User talk:Kmweber/Archive13

FYI

The fact that you are back has generated an ANI thread. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kurt_Weber.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification...I don't plan on responding. Regardless of whether I was right or wrong, then or now, anything I say at this point--whatever it is--will just be latched on to by one side or another and make a mess. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Your user page

I have taken the liberty of editing your user page, since what it said is now out of date. If you don't like my change just revert it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your questions page

Sorry for cluttering up your questions page. I wouldn't ordinarily engage in such a lengthy discussion on a non-discussion candidacy page, but I don't anticipate many questions being directed at a candidate whose sole platform is "Dissolve the committee", so it probably won't be too much of a bother :-). In any case, if you'd like to remove the discussion, or transfer it to the talk page, please do so. For what it's worth, good luck with your candidacy. AGK 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem...I'd rather people ask for explanation and clarification then go around spreading misinterpretations and presumptions.

Also, I ran on essentially the same platform last year, and that still didn't prevent people from asking a shitton of questions--most of which were totally irrelevant to my candidacy precisely because they presumed that I'd actually be doing something substantial on the committee (and when I tried to remove them for that reason--they were not relevant to my candidacy and just cluttered up the page, you may remember it caused a bit of a ruckus). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your candidacy

Please review this discussion which surrounded and coincided with your apparent retirement last December. Since returning last month you made exactly ten edits before nominating yourself for the Arbitration Committee again. Considering that your candidacy last year received the lowest percentage support of any ArbCom candidacy in site history and that you were nearly sitebanned in its aftermath (your own retirement truncated the discussion), please explain upon what basis you expect to be taken seriously at this juncture. The above circumstances, combined with your pledge to reject every case request, are indicative of disruption rather than serious engagement.

You may be able to impress by doing as requested last year: raising an article to at least C-class and/or writing one new article that runs at DYK. If you express an interest in either option and take steps toward pursuing those goals, and/or bring forward an acceptable alternate demonstration of seriousness as a candidate and an editor, then fine. Otherwise please reconsider your course of action: it would, overall, be better if you waited another year and rebuilt the community's trust in your intentions and track record. Durova³⁶² 23:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, you've probably come here to take a look at this after seeing that I've made edits since you posted it (that's how I usually decide when to check someone else's talk page for a response to something I've posted). I want you know that I'm not ignoring it; I'm just giving myself some time so I can post a response that's not over-laden with emotional reactions. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Is a day enough time? Durova³⁶² 02:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Two days? Durova³⁶³ 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been nearly four days now. Under normal circumstances the delay wouldn't be a problem, but this is relevant to the election. You have resumed answering candidacy questions elsewhere. Is there a reason for the continued delay here? Durova³⁶⁶ 19:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 3. Durova³⁶⁶ 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

G'day Kurt

I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage as part of the WikiVoices project, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kurt; please note that the General Questions are ready for transclusion. It's the template. Tony (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ping! - hope you're good, just checking in :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Kurt, thought you should know that there is another proposal to ban you going on at WP:ANI presently. The proposer must have forgotten to invite you. Kevin (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's closed resolved and collapsed. Durova³⁶² 06:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC closed

I removed the Kmwebber RFC from the main RFC page as it failed to get the requisite two certifiers. I will ask that it be deleted after I have verified that neither you nor Durova wish to retain a copy for your records. If you would like a copy, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you moving the RFC in your userspace (noindex, please). Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it is worthy, I endorse Hipocrite's closure and proposal to delete it (yes, I am in support of deleting something...). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful

This is indication that you haven't grown up. If you don't grow up soon, you may face another ban proposal. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Even granting your premise, it's not. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You're doing the same things that almost got you banned. If you continue to do it, it won't be a big surprise. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. To the extent I was ever "almost banned," making perfectly legitimate contributions to deletion discussions had nothing to do with it, as several people went to great pains to make clear. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be using a different definition of "legitimate" to me, then. One that would include the Zimbabwean election last year. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That it's reasoning you disagree with, or even reasoning that you may (I believe incorrectly) think has absolutely no basis whatsoever, does not make it illegitimate. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares that kurt has idiosyncratic views about deletion, sceptre. This is the lamest possible reason to bother kurt. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still disruption, Protonk. And I'm not letting him get away with it. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's really not. For it to be disruption, I would have to actually be disrupting something--that is, creating a mess that someone else has to clean up. Simply expressing a valid and legitimate opinion at a place where such opinions are relevant is nothing of the sort.

