Revision as of 22:07, 26 July 2008

• Popular page listing

Articles for deletion

• 15 Jan 2025 – Nashville, Hancock County, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
• 13 Jan 2025 – Tanner, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
• 12 Jan 2025 – Stalcup Corner, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (2 participants)
• 11 Jan 2025 – Sponsler, Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Mangoe (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
• 10 Jan 2025 – Henry Herbert Armstrong (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Moriwen (t · c); see discussion (7 participants)
• 01 Jan 2025 – Amnesty (band) (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Hey man im josh (t · c) was closed as delete by Beeblebrox (t · c) on 15 Jan 2025; see discussion (2 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

• 15 Jan 2025 – Category:Attacks on buildings and structures in Indiana (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c); see discussion
• 08 Jan 2025 – Category:Braun family of Indiana (talk · edit · hist) CfDed by LaundryPizza03 (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Good article nominees

• 09 Dec 2024 – 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by EF5 (t · c); start discussion

Articles to be merged

• 03 Sep 2024 – Edwardsville Formation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Borden Formation by Allan Nonymous (t · c); see discussion
• 03 Sep 2024 – Spickert Knob Formation (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Borden Formation by Scope creep (t · c); see discussion

Articles for creation

• 11 Jan 2025 – Draft:Arnold Habig (talk · edit · hist) submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c) was accepted to Arnold Habig (talk · edit · hist) by HitroMilanese (t · c) on 11 Jan 2025

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Rfas

What do you frown apon in a Rfa?and Why? Just wanna know. thanks. Trees Rock 23:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		For sticking to your guns (RFA votes) while still contributing to the project, even if a boatload of users disagree with your RFA views. I too disagree with them but have come to respect you as an editor, as a man who knows that the administrative stuff doesn't matter if the mainspace falls into disrepair. Day in and day out, you are attacked by users for your unpopular views (and are sometimes interrogated in foreign languages) and yet you still contribute to the mainspace. I would be hard pressed to replicate such a feat. I thought such men as Howard Roark only existed in fiction. It is good to know that there are a few principled men left in the human race. This surreal barnstar is for your perseverance and your service to the project. On behalf of the users who respect you as a person and who are grateful for your contributions, thank you. --Sharkface/C 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ill second that Trees Rock 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess Trees Rock didn't click the "foreign languages" link within the barnstar. --Sharkface/_C 16:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sharkface has just given me my daily dosage of wiki-humour, haha. asenine 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

power hunger

I admire the fact that you stick to your guns (as noted by others above) and think your concern over self noms is entirely legitimate. But I have to really, really urge that you leave terms like "power hunger" out of your opposes. No matter what you think of users who self nom, civility should rule the day, and I don't think that you really believe accusing people of power hunger is civil. Please note that I am not at all questioning your reasoning, as I think it is totally valid. I just don't think that the brusqueness is necessary. Please consider this.

Cheers, and happy wiki'ing. - Revolving Bugbear 13:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

RfAs

Even if you did oppose my RfA and insult my candidate in a slight degree.....I'd just like to thank you for being one good Wikipedian who, after taking crap for so long, continues to act and communicate in a civil and mature manner. While I may not agree with you on a few points, there is no doubt in my mind that you have the best interests of the project in mind when you act, specifically with RfAs. I've never been one for giving Barnstars, so I guess that this is my form of barnstar/thanks to you. Happy editing, Mastrchf (/_c) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm interested in this in the context of your self-nom = power hunger belief? EJF (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My running is not on my own initiative, but after being talked into it by another individual (who will make himself known if he wishes)--I was very resistant to the idea myself. The reason I put it up myself is because, unlike RFA, the WMF board election process does not have a provision for third-party nominations. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)First of all, I don't think Kurt has claimed that self-nomination (also known as volunteering) is equal to power hunger. Rather, those who are power hungry may indeed self-nominate, so it is a sign of power hunger. Rebuttable. Kurt simply, as I understand it, decided to consider self-nomination a disqualification, and, in fact, I'd agree that self-nomination really should not be allowed; in fact, what I'd like to see is a nomination, not by the candidate, and a second, also not by the candidate, and then an acceptance by the candidate, and only then, discussion. And no votes until the discussion is complete. I.e., what was developed over centuries of experience! Avoids a lot of useless debate, and voting prior to discussion is total insanity, it makes discussion half-useless.

