make negative remarks about people he is not familiar with. - Chardish (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I oppose self-noms because all self-noms are power-hungry" is a bad faith assumption.  "I oppose self-noms because I see them as power-hungry" is nothing more than an opinion.  --Kbdank71 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, It seems that some people are incapable of assuming Karl's good faith. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it possible to be disruptive while being of good faith?   — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know - but Karl isn't being disruptive, all the disruption is coming from people who want to stop him voting according to his concience. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "I believe you're here to cause trouble" is a bad faith assumption. "I believe you're a rotten piece of crap who should quit Wikipedia forever" is a personal attack. Just because statements are phrased as opinions doesn't mean that they're acceptable. - Chardish (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't said that. He has said "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger." which is expressing his view that self-nomination is EVIDENCE of power hunger. Just like leaving penises all over articles might constitute evidence of being a vandal.Epthorn (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "prima facie" evidence means "evidence sufficient to prove." He's saying "because you self-nominated, you're power hungry." - Chardish (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are taking the common law meaning, apparently. There are several different definitions of prima facie (even noted in the WP article although there are probably more extensive discussions out there) and I am not going to put words into Kurt's mouth as to what he denotes. I do see that he does not say (specifically) "This user is power hungry" any more than most people say "this admin-nom is immature" even if they indicate they see evidence of it. And I doubt he believes people are power hungry because they're self-nom... probably the other way around. Epthorn (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that as far as long-standing community consensus (the rules and process of RFA) is concerned, it is evidence of nothing except that the user can follow instructions. Pardon me for making a reference to outside drama, but one of the reasons that certain people screwed up in identifying sockpuppets was they saw things like "edit summaries on the first edit" as evidence, when there is an instruction on the editing page to leave a summary. I don't see how following instructions is automatically evidence of bad faith. Mr.Z-man 18:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurt...disagrees. --TheOtherBob 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even talking about consensus at this point, saying "following instructions is not automatically evidence of bad faith" is not some sort of strange Wikipedia concept, its just common sense. It would be like getting arrested for being "too law-abiding." Mr.Z-man 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The instructions don't call for an editor to nominate themselves, and no one wants to sanction (as in your arrest hypo) anyone for self-nomming, so your example doesn't really work.  But lets say a man ran for president, and it turned out that he drove a Toyota Hybrid (as the law allows and as is encouraged to do).  Someone might rightly oppose on the grounds that doing so shows that he is likely to drive oil prices up.  Is that opinion right?  No, it's an opinion.  Yours is different from Kurt's, and I can respect that.  But...so what? --TheOtherBob 00:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you honestly think that Kurt's statements mean anything other than "I'm opposing you because I think you're power-hungry?" And how is that not bad faith assumption? - Chardish (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that he means precisely what he says- that he opposed because self-nom is evidence of power-hunger. If you have evidence (he evidently does by his standards) you need to get out of the realm of AGF, which was never meant as a suicide pact anyway. AGF is important for editing mainspace and solving disputes there- RfAs are not the same thing. Epthorn (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think it is the "prima facie" thing that confuses people, and it is a short step from confusion to misunderstanding why Kurt has made a comment like that on an RfA. Maybe someone could suggest to Kurt that he use plain English in his comments? Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we...have we yet fall'n so far?  Roma urbs aeterna; Latina lingua aeterna. --TheOtherBob 23:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: u wot? itz LATIN innit? The eternal language of the eternal city. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: People can ask him to clarify if they don't understand. Many people do; he seems to clarify when people ask him to explain in a civil manner despite the fact that he's had to do so many, many times. But I would personally ask him to use PIG Latin if I thought that was the issue.Epthorn (talk) 05:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not the content; it's the conveyance 

message: The linked thread has just appeared elsewhere, but may be of use to all of us who have become involved in the current RfC - Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#In_furtherance_of_Jimbo.27s_efforts_to_decrease_drama. DuncanHill (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This may be of use to us all 