If I were to actually go ahead and undelete the article if it were deleted, and keep undeleting it (assuming I had the ability to do so, which of course I don't), then yes, that would be disruption. This isn't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this is not going to go over well, but you, Sceptre, need to step back and let someone else be concerned about this. If someone else sees it as disruption, then we can proceed. But I don't, so long as it is piecemeal and not aggravated (i.e. he doesn't copy/paste responses or bother other voters ad nauseum), it isn't a problem. Kurt, I will say you are doing this at your peril. The easiest way to get blocked again is to fuck around on project space. Protonk (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. --Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights From User:Sceptre ... how about you stop harassing other users for their opinions before I print your user page out, tape it to a clue-by-four, and beat you with it? --John Moser (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre's way wrong, but that's...excessive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I support Kurt's right to free speech. The problem is, Kurt has a tendency to shout fire in a crowded theater a lot. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)How about everyone calms down before this gets much worse than it really should be? Sceptre you're overreacting, Kurt you're certainly teetering on the edge. But there was no disruption and no need for this. Calm down and walk away guys, please. Rgoodermote  00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Free advice from out of left field, worth every penny

Hi Kurt, You certainly have a unique ability to bring out the worst in others! Once you've antagonized enough people, your very existence will annoy them, even if you're behaving appropriately. As someone who is reasonably supportive of your right to politely give your opinion in RFA's, and who thinks you are not trolling but giving your honest opinion, I still can predict, and understand, what will now happen if you oppose any RFA, for any reason whatsoever. Based partly on the unfair but true fact that people dislike repeatedly hearing minority opinions; and based partly on the fact that you have disrupted things in the past (intentionally or not), and it is not unreasonable that some people assume you're still doing it. You're a smart guy, you can see this too, surely?

So the question is, at this point, being unable to change the past, what is your goal here?

• Martyrdom? If so, then well done.
• To simply register your vote? It's been made pretty clear that most, if not all, Crats will completely discount your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment was split from the whole comment by Floquenbeam (talk • contribs), signed below at 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Simply because it's me, or only for certain reasons? In either case, they've no right to; and the first case is clearly inappropriate even if one grants the premise that they are entitled, in the abstract, to disregard votes, and in the second case I'm opposing based on a candidate-specific rationale that I've never used before, so how can we know how it will be dealt with? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying it is or isn't fair; in fact, I could certainly be wrong (it's happened before). But I suspect at this point it's because it's you; you've managed to gain a near-universal reputation as an RFA troll. I don't "know" how it will be dealt with, just have a strong suspicion. Plus, are you absolutely sure you've never used that rationale before? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
• To "speak truth to power"? Well then, carry on, I suppose; but sooner or later a movement to drum you out of RFA will succeed, fair or not.
• To try to convince others (which, IMHO, should be the purpose of a discussion) of the correctness of your opinion? Then, were I you, I would simply not oppose at RFA anymore. Not because you don't have a right to, but because it is counterproductive. If you have a point you'd like to make, do it in the discussion section, rather than the oppose section, and call it a concern, rather than a reason to oppose. That will have as much effect on the final "tally" as an oppose from you would; should get most (probably not all) of the instinctive adversaries off your back; and actually give your comments more chance of being read, understood, and (who knows) maybe eventually agreed with. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • RFA is a discussion as well as a vote. Discussion can certainly take place on the votes themselves, and if they convince me my concerns are off-base I can retract my vote, whereas if I'm not convinced then my concern (and therefore opposition) will be registered in the proper place. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, I understand how RFA is supposed to work. I'm saying that for you, it's gone all pear shaped, and isn't actually working that way. I thought you might like to consider one option I thought of. If you're happy with how things are working, I'm certainly not going to be the one to tell you to stop. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns

Hi Kurt, I share your concerns about ArbCom. My arguments:

• It's a non-community-created body elected by the community but structured by Jimbo himself.
• It has powers over arguably 2 of the most dangerous (in the wrong hands) user rights in Checkuser and Oversight, with nominations and elections largely controlled by ArbCom themselves.
• It is far too easy nowadays for people to pull out the "Go to ArbCom" card as though ArbCom is the end of all ends.
• Its backdoor discussions are secret and ArbCom in the past has moved with its own prerogative, endorsed implicitly by Jimbo but occasionally splitting or antagonising the community.
• Several arbitrators themselves have been controversial in the past and present.
• ArbCom can formally (not technically) desysop users, but who can de-ArbCom arbitrators? Either they step down or Jimmy steps in - where is the community here?

There is something very Esperanza-ish about ArbCom's current structure, commanding a disturbing amount of legitimacy for something seemingly out of sync with the community.

Best, 146.169.51.61 (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sig

Slapped the old unsigned thing here for you Kurt,[1] but if you've got a mo you may want to remove it and add the tildes. Just a courtesy note. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump

So, I'm wondering what premise of mine did you think was "way off base"? They can all be backed up with actual proof so I really dont care what you "think" is wrong with what I said; that's between you and your misconceptions of reality; I'm just curious what it is that you could possibly have a misconception about since high school civics class should have taught anyone enough to realize what I said was true.Camelbinky (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Kmweber! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Userpage notice

Im not watching every edit you make or anything, but your userpage is on my watchlist, and I saw the red letter notice you put up. On some web browsers, it renders such that the two lines overlap. I would suggest adding <span style="line-height: 44px">...</span> to the code to fix this problem. You can either put it inside the <font> tags or incorporate the info in those tags into the span tag as well. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 05:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What he said, it's annoying. Also, so what? Seriously, other than for your own personal satisfaction, what does it matter exactly whether you "accept" the results or not? ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