We supposedly don't vote here, but RfAs are an obvious exception. Votes are explicitly counted and there are pretty clear standards. They are still only recommendations, technically. But that does not change the substance. And votes without deliberation *first* is pretty much an implementation of what has always been considered the worst kind of democracy: mob rule.

As to self-nom for the Board, that's the only process that exists. So it cannot be taken as any sign of power hunger. So... take the implications of hypocrisy and stuff them where they belong. Away. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) If it means anything, you can count on my vote. The disrespect shown by the Board to the community must stop. To your points Abd, I'm not convinced about hypocrisy either way, I was interested more in how Kurt justified it. Still, I'll be supporting because the Board elections are far more important than silly RfA voting. EJF (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, EJF, I apologize. You didn't express anything in your question about hypocrisy, and Kurt just answered you straight. Given all the flack that has been tossed at Kurt, apparently I over-reacted, assuming a fairly obvious implication that might be made by certain editors, writing as you wrote. Eh, then, what about this? (and the subtext would indeed be, Hypocrite!). Rampant incivility, as we have, tends to breed more of itself, it's one of the reasons that action against true incivility should be swift and clear and reliable. Frankly, we don't block enough, in my opinion. But getting to an indef block should be more difficult than it now is for some. (Blocking should be the equivalent of a chair saying, "Will the member please sit down!" and the sergeant-at-arms escorts the member out if the member does not sit down. And there is no punishment at all. What's really weird is that I've seen blatant incivility encounter no response at all, but then, in other cases, mild incivility results in blocking. It really gets bad when editors are piling-on; it was truly striking, Fredrick day would toss in a massively uncivil accusation, pure bad-faith interpretation of actions of the worst kind, and nobody would comment on that, but there was only comment on the situation Fd had pointed to. That vandal was, apparently, simply serving as an expression of what the others were thinking. This is how mob rule works. Someone functions as an instigator and normally reasonably civil people lose it. So I've seen indef blocks arise out of such a mob scene, when the target of the mob was unpopular for some reason (unrelated to the incident that gets the mob fire up), for offenses that hardly raise an eyebrow when someone else does it. I think I understand how to fix this.... but the community largely is uninterested. It's a common problem, it's not just Misplaced Pages! Anyway, again, I apologize. --Abd (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of a personal opinion, I think that an RFA self-nomination is not that different from an ordinary job application and shouldn't be viewed as a disqualification per se. If there is actual "power hunger" involved, it is usually pretty easy to spot it in the behaviour of an editor in question throughout their editing history. E.g. has the editor been pushy, judgemental, tried to monopoloze or manipulate some discussions, etc. If yes, this will almsot certainly be brought up during the RfA anyway.

I think allowing self-nominations actually makes the process more straightforward. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, self-nomination, then, should not start an RfA. Rather, there would be a page where one volunteers to serve, or it could just be a category one adds to one's user page "User available to serve as an administrator." Then someone else nominates. And, in fact, I'd require a second of the nomination before opening an RfA for comment. And I would not allow !voting until comment was closed. Standard deliberative procedure, actually, bedrock of democracy. In standard procedure, you don't vote on a motion or action until a two-thirds majority agree that discussion is over, essentially that all arguments have been presented. Then you vote, and votes don't include comments. They are just votes. Clean. And the process can get even more detailed. How this would apply to an RfA could be this: there has been a nomination and second. Routinely, the nomination would then be referred to a committee that would compile a report on the nominee. Anyone could serve on the committee, and the committee *talk* page would look a little like current RfAs, but without the votes. The committee project page would be an NPOV document, a report. When done, it should be a consensus report on the candidate. Polling might be used to measure consensus when there is contention, but NPOV can actually sidestep that need, if we simply consider all verifiable facts relevant if any editor thinks them so. Really, we should know how to do this, how to make a coherent report that includes all points of view, with verifiable facts ... and we have loads of verifiable facts here, reportable with diffs. When consensus of editors agrees that the report is done, then there is an RfA. The committee report is presented by reference. An addendum to the report is available for new comments ... maybe it is just the RfA talk page. The RfA itself is very clean. Just votes go on it, and the conclusion of the 'crat reviewing it.

