User talk:Kmweber/Archive12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rfas[edit]

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

A barnstar[edit]

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. --SharkfaceT/C 04:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ill second that Trees RockMyGoal 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Trees Rock didn't click the "foreign languages" link within the barnstar. --SharkfaceT/C 16:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sharkface has just given me my daily dosage of wiki-humour, haha. asenine say what? 18:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

power hunger[edit]

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)[reply]

RfAs[edit]

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 (t/c) 16:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia! Anyway, again, I apologize. --Abd (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. --SharkfaceT/C 19:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Candidate![edit]

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)[reply]

WP:HAU[edit]

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)[reply]

Curiousity re: Inclusion[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hopefully you might be available?[edit]

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)[reply]

Was gonna vote for you, dude.[edit]

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)[reply]

WP:HAU[edit]

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Apology, Thanks, and Good Luck.[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Invitation[edit]

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)[reply]

Shortcuts

Voted for you[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Your opinion on the ecological impact of the WMF[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Arbitrary history[edit]

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

Thank you for the welcome[edit]

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

Colts edit[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. HoosierStateTalk 18:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reverted[edit]

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

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

Aloha.[edit]

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

Sorry but that hurt[edit]

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)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Thanks for opposing ;) I'll wait a few months :)

--Creamy!Talk 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA comments[edit]

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[edit]

WikiProject Indianapolis Colts Hello fellow Wikipedian! I just wanted to let you know that WikiProject Indianapolis Colts is looking for participants and I thought you might be interested in joining! Check out our project page, and if you like what you see, join us by adding your name to our membership list. Hope to see you at WikiProject Indianapolis Colts!

HoosierStateTalk 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested[edit]

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

My RFA[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kmweber/Archive12&oldid=1192498619"