In Kurt's defense, people often put things on their userpage that are of interest only to themselves. Steve Smith (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt appears to enjoy an abundance of helpful watchers over his userspace. Perhaps it would be better if people did something else besides worry about spacing of red text or claims about this and that. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I for one am not worried. However I am curious, which is why I asked the question. ++Lar: t/c 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm mostly wondering about what, exactly, would suffice for Kurt's acceptance. He states clearly that he will not accept the result of a secret ballot, and he did not accept the result of a public ballot; there aren't very many alternatives. Perhaps he would accept a ballot that is held in quantum entanglement, remaining both probabilistically open and secret until and unless an observation causes the wavefunction to collapse? — Coren ^(talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A publicly-viewable ballot is necessary, but not sufficient. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

There may or may not be a consensus to resume tolerating your "prima facie evidence of power hunger" opposes on RfA, but I find that an initially unexplained !vote of "strongest possible oppose" based on nothing more than this rationale is intentionally disruptive. If you continue in this vein, I will take appropriate action including but not limited to striking out votes that are plainly trollish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No one's trolling anything. A self-nom does indeed make me oppose as strongly as possible. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it trolling. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity Kurt, what are your concerns about RFA candidates having power hunger, and what do you think of nominated candidates on their second RFA whose previous run was a self nom? ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Before all the drama starts, this has been discussed a few times before. I suggest that if folks want to say anything, it would be useful for all concerned to see if it's been said before and what the response was.  Frank  |  talk  16:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am fully familiar with the prior discussions. The "strongest possible oppose" nonsense raises Kmweber's RfA participation to a new level of absurdity and harassment of the candidates. Kmweber's recent XfD participation with consistent comments of "it/he exists, nothing else matters" is also grossly trollish. If this sort of behavior continues I intend to block this account indefinitely for persistent disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you are fully aware, and even participated in said discussions, then I suggest your blocking of Kurt would be in poor taste. Trolling is also a misnomer. He is not willfully and consciously disrupting anything. He is merely participating in discussion/!voting based on an unpopular rationale. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Newyorkbrad on this one. Whether Kurt is to be tolerated at all is one matter, but the resumption of disruption at XfDs and RfAs is quite another. It should not take yet another AN/I discussion for this. Either Kurt stops or he's escorted off the premises. Enigma^msg 23:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Again--what disruption? What mess am I creating that someone later has to come along and clean up in order for normal functioning to resume? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 13-0) 23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To me that matter is very simple. Kurt is "allowed" to oppose RFA candidates on the basis that self noms are evidence of power hunger. However, regretfully for a clever chap, Kurt has, as yet, failed to point out why power hunger is a bad thing. Thus invalidating everything he stands for at RFA. Correct me if I'm wrong Kurt but I'm confident you've never expanded on why power hunger might be a problem? As far as his AFD "it exists so include" comments go, well I don't agree with them even vaguely but his opinion is what it is. Pedro :  Chat  20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

While there has been no ostensible explanation given, the term prima facie is inherently explicative in and of itself. Furthermore, any reasonable bit of extrapolation or deduction should allow one to reach that the conclusion that it is "power hungry" because one is desiring a "status" that gives some semblance of authority. What else really needs to be said? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That power hunger is a bad thing? If a self nom at RFA is prima facie evidence - well - good. So what? I ask again - what exactly is wrong with power hunger? When will Kurt back up his opposes with a reason (let alone evidence) that power hunger is a bad thing? Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd answer, except I suspect you already know and you're not raising a serious, honest objection but are just looking for something--anything--to stir up trouble based on your personal past with me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really no.Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent). Are you folks going to do anything more than recapitulate the debate of "if you make oppose XYZ people will be sucked into responding, therefore it is bad" (contra: "No, people don't have to respond")? We've had that debate dozens of times and I highly doubt you'll convince Kurt that his actions constitute trolling (especially if you dither over the definition of "power hunger" and what-not). Protonk (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt you'll convince Kurt of anything whatsoever. What's your point? Enigma^msg 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What disruption? What mess am I creating that requires someone to go out of his way to clean it up for normal functioning to resume?Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, how am I "trolling" on AfD? I believe that anything that exists is a valid subject for an article, and my AfD participation reflects that. I know you know better than to assume that something must be "trolling" just because you don't agree with it, so I can't understand what you're going on about. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I would ask NYB: under what circumstances, if any, would it be acceptable to vote to "keep anything that exists"? While the viewpoint is extreme and somewhat outlandish, I don't know that it can be automatically defined as trolling. I don't know exactly what Kurt thinks, but maybe when he says "anything that exists" he means "anything that can be properly verified as existing". Everyking (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Bingo. I never understood the fervor about this. Obviously we encourage views at variance to our policies, how is Kurt's (or Everyking's) view bankrupt? There is a case to be made that Kurt's RfA opposes actually cause harm (more on that in a sec), but I'm far from convinced that a note on an AfD stating a preference is "bad" in any sense of the word. Protonk (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of University of Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles men's basketball