This may seem complicated. The reality is that it would create a readable report on the candidate, not a mess of mixed opinions, responses, etc., etc. Votes would be what they really are in the case of RfAs: advisory votes, not binding, but by tradition being followed by the 'crats. The 'crats would have the freedom to look at the report and make their own conclusions, if they think the community opinion represented in the votes is somehow distorted. In other words, same system as we now have, but with a little orderly process. Questioning of the candidate would take place on the committee page, without a time constraint. Committee process, leading to a purely advisory document including all points of view, can be much more collegial than decision-making process where everyone is trying to advance their own point and get others to think that their point is really the most important one. Detailed debate over particular issues can take place without necessarily showing up in the final report: only the conclusions from that debate -- true consensus conclusions -- would show up in the final report. A single poll out of the committee could show the degree of consensus *on the report*. (This vote is one that says "The committee report is complete.") And, of course, time for my occasional plug for WP:PRX. Consideration of proxy assignments would have no effect, ordinarily, on that report itself, except possibly if we have proxies assigned, there might be fewer participants in some processes with higher quality of contributions. Maybe. However, if we did have a proxy system in place, together with the direct vote on the report closure might be reported a proxy expansion. Which, again, those who vote in the RfA can choose to accept or neglect. And, again, with the outcome of the RfA itself, the 'crat dealing with it could consider proxy expansion or ignore it. But, in theory, proxy expansion of !votes would, if a significant number of proxy assignments were made, through delegable proxy, allow a broader estimation of consensus, possibly balancing out participation bias. No guarantee, but it's possible. WP:PRX merely suggested setting up the proxy assignment method, it did not propose any policy or procedure for actually using the assignments in votes, and there are other purposes besides voting that proxies would serve. But, of course, WP:PRX aroused a firestorm of outraged response, and, for a blatant incivility by the frustrated proposer (an image of an upraised finger), what would have resulted in *at most* a 24 hour block for most editors -- even blatant vandals get several warnings before being blocked -- was an indef block for the proposer. Hmm. What does that say? Do we have problems in River City? No. Move on. Everything's fine. Nothing to see here. --Abd (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, how would one vote for you in this election? I'd be honored to cast my vote for someone who wants to limit the power of the WMF. --Sharkface/_C 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day Candidate!

First I thought I'd offer a thank you for being brave / foolish enough to put your hat in the ring as a candidate for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees! - I wonder if you might have any time, interest, and enthusiasm to record a brief 10 / 15 minute audio interview about yourself / the reasons for your candidature / your wiki philosophy etc. etc. ? - I've been promoting a project on the english wikipedia called NotTheWikipediaWeekly - which is a grassroots effort to promote good communications through (semi) regular 'podcasts'.

If you have a couple of moments free, would you mind taking a look at this page and signing up if you're interested! It'd be great to chat with each and every one of you, and I hope you'll be amenable to this idea! Let me know if you've any questions at all, thought perhaps my english wikipedia talk page is the best spot.

The best of luck, and kind regards,

Privatemusings (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Sorry to bother you about this again, but you have yet to update your information at Highly Active Users. If you do not update your entry, it will be removed within 48 hours. Thanks. Useight (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Curiousity re: Inclusion

Hey Kurt. I was thinking about something today regarding what you list as the only two items you think should be eligible for deletion. It doesn't seem to account for utterly false information, hoaxes, etc. Like an article on Herby Meldman, King of Ohio and Wisconsin. I'm talking about gibberish or any slander, just a bunch of made up stuff. Thoughts? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you may consider these things a subset of "Nonsense", which might render this discussion useless. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you might be available?

For a brief audio conversation via. Skype (or the regular telephone service, should skype not be suitable) to talk about your candidacy in the Board of Trustees election. Per the above thread - I've now started recording short interviews with cnadidates, and will be publishing a podcast on 6th June in a bid to help inform potential voters about you and your ideas for the Wikimedia Foundation.

It would be great to have your participation! You can sign up for an interview time here - or uf you have any questions, please don't hesistate to contact me and I'll try and help! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Was gonna vote for you, dude.

But they managed to raise the edit count bar just high enough to keep me out. Little buggers and their Anti-BP Cabal. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Misplaced Pages:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Apology, Thanks, and Good Luck.

kurt,

I wanted to apologize for my behaviour towards you at Guest999's RFA. you are entitled to your opinion, just like everyone else and bringing up your 2005 RFA in that manner was petty and immature. please accept my apologies for this.

I would also like to thank you for your participation in my recent RFA. I am seeking community input at User talk:Xenocidic/RFA on a number of issues that were raised, and your comments are welcome.