message: Can we close this pointlessness yet? Clearly, no consensus has or will be arrived at that contravenes the prior and still evident community point of view that Kurt is entitled to make his !votes. Why should we leave this open? AvruchTalk 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this should be closed. Videmus Omnia  Talk  23:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What does it mean to close it?  The last one gather responses for months.. Granted, they slowed to a trickle after a while.. Friday (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I would very much like to see this closed, but, sadly, wouldn't try to close it just yet -- if that starts a debate about whether or not the closing was proper... --TheOtherBob 23:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I endorse closing, although in good form it may do well to wait a bit... you think if it's left open it will prevent an RfC3? No, probably not...Epthorn (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please for god's sake close it. (The last one being open didn't stop this one being opened - an editor closed the last one in order to open this one. That editor then promptly vanished. DuncanHill (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with closing, although I dispute Avruch's claim about evident support. As Videmus Omnia says, this RFC, like the last one, is divided and doesn't show any clear consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the first RfC there were only three opinions that garnered over 6 people in support. One of them was Kurt's. The other two both explicitly opposed any attempts to ban, block, or bully Kurt. Both went further, stating that his oppositions were not disruptive a la WP:POINT. There was very clear consensus... not to be confused with unanimity. There was ONE user hinting at administrative action, and two who said Kurt should cut it out but also were against a block. The rest of the users (well over 20) endorsed the first views against any sort of action. Epthorn (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this clear. You are both still arguing about what the first RfC meant. On the talk page of the second RfC? What about arguing about what this RfC means? One thing I think needs to be made clearer is Carl's comment that forms part of his view: "Continuing to make these comments while ignoring the reactions they provoke is inappropriate and will eventually result in sanction of one form or another." - I'd really like that brought out and dealt with separately, as I'm not sure all the 15 editors who endorsed his view would endorse that point if it was highlighted. I'm personally very unhappy at the vague and (doubtless unintended) oppressive nature of the "will eventually result in sanction of one form or another" part. Should the people complaining about Kurt be ignoring the reactions that their complaints are producing? What strikes me most about all this is how easily the arguments for both sides can be turned around and applied to the other side. That probably means something, but I'm not quite sure what. Carcharoth (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that statement is pretty damned passive-aggressive... I guess it was made that way to garner the most support. Vagueness can be useful for that sort of thing... reminds me of presidential elections. Epthorn (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I pointed out to Carcharoth above, I don't find it passive aggressive, just a statement of fact. Sanctions are used to stop disruption, and if the disruption we are seeing here doesn't stop, I feel it's likely sanctions will eventually be employed to stop it. In other words, I see storm clouds on the horizon. My motivation for participating in this RFC at all was to try to resolve the situation right away, but since Kurt did not significantly participate, I don't think there's much use in keeping the RFC open. It has served its purpose of fostering discussion, and participation seems to have essentially dried up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest Carl, the disruption I see comes from the user who closed the previous RfC, opened this RfC, and then promptly "vanished" (including having his userpage and talk page deleted), which I believe shews bad faith and pointy behaviour on his part. DuncanHill (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would have been preferable for the old RFC to be closed promptly (there were no edits at all between Sep 8 and Sep 23). These RFCs aren't meant to go on indefinitely; they take the sense of the community at a moment in time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Discouraging discussion would be bad, and I don't want to do that. However, at some point (and I believe it has happened here), most editors move on to a new issue, leaving the same few people following this page. At that point, we may as well move the discussion to our user talk pages and mark this discussion as closed. In this case, the utility of discussion here is greatly reduced by Kurt's lack of substantial involvement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kmweber posted one statement on this talk page less than 24 hours after the RFC was opened. He hasn't edited en.wikipedia since then. We don't know the reasons for his lack of substantial involvement. (Not that CBM implied that the reasons were known.)  ---Sluzzelin talk 15:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Done yet?