The article University of Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles men's basketball has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content or reference

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gerardw (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Kurt,

I have blocked you indefinitely for long term abuse. I recognize this will be debated. In light of that, if an ArbCom case is required to determine once and for all whether you should be allowed back with or without restrictions, the community should pursue this. If you feel that you can bring value to building an online encyclopedia, please explain this. However, if you are here to treat Wikipedia like a country in need of a libertarian centered human-rights struggle, you're missing the point. Any one of your actions can easily be viewed as merely annoying or immature. However, when taken in sum, your votes in various areas of the project and your numerous candidacies for every position under the sun lays out a clear pattern of contradicting actions intended solely to call attention to your "struggle", all of which plays out at the expense of well-intentioned users who are simply trying to build a collaborative encyclopedia.

I will not review your block, nor do I endorse the lifting of this block by any other admin without the approval of ArbCom. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody else find this action a little unsettling, especially considering we are defaulting to a potential arbcom ruling? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And of course the fact that this block may have been precipitated by comments regarding the arbcom elections and their disclosure. Seems like their would be a COI. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I find my block unsettling as well, and recognize your valid concerns. The block itself is not precipitated by the ArbCom election, although I readily admit that I did not vote for Kurt. The block is entirely based on Kurt's gradual return in recent months to past patters of poor behavior. Running for ArbCom certainly qualifies as a component of this pattern, but it is innocuous in and of itself. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't find your block unsettling at all. I find it fundamentally misguided, poorly judged, and corrupt. Just about what I've come to expect from administrators on this project in other words. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• For the record (and with no opinion on the block itself), the Committee generally discourages blocks noted as requiring its intervention to undo unless the block was directed or requested by the committee itself. While a blocking admin may state a preference for a matter to be resolved by the committee, or note unwillingness to self-revert, mentioning ArbCom as part of the block rationale or as part of conditions to unblock is not generally appropriate. — Coren ^(talk) 23:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This was my understanding as well, and while I'd like to AGF here, I have a feeling that Hiberniantears is aware of this. Given this unorthodox deference coupled with a declaration that the blocker will not entertain a repeal of the action or sanction another admin's undoing, this is essentially a work around "get rid of Kurt because of unpopular opinion" approach. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first intervention by Hiberniantears self-admitted to be perhaps less than optimal. Whether Kmweber is a libertarian or Luddite or saboteur might require wider discussion, no?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It should involve minimal to none, preferably the latter. That's just my opinion. Hibernian is merely guessing at ideology and its promotion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed Kurt's recent contribs, and I see more content creation in the last month (e.g. two new stubs If It Wasn't for the Irish and the Jews and University of Southern Indiana Screaming Eagles men's basketball) than in several months at the same time last year when we had the last Kmweber ban discussion in 2008. Since then we have had a return and some concern. It looks like the main concern has been his participation in RFA, which I find quite odd because the 'crats know Kurt well and Kurt's oppose rationales are quite mild compared to some of the shit that gets flung around at RFA, but I would support topic ban from RFA if that will bring a little peace.

Kurt, request an unblock in the usual fashion ({{unblock}}) if you do intend to keep working on content. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block - While Kurt might be creating stubs or helping in other ways. I've noticed that his behavior in the past month has been rapidly declining. He's been making disruptive pointy edits throughout anywhere he edits in the Wikipedia space. Considering that, out of his edits over the past 30 days, about 95% of them have been in the Wikipedia space, this shows that this disruptive nature should not be allowed to continue. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  All of the arbcom candidates will have a disproportionate number of edits in Wikipedia space.(voters don't notice good content edits..) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of this, however the fact that he was an ArbCom candidate does not excuse his regular disruption at AFD, DRV, and RFA. If you really think that he is a net profit to this encyclopedia, show how. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Again, I ask the question that has never yet been answered: what "disruption"? What mess do I create that someone later has to come and clean up in order for normal functioning to resume? Merely asserting disruption doesn't cut it; there has to be actual disruption somewhere. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 07:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  Let's start with a single example: your prima facie nonsense at RFA. They often bait people who are unfamiliar with your opposes to respond and question the oppose, and then people respond to the responders and so on. This continues until someone moves it to the Talk page, and it distracts people from the real candidate. The Wordsmith^Communicate 07:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  A polite, cordial discussion where people come to understand each other better (as at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Polargeo#Discussion of Kurt' oppose) is "a mess that someone has to come and clean up"? Sure, it takes effort to move long discussions to the talk page. But if the discussion itself is constructive (and I don't see how two people understanding each other better than they did before could be anything but), then it's hardly a "mess." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 07:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Regretfully endorse block - I'm big on second chances, but enough is enough. When Kurt un-RTV'd, I had a conversation with him on IRC where he stated that he would not return to his prima facie nonsense. It appears that he has since returned to his disruption, both at RFA and elsewhere. He was very nearly banned last time, and appears to be persisting. Better to get it over with now than months down the line, with all the disruption he'll inevitably bring. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