Best of luck with the ongoing board elections. I respect the stance that you've taken to limit the WMF influence over the various projects and suspect you will garner a good amount of support based on this (including my own).

P.S. if you prefer An Impersonal Templated Thank You™, I've included one below! ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Standards

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump. It was last substantively updated 14 August 2008.

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

• Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
• I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
• An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Misplaced Pages could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
• One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
• As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)

    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)

12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)

    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)

35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Thanks

Thank you for your support

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Misplaced Pages as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Sorry, never ended up voting. –xenocidic (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Objectivism Salutations, Kmweber. I've noticed you identify as an Objectivist Wikipedian and would like to invite you to join the freshly resuscitated WikiProject Objectivism, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to Objectivism. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. Yours in enlightened self-interest, Skomorokh 00:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts WP:AYN WP:RAND

Voted for you

I entered in my only vote for you in the WMF Board Election. Good luck. We need more guys like you. Mac Davis (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Same. You were my number 2. :)<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on the ecological impact of the WMF

Dear Kurt, I was appalled over your opinion on the ecological impact of WMF. To claim that organizations should slip out of their moral responsibility to make up for the damage they inflict on the environment is frankly preposterous. –Zinjixmaggir 05:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such responsibility. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Weber is a libertarian, that view isn't surprising from him, though there are libertarians who do recognize the right of communities to take collective action. Since the question involved voluntary action on the part of WMF, not coerced action, which would be the normal basis for libertarian opposition, I'd urge Kurt to reconsider. He's being elected, if he's elected, to a board that does not coerce contributions; people voluntarily contribute toward WMF funds, generally. The WMF board is charged with spending those funds and is, in fact, obligated by general corporation law (often neglected) to consider the general public welfare, it has the authority to define its own purview and powers, within its bylaws and other law.

Kurt sad that he recognized "no such responsibility." I wonder what responsibility he does recognize. The responsibility involved here, if there is one, is a diffuse one, and it's certainly possible to argue that, with respect to individual actions, it's best regulated by market forces. I don't necessarily agree, the market isn't a magic wand, merely a device, invented a long time ago as humans developed the customs that we tend to consider natural rights. And like most devices, it isn't perfect and can fail under some circumstances. And the consequences of failure, from an evolutionary perspective, could be the extinction of the species, along with other species.

However, as I said, that's a reasonable position. But WMF isn't an individual, it's a charitable organization, and has different responsibilities. I appreciate that Kurt has the courage to assert his unpopular opinion, but I wonder if he'd think a little more deeply about this question. What would he think if a majority of those contributing, responsible for a majority of contributions, wanted some of it to be spent reducing the carbon footprint of WMF activities? I'd say that a libertarian response wouldn't be that money couldn't be spent for that, but that, for example, the *amount* spent might be related to the level of support from those who wanted it. Does he think that the WMF board should be aloof and unresponsive to the views of those who support it? Indeed, that seems contradictory to other positions I've seen him take. What if donors made donations conditional on, say, 10% of the donation being spent on reducing carbon footprint? Should they be refused? Does the WMF board have the authority to make a promise? What if it voted, by majority, to make such a promise, so that all contributors would know to expect it. This would leave Kurt totally free to not contribute, if he's opposed to reducing emission of greenhouse gases, and, indeed, still free to consume those beans, which he obviously already has done. I'll be blunt since he is often blunt, saying it as a friend: Kurt, your thinking on this stinks. Lay off them beans.

I would advocate rejecting those donations wholesale. The WMF should not be in the business of kowtowing to an irrational anti-philosophy that advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit. Primitivism is antithetical to the WMF's goals. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you say this in ordinary English without using loaded phrases with no obvious referent? What is an "anti-philosophy that advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit"? What is "primitivism" and what does it have to do with voluntary mitigation of carbon emissions? --Abd (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it troubling that a WMF board candidate is ready to dismiss a potential voter's supposed views as “irrational anti-philosophy that advocates slavery and murder of the human spirit” and “primitivism”. I see the board primarily as a cooperative organ, not a field of war where this sort of abstract accusations can be worrylessly thrown around. I second Abd in the request to clarify these statements. –Zinjixmaggir 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary history

Thought you might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy ratification vote. Look at oppose votes #12 and #14. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome

Hope I did this right. Macaw2000 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Colts edit

It sounded very POV, like only the politicians wanted the Colts. I mean just read their edit summary "A large percentage of the actual public STILL wants the Welfare Colts to move on." doesn't sound like good intentions to me. HoosierState 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Motives don't change factuality. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 18:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted

Please add a reliable source for this information. Thanks - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for adding it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Aloha.

