http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kmweber#ACC_Tool

The "discussion" alluded to was an IRC vote with several of the WP:ACC tool admins. I wasn't on IRC at the time, but noticed this on Kurt's page later on. Considering who's on the list of admins, anyone who thinks Kurt wasn't denied (though there were some people who supported his getting access, I'm told) because of his RfA votes and opinion that script kiddies are bad is joking themselves.

I was amused but not surprised to have my admin status for the tool revoked 91 seconds after I approved him. IRC really is the communications system of the future! Prodego emailed me afterwards explaining his actions and the background behind them (which I thought and still think was a piece of bollocks).

I'm just wondering if anyone will make any sort of onwiki comment to Kurt now (I don't expect one for me) explaining why he was denied. But then, I think we all know how like that is!

Hmmm... 91 seconds isn't bad, but frankly, it's not even close to what they're going to need to beat the Chinese, especially on their home turf. If they're going to have any hope at all of bringing home the Gold Medal in this event, they're going to have to get that down to less than than 85 seconds.

Still, I think it's a realistic goal, with the proper coaching, and of course the latest in high-tech friction-reduction gear.

If this "discussion" had anything to do with the one in #wikipedia-en, it was a lot of bollocks about "ewwwwww, kurt", including stuff from a few admins.

It was supposedly in #wikipedia-en-accounts. I wouldn't know; I have better things to do than explain to people that giving Kurt ACC won't result in a whole army of "prima facie" RfA voters. (Yes. People really have these fears.)

To be blunt, fucking outrageous.

The admin who turned Kurt down, Soxred93, gave the reason:

"Soxred93 Declined, User 247 (Kmweber) at 2008-08-16 21:34:00 because "After discussion with other wiki users, it was decided that Kmweber is still not trusted enough to be given this tool, especially after being banned in multiple IRC channels."."

A quick look on Soxred's userpage shows:

"This Wikipedian is 15 years, 2 months, and 22 days old"

Total disgrace, especially given the number of no mark kids who have access to ACC just because they consider it another "level-up" in the great Wikipedia game!

If you think that's fucking outrageous, I'd love to have your life.

To be fair, yes Kurt was probably denied for reasons that don't jive with the stated reason.

But there's an easy explanation: Kurt is an irritating jackass. He was denied because people don't like him, because he's an irritating jackass. Had he not been an irritating jackass, this thread wouldn't have ever existed.

So I find it hard to feel sorry for Kurt here.

Kurt is a net benefit to the encylopedia.

That a bunch of 15-year-olds can gang up on him says everything.

He may be an irritating jackass, but that's not a reason not to have the tool.

Or at least it shouldn't be.

Yawn. Just another example of the bullying that is permitted against users that are not in favour. Irritating but not enough of a big deal to call it "outrageous".

It isn't just 15 year olds... it's basically everyone.

I assume you're trying to be funny with the first sentence. I'm not laughing.

The problem is that the system is so unwieldy that the admins can't cope, so they have to have all these pseudo-admins like rollbackers and ACC people.

It's not a reason to deny him the tool. It is a reason that Kurt should be banned though (from Wikipedia, not from here, to be clear).

Banned just for being irritating to some people? I hope not.

Why? If he's irritating enough to put people off editing, that's a very good reason for a ban.

I doubt that Kurt has put anyone off editing.

I think it's reasonable to decline to allow Kurt to perform this role, but I think the reasons given for doing so are extremely lame. Which is pretty much par for the course in Wikiland.

Explain???

It would be quite difficult, since you are one of a few who will defend Kurt till the bitter end.

OK, so he edits articles, which is something beneficial. If he didn't do that though, he would have been banned long ago.

Not at all.

Kurt does a heck of a lot for the project.

You, in the past, have also done a lot and I respect you for that.

"If John Doe didn't edit he wouldn't be a benefit to the project."

Um, duh! I think the point is the Kurt does contribute. How is he a net benefit?

And no, I won't defend him to the bitter end. I'll defend his right to oppose RfAs to the bitter essay. There's a distinct and obvious difference.

Where does this "right" derive from?

Bad choice of word, but essentially he has just as much right to oppose RfAs as anyone else, since he hasn't been banned from them in any way, shape, or form.