  In scheme of things, Kurt retired more than he vanished. When someone really wants to vanish, and the community agrees that they have a reason to vanish, their account is renamed, pages mentioning them are deleted or redacted, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

No valid reason; for an accusation of "disruption" to hold, I must have, you know, actually disrupted something--that is, I must have created a mess that someone else has to clean up for normal functioning to resume. I have done no such thing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 13-0) 03:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add this: this has come up a couple of times in the past, and every time someone wished to get wider input on the matter (by means of RfC) I have always agreed to stop until the matter was settled--and always honored that agreement. I only resumed because both times it was made clear that there was nothing wrong with what I was doing. If HT thinks that sentiment has changed, it would have been much more sensible to try another RfC--and I would have made the exact same agreement I made in the past. Just because a few people don't like something is never, and can never be, a good reason to stop--for anything you do, there are always a few people who won't like it. Show me that there is considerable general sentiment that my RfA and AfD participation is beyond the pale, and I'll stop--and that's always been the case. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 04:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the block and comments here indicate it isn't settled. So, do you agree to hold off on your RFA comments, and focus on content, until it is settled?

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course...whoever wants to, start an RfC, and we'll see what people think. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 04:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great. I'm happy to unblock, but I'll give everyone else a bit of time to comment here.

Grab a coffee, some popcorn, or a nap.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that you let the dust settle on your last contentious unblock before undertaking another. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am allow people time to comment on the matter first, and have contacted the blocking admin.

I'd rather avoid an RFC, or ANI thread, so a promise to disengage seems simpler for the moment.

As Kurt has promised to not do what has been causing concern, an unblock is reasonable.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to unblock if John (understandably) doesn't want the surrounding drama. There are a number of issues with the indefinite block here. As Coren notes, defaulting to the Arbitration Committee for a generic unblock request is generally seen as unwise and counter to our standard practices. Making an exception here has not been sufficiently justified. In addition, there has not been enough justification on the whole for an indefinite block, in my opinion, after having reviewed Kurt's recent contributions. I would argue (and have previously argued) that the "disruption" here by Kurt pales in comparison to the "disruption" caused by the reactions to his edits, something that I don't blame Kurt for. I can sympathize with those saying "don't poke the bear," but this largely seems to be more of an issue of "don't feed the trolls." Personally, I see the community caring far too much about stupid inside baseball. If Kurt's edits were directly harming the ability (of himself and others) to write an encyclopedia or if his edits were doing damage to the encyclopedia, I would feel differently. But from what I've seen here, this is a case of "we don't particularly like you." And as much as I wish that I could block users for that rationale, that's simply not how we do things around here. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• We stand on the arc of a protracted fight between Kurt and everyone else over his perceived right to be a bother. His past ban discussions (including those I supported, opposed or weren't a participant in) all revolve around the same issues. I will freely admit that too many people are obsessed with Kurt, 151 people have this page watchlisted. I will also argue strongly that the complaints, when addressed by themselves, are almost uniformly asinine. John's suggestion below that things might be better if Kurt just supported more people evokes the worst of it. But combine it all. Combine the behavior in RfA, the acting out over the recent arbcom election, the promises to stay away from WP space during the last ban discussion, the past issues, and what do you have? Hiberniantears's bizarre unblock conditions aside, let this be the last block of Kurt for trolling. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked

Block overturned. Dubious grounds with zilch on the evidence front, and pushing it back on ArbCom is weak.

I'm not saying Kurt isn't a jackass at times (though, to cover my ass, I'll also point out that I'm not saying he is a jackass at times), I'm just saying that this block is incredibly poorly thought out. Kurt is not an insiginficant participant in the entire Wikipedia process; whatever your opinions about him may be, he does not deserve to be swept under the rug, which is the chief reason that I have no qualms about overturning this block. EVula // talk // ☯ // 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean for it to expire at 2:32 GMT on the 21st? If you did I won't push the issue, just wondering if that was intentional or a mistake. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 09:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I wasn't aware that unblocks could expire... (take that as a "no, that wasn't intentional" if I'm looking in the wrong place and not seeing that; it is 3 in the morning after all...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Err...never mind, what happened was, I clicked on a few "Edit" links while the block was still in effect, so my IP address was autoblocked--and unblocking the account didn't undo the autoblocks on the IPs. I'm on dialup, though, so I can just disconnect and reconnect and it shouldn't be a problem--and those IP blocks will expire in about 17 hours. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Voting support