Do you "do" email? Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that hurt

I think you were saying i should never be an admin and that hurts, I have replied to your hurtful comment.Gears Of War 00:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for opposing ;) I'll wait a few months :) User:Cream/scrolling --Creamy! 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA comments

I just wanted to tell you that whilst I disagree with your comments about self-nomination, I strongly agree with your right to say it and think that you are being given much too many a harsh comment and remark on various RfA talk pages and wherever. Good work for sticking to your guns over what you believe in, my friend.

I have also been wondering, since you self nominated yourself 2 years or so ago - was it power hunger that drove you to do that? Or are your comments based on the possibility of power hunger?

I look forward to your reply.  Asenine  08:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Colts Invite

Template:ColtsInvite HoosierState 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

In this. For once, I think we agree on something :) Al Tally 19:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for chiming in. I respect your point of view on self-noms, and thought about it for quite a while before deciding to go ahead and do it. I'll do my best to prove you wrong. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation

Yes, it's me. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am Schroeder on Freenode. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

Q. Should cool-down blocks ever be used?

• Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy: Brief blocks for the sole purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation.
• Me: Absolutely not. Not for any reason, not for any purpose.

Now your oppose is based on my answer to #9 (which is the question posted above), but I am somewhat mystified by this since it looks to me like I answer the question correctly. Could you maybe clarify your position a little for me? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt disagrees with the policy, so his question was essentially a trap. Enigma 05:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So it was essentially a show trial? That sure reeks of foul play, not to mention a gross violation of AGF. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. A quick look at his contribs shows that he opposes pretty much every RfA that comes up. This was the only support I saw in his last 100 Misplaced Pages: space edits. Oren0 (talk) 07:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

Using AN/I to desysop,: Bad Idea

Theory. Arbitrary Committee, WMF, and the keys to the place. Where did I put those damn keys?

I wrote this for an AN/I report on the bad block of User:Cryptic, then realized that I was doing what I've decried, cluttering up AN/I with content issues and other irrelevancies, which might be quite interesting in themselves, and we argue about them at the drop of an edit, but ... wrong place. Rather than deprive the universe of my pearls of wisdom, I'm putting this here, where you can make of it what you will. Best wishes, here goes:

While I agree with Kurt in theory, he's not understood, I think, certain aspects of Misplaced Pages structure. The keys to the place aren't in the community's hands, they are in the hands of certain stewards trusted by the owners of the place, I think Kurt will get the concept of private property -- though this this isn't exactly private property, he'll love this: it's owned by a corporation, which is an entity chartered by the State of Florida.... In any case, the owners listen to advice that we give, which they can choose to follow or not. If it is coherently expressed, they will usually follow it. Now, as to giving the advice through an AN/I report, it is a totally, really, miserably Bad Idea. This is a hot environment, utterly unsuited to deliberative process. It's really 911 for administrators. We would not expect parties to a divorce to work it out on the phone with 911, where the operator really wants to know whether or where to send the police or an ambulance or fire truck. An RfC would be about the minimum level where I'd expect stewards to consider acting, and it would have to be crystal clear, not only that an error was made (there is, I'd say, consensus for that) but that the error is worthy of desysopping (there is not consensus for that, at least not yet, and much -- including my own opinion -- will depend on the admin's eventual response. or is it the Carroll's Queen: verdict first, evidence later?) More commonly, after an RfC, if the matter is not resolved there (some will resign at that point, if the writing is on the wall -- or perhaps the offended party wants it withdrawn), there would only be ArbComm for something like this. ArbComm will want to see something like an RfC first, anyway. Kurt's opinion that the "Arbitrary Committee" is illegitimate is rooted in a misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages is: it is really two entities (or more) that cooperate: The WMF, which owns the place and has the keys, and the Community, which does the editing and other work. The Community could refuse to do the work, or even vandalize it, and the WMF could block everybody, even pull the plug, turn the lights out. But that's not likely to happen like that. The Arbitration Committee was set up by WMF, really, and is elected through Community advice, voluntarily accepted by WMF, and WMF is advised by ArbComm, but can refuse to accept the advice of either the Community, or ArbComm, or both, and, in theory, they might be obligated to do both (i.e., refuse to follow the advice, for they are responsible to the State, not to the community, at least in theory. Ahem. Here I go, distracting this AN/I report, just what I've decried so many times. I tell you, it's seductive, we need to fix this. So I'm going to note this here and leave this comment on Kurt's Talk page.

