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.
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.
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. Royalbroil04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Why, most definitely. (if not for the fact that I appreciate his humour, most definitely for the fact that I want to avoid the likely pile-on that's coming down below...) Master&Expert (Talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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. Titoxd02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I can't support a half baked reform proposal. Find a decent replacement before killing the current semi-functional system. GRBerry04:15, 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. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: The other oppose votes suggesting Kurt is making a joke out of this aren't going far enough. This candidacy, to me, is no longer a joke. It is a classic example of disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. Now, by making his "Why do you hate Misplaced Pages"? IRC spam, he is not only making me glad I don't use IRC, he is coming close to harassment. He nearly made a joke of RFA; we ought not to let him make a joke of ArbCom elections, whatever we think of the committee as a whole. I think we need to snowball-close this, then consider banning him as much for his sake as for ours. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Kurt is a troll that this community does not need. I shudder to think what would happen if he was successful. -MBK00404:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that I never actually wanted to support this candidate, and thought his ArbCom candidacy statement was intended to gauge the dramatic rejection of the community (and it is). While I wanted to keep my comment in the support section to avoid adding to this column, I have to ensure that everyone understands that I am not kidding around with regards to who I select for ArbCom appointments. Kurt sees this as more of a joke, and that's exactly how we ought to treat his candidacy - like a joke. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I admire the great Russian novelists. But it doesn't bode well for a candidate that one of his favorite authors is still a redlink. Kurt, you talk about mandates from the community. Well here you have one. Please entertain the possibility that when others disagree with you, they may speak from experience that you haven't gained. Roll up your sleeves and edit. Build an article past C class. As they say in the Navy, you need to follow before you can lead. Durova05:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to pile on but I think Kurt needs to see that the community does not support or endorse his disruptive methods. Sarah06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per: announced intention to disrupt ArbCom at every opportunity; refusal to answer most questions posed to him; user has repeatedly opposed admins in the past for self-nominations and I fail to see how self-nominating for ArbCom is any different. //rouxeditor review08:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, if the community did want ArbCom gone, they could and would make it so. The correct response to "There are problems" is "Fix them", not "Scrap the whole thing". Seraphimblade09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I came here to Support as it's a self nom, and I thought you'd be an interesting gadfly despite your support for revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary change to Arbcomm; But the IRC thing sways me into this camp. ϢereSpielChequers12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
All the witty things that I came up with have already been said. Dangit. Sometimes, when I've got nothing better to do, I wonder if Kurt really believes all the things that he says. --Conti|✉12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Oppose Should be banned. See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not sure if your batshit crazy behavior started because of an RFA gone wrong or witnessing too much BS from current admins/arbs, but your presence on the committee would not be a net gain at all. At least you're more open about your biases, though, unlike our passive aggressive (to the fucking extreme) arbs. Style points for that. SashaNein (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. Sorry (actually, I'm not), but I don't even consider this nomination legitimate. From my own experience, Kurt is very smart but very narcissistic and does not have the personality for interpersonal relationships. The problem is, instead of utilising his brain for good, he's an insufferable troll who will pontificate and stalk and harass people. And no, this is not a personal attack. He's admitted to trolling, and has a history of stalking and harassing dating back to twelve hours ago. I'm actually amazed he isn't banned now, given that he has used IRC and Special:Emailuser to harass differing admins (AC have the facts and they're voting "yes"), but I can suppose it's the institutional POV of "Oh, it's Kurt, let him rant and rave". I'm very disappointed at the (currently) nine who have chosen to support him, even morally. I've been on the worse end of his harassment which caused me to snap and bite back at him. I can safely say that I would never ever ever trust him in any position of trust or power. I could go on, but I think this is damning enough. Sceptre16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per the candidate's well-known opinions on anything you care to name, as well as his point-making nomination statement. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose The Candidate is contesting for Arbcom with a negative rather than positive agenda also feel it is point making nomination.While I do respect the user's right to his/her opinion.But feel electing the user will cause disruption rather than anything positive need a uniter rather than extreme divider. Sorry to write to this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration committee is both legitimate and necessary, even if it doesn't always make the right decision. I cannot support someone who wants to destroy it. Hut 8.518:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
