Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Kmweber

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Support

  1. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support GTD 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support as he has a sound inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  6. I know moral supports are bad, but someone has to. The April Fools stuff was classic. (In case of any doubt I meant the RfA nom in the April just gone, not any future plans.) Orderinchaos 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  7. This is prima facie evidence of something good. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  8. PhilKnight (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong support- because I always vote Kurt. He would be perfect for the Arbitrary Committee. Sticky Parkin 12:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Catchpole (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WR cabal support! ViridaeTalk 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ridiculous that so many opposed. Obviously you people just look at the problematic characteristics. Kurt actually makes a great argument, so definitely support. —Ceranthor 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to abstain, not even !voting. Per the mailing list thing and the block thing. —Ceranthor 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moral support. I actually disagree with Kurt's views on power needing to devolve from the community. However, a number of the opposes below jump on the "troll" bandwagon. To the extent Kurt has become a troll, it's because we created one by foolishly allergic responses to his early commentary, which was unquestionably legitimate and stated in quite benign a manner. Martinp (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one has forced this behavior, or any other, on him - how do you fancy we could do that? - and one would think that WP:POINT would still apply, even to Kurt. Beyond that, the nature of consensus is that sometimes you're on the losing side of it, in which case it's incumbent either to get past it and pitch in or to shut up and get out of the way. Whether he just has a tin ear or is a genuine believer isn't really pertinent; that he is being a troll who neither respects consensus nor WP:POINT is. These are undesirable characteristics in any editor. They are unforgivable in an ArbCom candidate.  RGTraynor  20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Compassionate support - single issue candidacies are good for one thing - they can test the communities mood about single issues, so I support your attempt at shining light on it. Seems the community want to keep the concept of ArbCom if not the personnel. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Have been a victim to the editor's 'power hunger' refrain. However, I subscribe to some of his views on Arbcom role. Also, I dont believe that his inclusion will be disruptive. It will bring in some diversity to Arbcom's decisions. Also, I am looking forward to his role as an Arbcom member, which may also bring about a 'change' in his 'apparently disruptive' and 'blanket opposition' attitude. Overall, Arbcom does not lose with his nom. Hence the vote. prashanthns (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Yes. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. His views on the committee are completely correct, which is probably why he's so hated for them. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I'd snigger a little if you didn't finish last, so here's a wee +1 to your vote count. --DeLarge (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I am voting for a team of candidates that will bring a mix of voices to the committee. This is my chosen "find a better way" candidate. Grika Ⓣ 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support RMHED (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support as I agree wholeheartedly with his opinions on arbcom and secret trials. Cynical (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support --Dezidor (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Eóin (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. It's just like voting for Nader, without feeling guilty about florida. Protonk (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Per Elonka. Funniest answers around. And I hate secret hearings too. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, you do realize that Elonka voted oppose? Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Smile Kurt, you're my sympathy vote this year. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support It doesn't get better than this. Kelly Martin 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Whilst I may not necessarily endorse his other views, his interpretation of ArbCom is relatively reasonable, for that, I support. Caulde 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Some sense is exactly what the Arbitration Committee needs. Celarnor Talk to me 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Moral Support —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Congratulations you win a prize! Your cookie can be claimed in the reception area. lifebaka++ 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: I dont want to go to court! Ryan4314 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I haven't time at the moment to set out fully my reasoning (Packers game is on), but I think it always appropriate to offer an explanation for one's vote, even if it's useful to (and read only by) one's self; my thoughts, then, will be available sometime soon at my Wikipedia views page (and in some form at Kurt's talk page, where I will be amongst those commiserating later today). Joe 18:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Yeah, right. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --chaser - t 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Caspian blue 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --Elonka 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very strongly. Majorly talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - filelakeshoe 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Mattinbgn\talk 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. iridescent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Er.... nah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Kuru talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Nope. Sam Blab 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Um, no. krimpet✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. kurykh 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Too polarizing, and we obviously have enough of that already. Avruch T 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Pcap ping 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Destroying Arbcom will only result in the same messy disputes to be fought out everywhere else. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  35. Nope, RockManQReview me 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. prima....................--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  38. You're joking.--Koji† 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. He admits he's a troll. Need I say more? Mike H. Fierce! 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. iMatthew 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. He should be arbitrated, not be an arbitrator ...--Cometstyles 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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(?!? - cool stuff) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. BIG FUCKING OPPOSE IN ALL CAPS. --Mixwell!Talk 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Graham87 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  48. Oppose.[1] ElinorD (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Hate to pile on but nooo.... L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose User:ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Ooooh, the irony! IT BURNS! --Deskana (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose JodyB talk 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose because I hate Wikipedia. But not the Colts. --NE2 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Um, no. J.delanoygabsadds 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - Anyone who says "you voted against me in the ArbCom elections...ergo, you hate Wikipedia" and considers anyone who votes against him one of a group of "miscreants [who] 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)[reply]
  57. Oppose SBHarris 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I hate Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia) hbdragon88 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  61. Oppose per self-nomination. John254 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Emphatic no. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  64. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Because I hate wikipedia. Prodego talk 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Nope. Changing toStrongest possible oppose, triple-underlined and in 90-pt boldface. I would not support even if I would be ritually immolated for opposing. Per Crum's link (oppose #110). Sickening. GJC 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Um, no. MER-C 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. David Shankbone 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose BJTalk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I think it's utterly illegitimate: nuf said... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  72. Oppose Eusebeus (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  74. I hate Kmweber's Wikipedia too. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. QED. It's possible to repeat yourself endlessly and still be incoherent and unprincipled. --JayHenry (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
    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 Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Now, by making his "Why do you hate Wikipedia"? 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)[reply]
  77. Strong Oppose - Kurt is a troll that this community does not need. I shudder to think what would happen if he was successful. -MBK004 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 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 isn't just attempting to make a point - he just wants to see how many people are going to pile-on, and takes pleasure in causing trouble. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. oppose.Genisock2 (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose I want ArbCom to succeed. Kingturtle (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. 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. DurovaCharge! 05:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. Not to borrow tired nationalist rhetoric, but if you hate it here so much, then please, do leave. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose PseudoOne (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. 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. Sarah 06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Strong Oppose and wholly agree with RyanGerbil. Enigma message 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Strong oppose per the platform. Icewedge (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong Oppose - Arbcom has it's problem, but disrupting to make a point isn't the way to go. Skinny87 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. No thanks. Pedro :  Chat  07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose. Dismantling ArbCom is something I can support, but Kmweber is not the person to do it. (Too confrontational.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. And don't contact me off-wiki. Seraphim♥ 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. 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. //roux   editor review08:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. A serial attention seeker who is just wasting the community's time again with this frivolous nom. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. 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". Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Sorry, but trying to disrupt ArbCom won't help it improve. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. – sgeureka t•c 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. — neuro(talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Your heart is in the right place, but your head... Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. WP:POINT applies. Horologium (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Strong Oppose - Per RyanGerbil and the fact that Kurt has no control over his actions. ScarianCall me Pat! 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. 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. ϢereSpielChequers 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. 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)[reply]
  108. 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. Secret account 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose. Disgusting.[2] Crum375 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. 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)[reply]