Which I've done, now. One more point: you ran for a Board position. Were you aware that WMF was free to disregard the results of the election, if I've got it right? It's up to the Board, or a designated officer, to accept the results. This is classic Free Association stuff, if you've ever read my FA/DP (Free Association/Delegable Proxy) stuff, which is radically libertarian.--Abd (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't exactly suggesting AN/I was the place to desysop, although I certainly can see how you might get that idea per my reponse to Wisdom89. What I was really going after was that it's the community's prerogative, and the consent of neither the subject of the action nor the Arbitrary Committee is properly required.

Also, I've never denied the right of the WMF to run things however they please. That doesn't make me obligated to like it, though. Brazen hypocrisy is still brazen hypocrisy, whether one has the right to engage in it or not. There's a reason I've always advocated action from within, rather than use of the legal system, to reform what's wrong with Misplaced Pages; and that's simply because the WMF has always acted within its rights as owners of private property, so the government has no legitimate authority to interfere. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. The community doesn't have to wait before giving advice. I.e., it is the community's prerogative to form advice however it chooses. It doesn't need permission from ArbComm. However, I've watched how ArbComm works. Most of the work is done by the Community, and the Abitrators -- mostly -- opine regarding it. There is an interplay, and a determined community can sway ArbComm more than ArbComm can sway the community. But, then again, there are people in the community who think ArbComm is in charge, which isn't true. They are a device, a set of servants, not the boss of anything except themselves and their own process. So I understand, I think, your point, which is, in general, a good one. Now that we both understand that action from within is where the calvary is sitting waiting for orders, exactly just how do those orders get transmitted? Hint: Free Association concepts -- which is very compatible with Wikiepecia community process, were that process actually fully functioning and awake -- with Delegable Proxy, not as a voting method -- primitive idea, better than other kinds of voting, but highly limited in concept -- but as a method of seeking and finding consensus efficiently. --Abd (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Stepping down from soapbox

Question

Apologies if you're uncomfortable answering this, you don't have to, but what exactly is wrong with power hunger?--Serviam (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-fence-sitting cool-down block question

Kurt, I've answered your question. You could have given me longer to respond. I had made ten WP edits from the time you asked to the time you opposed per lack of answer. The discussion on my talk page (which has continued) didn't influence me to not answer or to answer. I just had real-life things to do most of the day. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given your initial response to the question on your talk page, my presumption that you were deliberately choosing not to answer it was, I think, quite justified at the time. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a question for reference...:)

If a potential administrator were a Cubs and/or Bears fan, would you support, oppose, or neutral? <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Morhange

Hi there, I was surprised to see you finally supported an RFA. Just Curious..What makes you think the person is a good candidate ? -- TinuCherian - 13:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kurt, I am still waiting :)Thanks ... -- Tinu Cherian - 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks

Thank you for your vote in my RFA, which has now closed as a success. I understand your concerns about coacing for admin versus coaching for passing RFA. Having seen all the comments, and having seen it all from the coachee's point of view, I will be seeing about making some recommendations about admin coaching when I get a minute or three to spare. In the meantime, this is just to say thank you for your participation. StephenBuxton (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed this week.. All the best, Ben MacDui/Walk 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Specialized Pitch Pro et al.