As I understand it, you very rarely voted support. This looks like you want no admins at all, except maybe yourself and Bedford. Are there really no candidates you would support, or are you merely not voting support when you think the candidate will be acceptable? If you did support more often, I think the community would be more tolerant of your oppose votes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record: 10 supports (5.7%), 163 opposes (93.1%), 2 neutrals (1.1%) and 17 other comments.  Skomorokh  06:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the point is that Mr. Weber opposes too often, but that he very often uses reasons to oppose which most people have deemed to be spurious at best and intentional disruption at worst. @harej 06:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "spurious at best" is trite and "dubious" would be a better choice. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI

• Hello, I just wanted to let you know that there is a ANI thread about the block: here. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 10:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber_ban_discussion this discussion, unless you can indicate where the sanction was lifted, you are still banned from editing the project (Wikipedia and its related talk) space. Now that I am aware of it I intend to enforce this sanction, and suggest other admins will too. This doesn't apply to situations where you are being directly discussed, like the ANI notice above. Viridae^Talk 12:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. - Other than talking about the ArbCom election until January 15, you are banned from editing the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk space. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 12:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt wrote on ANI that the ban from project space was limited to 3 months, but I can't find any evidence of that limit. I agree that it is still in effect and should be enforced.   Will Beback  talk  22:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning about violation of a topic ban

Please consider this a final warning. The community has prohibited you from editing in the Wikipedia project space. [[2]] You have been reminded of that ban repeatedly. If you make any further edits to Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk pages your account will be blocked. If you wish to appeal that ban you may place your appeal here and myself or another editor will copy it to the appropriate venue.   Will Beback  talk  19:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I never agreed to a prohibition from participating in disputes directly concerning me, nor was it ever part of anything imposed on me by others. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 20:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made comments about you on ANI under "not confirmed (ban)". My suggestion is to not test the limits of what is bannable or blockable but to act responsibly. In turn, I suggest to others to not try to "get" you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Formal ban: has now been listed. If you edit the Wikipedia/talk space again you will be blocked indefinitely. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee, you are being too dictatorial. You post this ban so then another person can use that as an excuse. This is a big mess as I said on ANI that could use a clean slate and call for everyone not to test the limits, Kurt Weber included. There's a reasonable mess and discrepancy about the 3 month period. Bans should be clear and unmistakable, not wikilawyering. With my proposal, if Mr. Weber does not behave in the January 2010 period, it will be very clear for everyone to see. Clarity is what I support, not Mr. Weber. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kurt has had enough chances, this was his last one. He was banned back in September of last year, just because he refuses to accept that fact doesn't make it so. And right now a vast majority of the admins that have commented on this said they will block him. He doesn't get any more chances, if he wants to help at Wikipedia, he can use it for what it was made for, building an encyclopedia, not getting his opinions out there. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 20:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering that there was only one episode in which I actually ever did anything wrong, saying I've "had enough chances" is absurd. The events of September 22nd were only because of something I had been doing in the short-term, and which I have never done since. My long-term behavior has been stellar, and you know that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 20:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement for editors to agree to their topic bans for them to be valid. If Kmweber would like to appeal the ban he may do so by placing a request on this page, or by emailing the ArbCom directly. He may not violate the ban in order to do so.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Except no topic ban remaining in effect today was ever placed--and no topic ban that was ever placed on me, at any time, prevented me from direct participation in disputes directly concerning me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 20:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Will, just because Kurt doesn't "accept" the editing restrictions, does not mean they aren't there. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• I would generally oppose such a block if the edits were made within the context of the current discussion about whether such editing restrictions are appropriate. Otherwise, I agree that Kurt should abide by the terms of the restriction for the time being. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I would too, if he had anything helpful to add to those discussions. However at the moment he's trying to stir up more crap, saying that the ban wasn't a real ban, yet it was. He's also claiming that the reason he was banned included nothing about his edits to RFA and AFD, which is more than a tall tale. So for now, until he can show something that is able to dispute the ban, verifiably here on the talk page, he remains banned from even editing ANI. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 21:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • "saying that the ban wasn't a real ban, yet it was." No, I'm saying it never applied to comments in disputes directly concerning me--which is true--and that it was for a minimum of three months, and it's been way more than three months--which is also true.
    • "He's also claiming that the reason he was banned included nothing about his edits to RFA and AFD, which is more than a tall tale" This is simply not true. The people who thought I should be banned for the simple act of opposing self-nominated RfAs because I viewed the fact of a self-nomination as evidence of power hunger, or for voting "keep" on AfDs simply because of my belief that mere existence is sufficient reason to keep, were never more than a very very very tiny minority of those who thought I should be banned (who were themselves a minority), if there were even any of them at all. The overwhelming proportion of those who even thought I should be banned at all, supported it because I had been becoming more and more rude and uncollegial (which I was, and was wrong to do so) during the couple of months preceding it. Since I haven't been behaving that way since I've returned, I most certainly not have been "doing the things that almost got [me] banned last year," as many have incorrectly asserted. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know whether he has anything useful to add. Obviously, if whatever he posts doesn't indicate a useful contribution to the discussion, it's unlikely someone will unblock him to let him continue making such posts. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Does Kmweber have anything else to add to the ANI discussion that he hasn't already said?   Will Beback  talk  21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If I did, I wouldn't need your permission to post it--I would need the community's, which I already have. I do not deny that there was a topic ban at one time; but I believe it expired a long time ago, and even granting your position that it needs an explicit decision to be lifted (which, while not unreasonable, is one I don't think is true), it quite clearly never prevented me from participating in discussions directly concerning me--in fact, it explicitly allowed it. The only reason I'm not at the moment is because of the shitstorm it would cause. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The community topic banned you in September 2008. Can you please show when they lifted that ban?   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It explicitly permitted participation in discussions directly concerning me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Please quote the test you're referring to. I don't see it in Ryan's closing message here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That one never went into effect. Discussion on that one died out without any consensus emerging to put it into effect. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin summarized the very long discussion. You never contested it. I think we're just going in circles here. If you wish for the topic ban to be lifted please write an appeal to the ArbCom and either post it here or mail it to them directly. Until the ban is lifted your account may be blocked if you violate it. You are welcome to edit articles and user pages if you are not disruptive.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I never contested it because there was nothing to contest--it quite clearly refers to the proposal Coren made (there's a reason he said "per Kurt's unblock agreement"; it implies that there was something that was generally agreed to, which obviously was not Postlethwaite's own proposal since there was never any general agreement on it). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Kmweber, is continuing to refer to Coren's offer that was made a day earlier than Ryan's close on ANI. He was put under an indef topic ban of the Wikipedia/talk space, until further review. That ban was not lifted, and I find the constant ignoring of it, disruptive and dishonest. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring it; it was just never put into effect, mostly because not enough people cared enough since I had agreed to Coren's. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because there were no further comments, does not mean the ban wasn't put into affect. Especially since you were aware of the ban. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the discussion, certainly. But it's absurd to claim it was put into effect when there was never any consensus by those participating in the discussion to put it into effect--and when in fact it wasn't even listed at CS until fifteen months after the fact. When discussion on a proposal stops without any clear consensus to put it into effect, that proposal is quite clearly not in effect, in any area of Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't show at any time where that community ban was disputed and overturned, then it still stands. Therefore your arguments here are moot. --Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 21:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If it never went into effect, there is no need for it to overturn. Coren's, on the other hand, most certainly was in effect--I don't dispute that--and even granting that it is still in effect (which I do dispute, though that's not an unreasonable position), it explicitly permits my direct participation in discussions directly concerning me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to chose what did or did not go into effect. It's been well established here, that the community ban did go into effect. Stop playing games, no one is talking or cares about Coren's offer; instead we are asking for evidence that the community ban was disputed. As it seems you have none, I will assume that the ban is still in affect and therefore the formal ban at WP:RESTRICT stands as is. --

Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not claiming I get to decide anything. Nothing has been "well established"--a couple of people have asserted something; I've provided arguments as to why their assertions are incorrect; and those people continue to repeat their assertions without bothering to respond to my arguments or present any new ones of their own. Clearly, we need to get some third parties to resolve the issue of whether or not it ever went into effect at all. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It is in effect Kurt, so abide by it or face the consequences. Viridae^Talk 21:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

How can a proposal that never had any sort of consensus to go into effect, be in effect? Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 21:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I closed the ANI thread, please abide by the discussion and the outcome made there. [3] --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Community sanctions

Per User:Kmweber/Community sanction:

Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not allowed to edit the Wikipedia namespace or Wikipedia talk space. Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block. Kurt is encouraged to edit the article space, and help contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. He is also reminded that the only way to lift this ban is to formally request it be reviewed, or go to ArbCom.

--Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have raised this on Coffee's talk page noting that I strongly protest the unilateral and overly authoritarian way s/he seems to have single handedly decided what is to be. Not very impressive. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. This is not meant to be unilateral, instead it is meant to finish this long drawn out mess. If any admin thinks that these actions were the wrong thing to do, leave a note here or at my talk page. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Errr, I beg to differ but the "any admin may kind of do something" comment above was not what I read in your overly self opinionated edit summary at ANI when closing the debate. Or perhaps you're right and 1,000 + active admins are not fit to do anything unless they've first got acceptance from you Coffee? Stop acting like a jumped up little security guard and you might find more people will look on your decisions a little better. Pedro :  Chat  22:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already stated my disagreement above to probiting Kurt from participating in the discussion concerning him (which was initiated by yourself). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro: I did not say that I was preventing someone from reverting my close at ANI, just that I wanted the person o have the courtesy to ask me why I made the close the way I did before they reverted it. Sorry that you are misunderstanding me. Not much more I can do than I've already offered on my talk page. Which is If any admin thinks that me closing the debate looks bad, they are totally free to unclose and reclose themselves in the same manner as before. If they plan on doing otherwise I would at least like to discuss it, as I feel that this was the best way to get this over with. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care mate. Pedro :  Chat  22:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