  112. I'm a Wikipedia-hater now, right? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose Voting for you would be like electing a pedophile to the PTA. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. That could be fun to watch, but I'm not sure we're shooting a disaster movie here. -- lucasbfr talk 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose: I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer | talk | contribs 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're too late; I did that one already. But at least you got the wording right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. While I agree the current arbcom is a joke, this is not the way to improve things. Tex (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose for Kurt being obsessed with wikipower to a point that I worry about his general state of well being. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. 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. Sceptre (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. 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)[reply]
  122. Tiptoety talk 17:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. 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)[reply]
  124. While your goal, to reform arbitration, may be laudable, this is not the way to do it. >Radiant< 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. The Helpful One 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Piling on because Kurt can take it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Kurt has some good ideas, but is incapable of making them a reality, instead keeping them radical and impossible. kmccoy (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. 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 8.5 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Conduct and plans if elected are highly concerning. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. --Kbdank71 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. --Michael X the White (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Not to pile on, but I feel a need to register my opposition here. MastCell Talk 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose so long as Viktor Muravin remains a redlink, per Durova. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He just recreated it. Enigma message 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. I normally ignore trolls, but I suppose this is as good a place as any to register my amazement that this user is not currently banned from editing in all Wikimedia projects.  Sandstein  19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. I cannot support a candidate who runs on such a candidate statement. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. If you think there are a few problems with a system, the appropriate response is to go to the drawing board and think up ways to improve it—not to pour gasoline on the entire thing and watch it burn. I cannot support a candidate who plans to wreck a system that isn't perfect but works a lot of the time without any real backup plan. Intelligent man whose willingness to speak out has in the past been an asset; also unsuitable to be an Arbitrator, and lacking any community trust by the looks of it. Oppose. AGK 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose Same reasoning by AGK above. If you think something is broken, then fix it, don't destroy it, in the end, you'll do more harm than good. I would not vote someone into place who's only purpose is disruption, which is what this would be.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose Arbcom should at least be functional. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Strong Oppose No. GlassCobra 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. NO, no, no and no. I'm not going to support someone who trolls at the wiki and at IRC. macy 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Because the Colts suck. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose, for the same reasons why I don't vote anarchists into office. haz (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Oppose. I'll argue all day for Kurt's right to express contrarian views, then I'll argue all night why that is just plain incompatible with ArbCom. Bonus points for the RFA self-nom last April Fools though. :) Franamax (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Arbcom has shown that it's (usually) useful when other ways have failed, no need to destroy it --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Pah. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose Aramgar (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose per Franamax et al. Excellent editor, a person I respect, but not right for ArbCom. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose - lots of structures in Wikipedia were created without real community consent. That may well mean we want to change them; we might want to abolish them. But it doesn't mean that we should automatically, unthinkingly abolish them. ArbCom is useful and can work, and we need candidates who want to make it work. Warofdreams talk 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Oppose - not the right temperament for ArbCom. --VS talk 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose - Temperament issues.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Oppose - Per <insert many, many diffs here>. Xclamation point 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Synergy 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose - I appreciate the work you've been doing, but I don't want your hand on the red button. --harej 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Although I respect Kurt's integrity and agree with much of his metapedian perspective, he seems unable to collaborate effectively with others and is not averse to drama-stirring. Skomorokh 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Where to begin? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose لennavecia 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Oppose; Kurt's talents better employed elsewhere. Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Strongest oppose possible Alexfusco5 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Oppose.--Wetman (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oppose Yamakiri TC § 12-2-2008 • 03:02:34