Your argument is not valid for a speedy keep. This was not an out-of-process AfD, although you may think it was. I know that you march to the beat of a very different drummer than most of us, but your rationale just comes off to me as a little WP:POINTy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Other than the fact that for some weird reason I thought I'd get a support from you, I enjoyed reading your vote. There's probably no better reason to oppose someone than if they are acting like Gail Wynand... I can agree with that. Do you mind my asking how you think I am acting that way, or if its easier, when I started to act that way? Thanks, HRoark. :) Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you two are in on some "inside joke" that I don't get. I have already voiced my disdain for your vote at RFA Kurt, hoping for a reasonable explanation for why you would oppose someone for their username of all things. I will immediately strike my comment there if you, or Gwynand, tell me to. Keeper ǀ 76 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To quickly respond, and not to put words in Kurt's mouth, but he was either saying that I acted like Gail Wynand (quite a horrible guy), or, I was "the man who could have been", meaning maybe I at one time had potential to be a great editor, but failed miserably (like Gail Wynand. So his vote wasn't baseless, I'm just trying to get some reasoning behind it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll assume that both of you know what the hell that oppose was about, and I'll step away. I'm still lost. You, Gwynand are not a self nom, you've never been through admin coaching, you have (apparently) a sucky username, and you (gasp!) accepted a nom for adminship. Meh, oppose everyone Kurt, tis your right. I would hope that you have some merit to your oppose beyond "your username is apt", I know you are intelligent Kurt (and in real life, we'd probably laugh about this silly website over a beer, both being Libertarians and all). I won't visit your talkpage again. Keeper ǀ 76 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite alright with it, and Kurt, I don't know if I've done something to piss you off in the past, but I'm not sure why you don't respond to me on your talk page. Even if a response of "I don't want to go further into my oppose" was given, I'd appreciate that. Reason is, I don't see you having the same mentality of the other opposes, and for the life of me I can't see how I act on Misplaced Pages as garnering an "absolutely not" from you. I desire some sort of explanation, if possible. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I was a bit preoccupied, sorry. Basically, it is this: you are clearly an intelligent and capable writer. But rather than directing your efforts to true productive activities, most of your time on Misplaced Pages has been spent socializing. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I know better than to let others speak for you... thanks for the response. I'm taking all of this into account and don't imagine I'll let the RfA run much longer, probably will check it again in the morning. None of it was what I expected and I didn't mean to waste the community's time, heh, for some reason I thought I had passed the "Kurt" test. Oh well. On an unrelated note... after finishing The Fountainhead and spending some time thinking about it, I realized I had no desire to read Rand ever again. I might be in the group that criticizes her writing because I don't understand it, but for some weird reason I kind of hate the points she was making in that book. Are you a Rand fan? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes Kurt's into Ayn Rand, he's an objectivist himself I think. This is unrelated but the one thing I don't understand is what's wrong with power hunger. Power hunger is synonymous with ambition...--Serviam (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I subject

It's been marked as resolved, but you should be aware of this thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption and personal attacks from Kurt. Since Sceptre failed to notify you, here's your heads up. Horologium (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thoughts

Hi Kurt.

Apologies if this an egregious FAQ (I scanned your userpage and read a few interesting subpages, but couldn't find what I'm after) but I wondered if you'd collated your rationale for your RfA contribs somewhere?

I dislike the way you get barrages of comments almost every time you oppose. It's pointless drama. I thought that if you had an essay in userspace, it might help. Particularly if it encouraged people who wish to discuss the issue with you to come here.

Then, you could wikilink your oppose (if you chose to oppose) to your essay. Along the lines of:

• Oppose Self nomination

My suggestion has a few simple benefits. First, it would keep drama off the RfA of some poor soul who's possibly quite stressed by RfA anyway and has nothing to do with your stance. Second, it might help prevent some of the more frequent comments thrown at you.

Just a thought.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's worth a thought, although I wonder how much good it would do. For the people who are most vocal about it, there's no reason for them not to understand my reasoning, as many times as I've already explained it; I can only assume that they're either ignoring it or misrepresenting it, and I don't see how this would change that...it might be worth it for the first-timers, though. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! --Dweller (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Your poorly-placed defense of Bedford (talk · contribs)

Your defense of Bedford (talk · contribs) is misplaced. You don't have any right telling Jimbo Wales what to do. And if you say "Arbitrary Committee" one more time, I'm going to block you for disruption. You're ignoring a few basic facts of life here:

• Jimbo Wales founded Misplaced Pages.
• As founder, he formed the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee to mediate disputes that were taking up all of his time.
• You can go back and forth about how the community (and not Jimbo or ArbCom) has the sole right to desysop users, but the fact is that the community has already been debating Bedford's conduct in great detail.

Oh, and by the way, you oppose a lot of RFAs because they represent "power hunger". If someone is wheel-warring over {{Did you know}} and using admin tools to get the upper hand in a dispute, then that seems like an abuse of power, and I'd think you would be squarely on the side of preventing it. --Elkman 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)