It's funny. When I do the exact same thing as Kurt does, I get labelled a troll, [[WP:POINT]]er, immature, and every other name you can think of that comes up in regular wikichat. All my opposes got removed despite them having as much worthiness as Kurt's. Why does Kurt get special treatment? Anyone else doing what he does gets labelled a disruptive troll, but he is praised, defended, gets essays written about etc..

Why is he so special he gets away with disrupting the RfA process every time he votes?

That's not the same thing though is it, that just doesn't make sense. Kurt usually just says he doesn't like self-noms (and I can see his point.) Anyway, if he ever said what you said there and you copied it, given your history of expressing your opinion about him, people would know why you were copying him- to attempt to prove a point.

Not quite. He says self noms = power hunger, which is complete nonsense.

So basically, no one but Kurt is allowed to put ludicrous opposes on RfAs? Why?

I can think of a lot of things that are COMPLETE nonsense, but that one does not qualify.

How is it power hungry when it's not power? It's a website, it's not the same as taking over the world. I'm an admin on 6 wikis and don't feel any elevated feeling from this so-called "power". It's funny that the people who complain and insist admins are powerful have never even had the tools themselves to see what it's really like.

I can't say I've followed what he does much, but it seems to me Kurt doesn't hurl repeated, what can genuinely be called abuse at the same person and sh*tstir for people like many do. He just has his opinions, and is a bit eccentric. "Irritating" is hardly the same as abusive and deliberately abusing power in an attempt to get people into trouble, as some do IMHO. (Just to clarify- I don't mean anyone here, but we've all met on wiki people who are like that.)

It's probably better give the job to someone who wants it, and if they screw up, then a de-admin job could be called for. On second thoughts, who ever heard of an admin being desysoped for the crime of screwing up. It usually only happens for "politically correct reasons", like in Bedford's case.

I'm surprised to hear a WP administrator say this. Haven't you said or done things you felt were in the right, but caused potentially promising editors to leave? I mean, most administrators and long time editors would be banned already according to your statement. Heck, the whole Admin Corps and ArbCom would be long gone by now!

Kurt may have an unpopular view on things, but banning him will do no good. It would send a chill down the spines of many reformers and creative thinkers. Maybe he does not have the "right" to have the ACC power, but denying him these tools on political terms would hurt Wikipedia as a organization encouraging openness and new ideas. It would go against the WikiWay! If Wikipedia is to continue as an organization, it needs a good management system that encourages diversity and new concepts, even those that may go against the grain. Organizational stagnation and stiff resistance to new ideas will kill any system after a time. Besides, "if evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."

As for these ACC developers, why can't they explain publicly on Kurt's page what their reasoning is? Why all the secrecy? It's too Cabal cliquish to me.




If it is complete nonsense, then won't the bureaucrat just disregard it? If people would just let Kurt's oppose stand without comment, no one would care.

Some do, some don't. The problem is, someone always insists on starting a conversation with him on the RfA... just what he's after. I'd hope that if everyone ignored him, perhaps he might go away (or do something more productive).

Alex and maybe people who self-nom think it's nonsense. But the fact is the people who people really think should have the tools won't need to self-nom, it'd be easy for them to find people to nominate them. People suggest it to them without them having to ask another to nominate them. This happens on people's talk pages all the time- people go- "I really think you should be an admin", or email the suggestion to someone. Asking for it themselves does show a certain self-conceit, if someone can't even find anyone who wants to nom them but they personally think they should have the tools anyway.

It's not the technical power from the added buttons. It's the weight it gives you in Wikipolitics.


Or opposing the Cabal (Everyking, Runcorn).


That's certainly what happened to me on WQ; it came as a surprise.

(emphasis mine)

Dare to compare;



Yep, they look exactly the same to me. Consider me blinded by science.


I argued this and you accused me of defending him to the death.

Of course they aren't the same with words - just both are completely illogical!

It was "the bitter end", not to "the death". You should fix your avatar.

Erm, assuming you know what logic is, there was nothing illogical about what kurt said, you may disagree with him but it's not illogical like "candidate is an editor, so can't support," which is far nearer to being logically fallacious as it would mean you never supported anyone- unless you had a meta-argument and meant you'd rather 'admins' were not editors but some sort of paid employees or something? Even then, to do their admin work they'd technicaly be editing.