  165. Oppose As much as I hate to pile-on oppose, I must say that your idea to decline every single ArbCom case makes me question why you even want to throw your hat into the ring! I was shocked to see that; I don't know if you're only kidding or if you are being disruptive. Sorry. Glacier Wolf 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Oppose- No. No way. Not a chance. This user has no respect for policy or consensus, and regards anything he personally disapproves of as illegitimate. Giving any sort of power or authority to a person who vows to automatically obstruct everything just to make a WP:POINT would be the dumbest thing the Wikipedia community could do. Fortunately there's no chance of this happening. Reyk YO! 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Eff no. I don't care that there are already so many opposes this one isn't needed; I'm putting my name here anyway. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Hell no, worst candidate ever. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. 20-Mule Team Oppose: To be honest, I can't think of a single user more disruptive and destructive to this project than Kurt Weber. It can't even be claimed that he has the courage of his convictions: for someone so militantly and reflexively opposed to self-nomination to posts of power, for instance, he seems to do so himself often enough.  RGTraynor  06:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Beyond that, Kurt's very premise is breathtakingly flawed. This is not some crackpot anarchist collective. The "community" doesn't own Wikipedia; the Wikipedia Foundation does, and it can delegate authority to whomever or whatever it wants, to whichever degree it finds good. Those who can't handle that an incorporated organization can manage its own private website to its own liking ... well, no doubt you can find some encyclopedia out there where you don't have to honor any rules or authority you find distasteful. Good luck with that.  RGTraynor  22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Strong Oppose no way — Possum (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Oppose for most of the various reasons given by others. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. I find him hilarious, but I'd prefer to see him gain a record on number of opposes. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The record is still some 90 oppose votes away. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting's only been open a day or two. :P GlassCobra 08:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Oppose per WP:POINT EyeSerenetalk 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Oppose Not open minded enough for such a position. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Oppose [3]. Nsk92 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Candidate hates Wikipedia and is at odds with reality. Alio The Fool 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Oppose. This is just a pointy nom.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. OpposeWhy is he running? --Stormbay (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Oppose - not that it seems to matter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Oppose User should probably be banned. I am not kidding at all.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Oppose An attention seeker who's only real purpose here is to scream "look at me! look at me!" --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. miranda 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. No, based on candidate's own statements and conduct.  JGHowes  talk 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Oppose. Not open-minded enough for such a task. bibliomaniac15 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Joe Nutter 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Strong oppose. Every single action he takes is the epitome of WP:POINT... but I can't even seem to see what point he tries to make. IRC shenanigans, RFA shenanigans, AN/I shenanigans... the list goes on. Dr. eXtreme 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Oppose.--Maxim(talk) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Oppose, I would have to say that every one of the candidates is a good editor. Whether or not they'd be good arbitrators is another story.  Marlith (Talk)  03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Oppose Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Kusma (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Gentgeen (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Okay, I'll complete the WP:200. A no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Oppose —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Oppose Even if you disagree with how things are run, this candidates methods are not the way to fix. Sticking one's head in the sand and refusing to hear any cases only gets your head sandy and leaves problems existent. -- Marcsin | Talk 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Michael Snow (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Oppose GizzaDiscuss © 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. 'Oppose Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Oppose Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Oppose - only made a stub from that redlink! *grumble* Xavexgoem (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. oppose per opposes 14,33,34,46,47,48,56,60,65,75,76,82,,93,110,120,123,135,166,189 and 191. Also per Kurt's comments here and here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Because I want to. Brilliantine (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Oppose. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Oppose Ok, I completely and totally morally support that ArbCom needs to derive it's authority from the community. However, nominating yourself for ArbCom and saying that you will vote to decline every case is not the way to accomplish this. A proposal to disband ArbCom should be done on a community wide basis and announced at RFC. I think kicking out all the current arbitrators and polling the community to see if it even wants to continue ArbCom is a great idea. This is not the way to accomplish that. I know you are not a troll, I can see that plainly. But what you are doing is trolling. You being on the committee would only worsen it's current condition. I agree with you that arbcom needs to either get support from the community or get lost but I just cannot see how having you on the committee would help accomplish this. Maybe there is still some hope for arbcom. Cheers! and best of luck! Mww113 (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose cmelbye (t/c) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Oppose This nomination seems particularly in bad faith; to nominate yourself to a body when your sole purpose in serving would be to disrupt it seems like a particularly bad idea. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Oppose - a bit young for the job. Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Oppose - Not only not a serious candidate, but an outright damaging one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Oppose hbent (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Oppose. Snowball time. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Oppose Cenarium (Talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Oppose Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Prima Facie oppose I view disruption as prima facie evidence of unsuitability for arbcom. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Oppose. No insult or mocking here, but I just strongly disagree with your opinions on WP, and don't feel your approach to WP's problems would produce the desired results, even if many others went along with it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Oppose, disruptive candidate. Terraxos (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Oppose. Challenges to existing convention are best done by discussion in appropriate places rather than engaging in pointy behaviour. SilkTork *YES! 08:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Terence (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Strong Oppose I think his appearance in ArbCom will ignite a Civil War in Wikipedia. Leujohn (talk)
    Exactly. That's the only way to save Wikipedia at this point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:BATTLEGROUND, Kurt. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm...not entirely sure you have grasped the meaning of that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Save" Wikipedia? Save it from what, exactly? Having rules and guidelines that are actually, occasionally, enforced?  RGTraynor  22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing yourself as a "hero" who will "save wikipedia" in some kind of a war paints the picture of a narcissist.--Koji† 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Oppose Trying to start a revolution by infiltrating a key element of what keeps Wikipedia a stable entity is simply not the way. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Wronkiew (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious. --24.160.240.252 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    anons can't vote ...--Cometstyles 08:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Oppose, don't be ridiculous ➥the Epopt (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Oppose per SwatJester. --Fang Aili talk 17:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  232. – RyanCross (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Oppose Wkdewey (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Oppose —Animum (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Oppose This has got to be a joke. Landon1980 (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Oppose, no way. - Shyam (T/C) 09:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Oppose. Surprised candidate is not yet community-banned. —CComMack (t–c) 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Oppose This candidate is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here. Not a snowball's chance in hell this is going to get through. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Oppose. If I could suggest to Kurt to step away from Wikipedia for a while. You clearly have many talents. Why don't you focus your talents on something that will make you millions? I'm quite serious on this. You could have your own show in Vegas. I'd pay to see that. -- Samir 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Oppose Er...what?! --Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Oppose Choess (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  246. nneonneo talk 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Oppose Talk about delicious irony. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Oppose -- I don't think Arbcom needs obstructionists. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Oppose - I believe throwing some sand in the machine can be useful to shake things up, but your answer to Stifle's question ("I'm not actually going to be doing anything except running interference") is too simple an approach. That's not sand, that's a brick.    SIS  23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Oppose - the candidate does not elucidate what measures will replace the obstructed processes of ARBCOM if elected. The entire platform presented basically amounts to chaos and anarchy in place of supposed inefficiency. That I can not support. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  251. I'm not sure that Kurt's even aware of the points he's trying to make most of the time. Sorry. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Oppose NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Eerily enough, I tend to agree with a couple of things that Kurt has pointed out in his nomination statement; the distinction, however, is that I have more faith in the process than he does. Gotta say that he's got a massive pair of stones just for running, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Oppose — Let's not. Jack Merridew 11:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Oppose Gazimoff 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Oppose Not for any reasons suggested by Naerii, not because I hate Wikipedia, not for any sinister reason or ulterior motive. In this election and his entire Wikipedia career, this candidate has not put forth a single reason why I should !vote in favour of him being given any position of authority on this project. The rhetoric of "I'm the messiah, I'm the only one who's able and willing to free the community of the tyrannical rule of Jimbo Wales" is thinner than paper-thin seeing that that same community has zero confidence in you being able to help anyone with anything. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Oppose What is the community saying here, then? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Oppose Does not support Wikipedia's decision making process. Fred Talk 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Oppose His contempt for the ArbCom is matched only by his contempt for the encyclopedia. I still don't understand why he wasn't banned last September. —Angr 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Oppose For the obvious reasons. Rje (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Oppose I wish I could apologize for this. Shenme (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  262. I disagree with the user's goals and opinions. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  263. No Way. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  264. No. why? blast me! ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your vote just broke the record for all time ArbCom opposes, Lar. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a barnstar for that? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  265. (did I just beat the record?!) Martinp23 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Oppose . Bfigura's puppy (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Oppose Ariel♥Gold 01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Oppose nope Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 03:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Extensive block log rife with issues of incivility. Not the sort of user I want on ArbCom. — Manticore 03:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  270. WODUP 08:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Oppose Holds a much too shallow view of the Wikipedia community. Deli nk (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Oppose unfortunately despite your lack of faith in the 'power' of the wikipedia community, we do have the power to reject you and it looks like we are Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  275. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Absolutely not No grasp of Macchiavellian power politics in the slightest. --Rodhullandemu 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Oppose, basically due to all the very good reasons to oppose this candidate enumerated above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  279. Oppose Kurt, you're meant for greater things. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Oppose Statement is nutty. Switzpaw (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Oppose — the statement seems to contradict the candidacy, on top of all the other good reasons… {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose – RyanCross (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already voted. ST47 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Oppose Quotes like "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)." have me seriously concerned. (In other words, you'd join Arbcom just to derail the whole dang thing?) Kurt has done good for the project, but at the seame time he has a track record of doing things his way to the point of utter disruption, and sometimes flat out arguing with those that go against him. That, and threatening to take opposers to court?! Just because you couldn't get your way at arbcom?! (Never mind, I trust his assertation that it was a joke.) I think the snow is beginning to fall on this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Beginning to fall" = understatement of the year. ;) We all do realize what we're doing by piling on. We're just playing into his little pointy play. It was obvious this page would get a massive pile-on before the election even went on-air - Kurt knew it would, and that's what he wanted. He loves aggravating the community, and watching the vehement outcry that ensues. He does it time and time again, no matter what "sanction" we impose. And every time the community comes to its senses, somebody convinces us all to play the "but he's only as disruptive as we let him to be, let's <insert solution here> so we can end this discussion" trump card. Thus, he withstands with such longevity for one whom many would ban in an instant were they given the opportunity to do so. The fact of the matter is, he really is only as disruptive as we let him to be. And in this election, we let him grow into an unpleasant presence that set out to make an absurd point, and apparantly we're here to stop him from climbing the reichstag. It seems silly how utterly routine this has become. Kurt is very much like acne - harmless if ignored, yet it seems hard to do so; and the more attention we give to him, the worse everything will get, the more drama will be provoked, and the more we're going to frustrate ourselves dealing with something you'd think would be pretty easy to deal with. We musn't give him more reasons to piss us off. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the above assessment. It seems to me that Kurt continues to believe his 'enemies' are a small group concentrated in priviliged positions, and the majority of Wikipedia editors as a whole support his actions. His record-breaking number of opposes here is therefore a good thing, insofar as it will convince him to revise that view - if the community as a whole can be said to have a consensus on Kurt, it's very much against him. Terraxos (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think letting him feed his ego with being the most Opposed Candidate ever is worth it for the community to be able to say that we straight up denied him, wiki-style. And damn the consequences.--Koji† 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And if he is screwing with us, which of course is entirely possible, the scenario puts me in mind of a rebellious child seeking to piss his parents off, where the more the parents genially ignore the child's behavior, the harder the frustrated tyke tries to get their goats. I'd rather presume he's sincere (after all, that is what WP:AGF is all about) and act accordingly. We didn't let him do anything, after all - like any other qualifying editor, he exercised his privilege to run for ArbCom, and it isn't as if he's the only fringe or snowball worthy candidate - and like any other qualifying editor, we exercised ours to vote and comment on his candidacy. This is only an "unpleasant presence" in the election in so far as we allow ourselves to get angry about it.  RGTraynor  16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Kurt appears to believe he will be the savior of Wikipedia. I do not. Raven4x4x (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  285. — Sebastian 09:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  287. SQLQuery me! 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  288. BrianY (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  290.   jj137 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Throwawayhack (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Per Kurt's well-established inability to separate his fantasies from reality. Wikipedia is not therapy. Raul654 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Kmweber&oldid=1223265508"