You cared enough to make some rather less than civil comments here. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Christopher: Well of course I'm not saying that if he contributes something actually relevant to an ANI discussion, we would block him. IAR applies here like it does anywhere else. :-) --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

While I don't advise him doing so, I won't block Kmweber if he posts to ANI regarding his topic ban.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I said it at Coffee's talk page, and i'll repeat it here. I think what he did represents community consensus. Kurt was banned a year ago, and he was never unbanned. There is no consensus to unban. Not putting it in CS was an oversight, Coffee fixed it. This has gone on long enough, it needs to end. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This isn't a new sanction, it is re-affirmation of an existing one. Viridae^Talk 22:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

to Kurt

The reason that I suggested a clarity period of January 2010 is because it is such a mess about what you did or didn't do. Others shouldn't think this is a support for you, though 102 experienced editors (not newbies) did support your ArbCom candidacy.

To muzzle you permanently is much like they do in Iran or the People's Republic of China. Instead, you should be allowed article writing and, if the accusations about you are true, then a fixed period, say sometime next year, where you can contribute to Wikipedia space for a month's time. I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else has nothing constructive to say about things in Wikipedia space such as notability or templates. Furthermore, you claim that you are better than you were and don't do some of things that you did before.

Some say you've had all your chances but there has been the unclear part of the 3 month barring of comments, which you say you abided by as well as other things. If it is clearly stated the transgression and the lack of change (which you claim occured), then Wikispace ban is appropriate.

Rather than being bitter, you should take the high ground. Don't test the limits, which I think you did in the past with what seemed like automatic opposes to all RFAs. Occasionally, if the issue is important, you might write to people's talk pages though some may try to punish you saying that that is Wikipedia space.

Goodbye. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear up one point, the 3 month thing is an attempt to confuse the issue. What Coren had originally said (before the topic ban was applied, so its moot anyway) is that the ban would last a minimum of three months, after which it is open to discussion. Kurt apparently believes that the ban had a maximum of three months, in which case it would have expired. This is not factual. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh! One trouble that I find with Wikipedia is that there is not clear enough writing on Wikipedia space.

The notability guideline change was a better example of striving for clarity.

As far as Kurt Weber, I cannot see why there were more than 100 people who supported him for ArbCom. If they suppported him, then where are they now? Is Wikipedia so frightening that they must hide? I don't support Kurt but the ANI thread is somewhat muddled and unclear. I also don't know how old Kurt is but if he is young, he might be trustworthy when he is 30 (which is just the opposite of what they say...don't trust anyone over 30). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I know of a few people that voted for Kurt in the election, but didn't actually want him to succeed. They did so either as a joke, or as a commentary on the election process or Arbcom itself. Considering that Kurt ran on a platform of not accepting any cases as all, I doubt very many people sincerely thought he would make a good arbitrator. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

People in Wikipedia Review were commenting about this: they hoped that Kurt won an Arbcom seat and destroyed wikipedia from inside, because they hate the whole system and they like to see wikipedia disappear..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This is just terrible. Kurt, take it easy. Lay off Wikipedia space for the time being. OK? If you really want to get editing Wikipedia space later, at least lay off now and early 2010. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Supporter checking in - Kurt and his platform are significantly preferable to some of the other candidates'. One who practices abstinence is better than a rapist, to use an extreme comparison. --NE2 05:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole "community" business

You wrote on your user page: "The supposed "community sanction" against me at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is not valid. It was placed not by the "community" but by a self-selected small handful of individuals with a score to settle against me, using baldfaced lies to back up their arguments, in a discussion in which I was forcibly prevented from participating to defend myself. Wikipedia does not work like that."

You know something? You're never going to get the entire Wikipedia community to get together and take a majority vote on whether your editing is out of line. That's mainly because the majority of the Wikipedia community is off building articles and doing stuff that -- thankfully -- has nothing to do with your behavior. If you think there's a self-selected small handful of individuals, then maybe that's representative of the number of people you've pissed off.

Also, consider this: Because of you and your friends on Wikipedia Review, I've contributed less and less actual article content to Wikipedia over the past several months. (Doncram (talk · contribs) and doxTxob (talk · contribs) have also been part of that as well.) Should that count as an editing restriction? Well, it sure as hell feels like I'm under one. That's an editing restriction that nobody on Wikipedia has even been polled about.

I'm sure you don't care, of course. You're less interested in building an encyclopedia than in building a personal screed. Whatever floats your boat. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because what I'm doing is "pissing people off" doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong--people sometimes get "pissed off" for no good reason, by people doing something that's perfectly ok. Near as I can tell, this is the case with me.

And what, exactly, have I done concerning you? I don't recall having ever had any sort of substantial interaction with you in the past.

Your final assertion is, simply, patently false. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!: 14-0) 06:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Kmweber! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Rodney Watson - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Michael Vandeveer - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)