Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 | Vote Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:36, 1 December 2008 view sourceJayHenry (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers12,960 edits →Oppose: vso← Previous edit Revision as of 04:44, 1 December 2008 view source Daniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,356 edits →Oppose: me tooNext edit →
Line 92: Line 92:
# I hate Kmweber's Misplaced Pages too. ] / ] 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) # I hate Kmweber's Misplaced Pages too. ] / ] 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# QED. It's possible to repeat yourself endlessly and still be incoherent and unprincipled. --] (]) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) # QED. It's possible to repeat yourself endlessly and still be incoherent and unprincipled. --] (]) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''', self-nom is ''prima facie'' evidence of power hunger, even if he promises not to use it. Seriously, if you want to reform ArbCom then reform ArbCom. Don't run as a protest candidate. ] (]) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:44, 1 December 2008

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Kmweber

My beliefs on the Arbitration Committee are fairly well-known, but if you're out of the loop...I think it's utterly illegitimate. However, I do recognize that my efforts to either formally eliminate it or, (preferably, for a variety of mostly symbolic reasons) simply convince the community to ignore it altogether are not likely to be successful in the short term. It's a long road ahead, and while I'm traversing it I need to find a way to minimize its negative impact on the community in the meantime.
The Arbitration Committee (yes, I have a better name for it, and besides what it engages in is not "arbitration" in any sense anyway, but I digress...) operates primarily by exercising power it does not and has never legitimately possessed. Though, true, the members are elected by the community (ignoring for a minute the fact that one man who is not all that special and also exercises power he does not and has never legitimately possessed holds a veto over anyone he disapproves of), the Committee itself was never created by the community. It was forced upon the community, and so regardless of how its membership is chosen it remains illegitimate.
So why do I want to participate on an illegitimate committee? Frankly, I don't. As a member, I will vote to decline any and all cases submitted to it, politely suggesting instead that the involved parties go to a legitimate form of dispute resolution, such as RfC, mediation, or any other mechanism that may be created by the community (and therefore has legitimate authority).
I'm not an opponent of hierarchy and authority in the abstract. I am an opponent of de facto authority that does not have its source as an express creation of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the latter, and a vote for me is a vote for restoring power to where it rightfully belongs.
Voting in this election is now closed.
Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.

Support

  1. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support GTD 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support as he has a sound inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A Nobody 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Moral Support for the idea that Arbcom, to be legitimate, must derive its authority from the community. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. I know moral supports are bad, but someone has to. The April Fools stuff was classic. Orderinchaos 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    I was serious and not trying to be uncivil or a jerk. Kurt had promised an AWESOME April Fool's Day prank for 2009, and this seemed to possibly fit the definition. Sorry that I distracted from your nom, Kurt. Royalbroil 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. This is prima facie evidence of something good. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Yeah, right. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. --chaser - t 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Caspian blue 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. –Juliancolton 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Voyaging 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --Elonka 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. Oppose very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very strongly. Majorly 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. - filelakeshoe 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  17. --Mattinbgn\ 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  18. iridescent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  19. Er.... nah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  20. Kuru 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  22. Per: details MBisanz 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  23. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Nope. Sam 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  25. Um, no. krimpet✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  26. Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  27. kurykh 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  28. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  29. Too polarizing, and we obviously have enough of that already. Avruch 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  30. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  31. Pcap ping 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  32. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  33. Destroying Arbcom will only result in the same messy disputes to be fought out everywhere else. John Vandenberg 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  34. I appreciate that Kmweber has an interesting point, but we're here to choose arbitrators. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  35. Nope, RockManQ 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  36. prima....................--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  37. I think that if the community no longer wanted to recognize ArbCom, they would make that very clear on their own. Grandmasterka 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  38. You're joking.--Koji† 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  39. He admits he's a troll. Need I say more? Mike H. Fierce! 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  40. - NuclearWarfare My work 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  41. iMatthew 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  42. He should be arbitrated, not be an arbitrator ...--Cometstyles 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  43. The ArbCom needs reform, but this candidate is the equivalent of a pipe bomb against a bridge, and is as welcome and as needed as one. Strong oppose. Titoxd 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  44. BIG FUCKING OPPOSE IN ALL CAPS. --Mixwell! 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  45. Graham87 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  46. His habit of incivility, refusal to answer questions posed at this election, and lack of forthcomingness gives me no respect and trust in this user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  47. I wasn't going to add rationales here since they van be viewed from my user page but this has got to be one of the best reasons ever to oppose a candidate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. ElinorD (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  49. Hate to pile on but nooo.... L'Aquatique 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  50. Oppose ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    For the record, this user is contacting his oppose voters on IRC (myself and at least one other) asking why we 'hate wikipedia', because he is 'entitled to know'. Par for the course, but... ST47 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  51. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  52. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  53. Oppose JodyB talk 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  54. Oppose because I hate Misplaced Pages. But not the Colts. --NE2 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Um, no. J.delanoyadds 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  56. Oppose - Anyone who says "you voted against me in the ArbCom elections...ergo, you hate Misplaced Pages" and considers anyone who votes against him one of a group of "miscreants must be brought out in public to be shunned and shamed" (quotes from the #wikimedia-social and PM timestamped around 2:15 1 December 2008 UTC) doesn't deserve to hold this kind of leverage in the community. Using tactics like these is shameful to yourself and the community as a whole. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  57. Oppose SBHarris 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  58. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  59. I hate Misplaced Pages, so I'm going to have to oppose. (Note: This is a reference to his W-R post in which he says that there were "49 people" that hated Misplaced Pages) hbdragon88 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. Randian politics (a troll's manifesto, if ever there was) are worse than our current politics, so no. rootology (C)(T) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  61. Oppose per self-nomination. John254 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  62. Emphatic no. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  63. Oppose He opposes power hungry people - so does he oppose himself? Is this his April Fool's Day prank? Royalbroil 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  64. Gtstricky 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  65. Because I hate wikipedia. Prodego 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  66. Nope. GJC 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  67. Um, no. MER-C 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  68. David Shankbone 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  69. Oppose BJ 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  70. I think it's utterly illegitimate: nuf said... -- Kim van der Linde 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  71. I can't support a half baked reform proposal. Find a decent replacement before killing the current semi-functional system. GRBerry 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Eusebeus (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  73. I see the obvious joke has already been made. Sigh, I guess I am too late. --B (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  74. I hate Kmweber's Misplaced Pages too. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  75. QED. It's possible to repeat yourself endlessly and still be incoherent and unprincipled. --JayHenry (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  76. Oppose, self-nom is prima facie evidence of power hunger, even if he promises not to use it. Seriously, if you want to reform ArbCom then reform ArbCom. Don't run as a protest candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber: Difference between revisions Add topic