Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Karmafist[edit]

Final (77/78/26) ended 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist (talk · contribs) – Karmafist is a brilliant user who's unfortunately gotten a little too involved in unfortunate happenings recently. This guy is only good for the project. His ideas may be a bit radical, and his actions a bit rash, but he almost always acts in good faith. I am honoured to be able to renominate him for adminship, and hope that the recent blip in form will not hamper his chances - he is really a good guy who's just lost his cool recently. NSLE (T+C) at 01:51 UTC (2006-02-24)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept, although I am curious if I should wait a few days per this[1]. I had a discussion with Jimbo last night on IRC, and I think giving some hope that things can get better to those who have felt like they've been hurt by Wikipedia (whether by the Userbox Wars or by numerous other things), is infinitely more important than me having some title and a few buttons. I'd gladly give up my adminship if I could help someone who's been harmed, such as I saw with Joeyramoney. Karmafist 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I probably won't be able to respond to all of the votes, if anymore, due to time constraints. Thank you for your time, and I apologize for going back on my word. Karmafist 16:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. STRONG support as nominator NSLE (T+C) at 01:51 UTC (2006-02-24)[2]
  2. Strongest possible support per NSLE. --Aaron 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongest support for an admin with the courage and charachter to tell the powerful the truth.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 02:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strong support Per the above ;). Really a great user, and he deserves his tools. KnowledgeOfSelf 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Srongest Support Ever Seen on Wikipedia Per NSLE, one admin that wikipedia NEEDS. Mike (T C) 05:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[3][reply]
  6. Support --Ixfd64 09:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, and a well-deserved one. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support, one of the best editors around. --Terence Ong 13:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I don't agree with everything he does, but this is an easy question. — Feb. 24, '06 [14:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  10. Very Strong Support Karmafist is one of the more brilliant users on Wikipedia. I don't understand why he wasn't made an admin earlier. He should never have been desysoped, especially when other admins *cough* delete without consensus and barely get a slap on the wrist. *cough* --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 15:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Sure, he has many opinions, but he is mostly sensible. I have seen much worse than this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong support. Controversy does not outweigh experience and generally responsible behavior in this case. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Only had good dealings with him and I stand by Jimbo's view of admins. Although I respect Android very much.Gator (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (considering changing to oppsoe depending on answer to #4, however.)[reply]
    (changed to neutral due to encouraging blocked usrs to create sockpuppets to get aorund block. May change my mind and I will not oppose (got enough of those I think)).Gator (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Moral Support. Doesnt always make the greatest of calls, but is more open to criticism and suggestions than many others. Perhaps he deserves some amount of stuff flung at his head - but not this much. The Minister of War (Peace) 12:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I have no detailed knowledge on whether or not Karmafist is a Good Guy, I most certainly think that his de-sysopping was out of order (both in terms of procedure as well as justice). If there were other issues that the Joeyramoney-thing, it should just have gone to ArbCom rather than this ugly, ugly affair. The Minister of War (Peace) 15:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking vote after Karmafist rather bafflingly posted personal information without consent. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)    [reply]
  14. Guettarda 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support shouldn't have been desysopped in the first place.  Grue  16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, bringing to mind a quote from The Hunt for Red October. BD2412 T 16:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Karmafist is one of the best admins here. LordViD 16:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, has been and will be a good admin. NoSeptember talk 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. In moments like these, I always end up thinking how forgiving we all are of our own faults, yet how inflexible we are upon others'. Before judging you, all of us should stop for a moment and think if we are perfect; and let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone upon you. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. — FireFox • T • 17:44, 24 February 2006
  22. Support. Yes. --Fang Aili 17:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Extreme "should never have been desysop'd in the first place" support! Excelent and exemplary Wikipedian. Absolutely fantastic! --Celestianpower háblame 18:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support helpful and reliable. KI 20:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strongest Support Karmafist has courage, humility, and a respect for consensus. Any missteps have arisen from following these values to the bitter end. That may be a flaw, but it's a tiny one. He's so good, I'll break my wikifast to support. Xoloz 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support for acting examplarily even in tough situations -- Natalya 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I have to assume good faith after the apology on Wikipedia review, and support.--Alhutch 21:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. VEHEMENT BOLD-AND-ITALIC-AND-ALL-CAPS SUPPORT. With all due respect to Jimbo and the ArbCom, karmafist should have never been desysoped. --TantalumTelluride 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support, because undoing Jimbo's block didn't merit desysopping, for heaven's sake. Babajobu 23:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - should not have been smacked down by the cabal. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Please, let's keep the casualties from the userbox wars as low as we can. Karmafist deserves to be an admin and never should have been desysoped. --M@thwiz2020 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong Support - He should never have been de-sysopped. He is generally very helpful and courteous. He cares a great deal about Wikipedia.  IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 01:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. If adminiship is supposed to be no big deal then there is absolutely no reason this user shouldn't be one. I add my voice to SPUI and Guðsþegn (above). Ifnord 02:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strongest Possible Support This project could go one of two ways and I think I prefer Karmafist's. Juppiter 06:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. STRONG NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPPORT - Great Editor, Great Admin, a true asset to the community and the project. Mistakes made, mistakes forgiven. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support (and good luck in the Esperanza elections) haz (user talk)e 08:35, 25 February 2006
  37. Weak support. No big deal ;) Seriously, is the candidate less devoted to Wikipedia than other 800 admins? I hope that he won't think too much about adminship. In my experience, he is too given to interfactional struggles to use/abuse his tools in the main space. --Ghirla | talk 10:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Remedy invalid removal of privileges. Noisy | Talk 11:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. The guy is was a good admin. Leithp 12:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Looking at his log of admin actions I see overwhelmingly good uncontroversial work. Haukur 12:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support. Has always been very helpful with me, and has great edits. Ian13/talk 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support per NSLE. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Superman Strong Support (image removed as WP:FUC violation) (lol) This user has worked so hard in Esperanza and Wikipedia, that this user needs this job. Go KARMAFIST! --WikieZach| talk 20:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strong support for Karmafist and continued opposition to the arbitration committee. —Guanaco 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Per Guanaco. Grace Note 23:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Tentative support. He wouldn't have lost adminship, I don't believe, if he had not lifted the Jimbo ban, and based on what I've read, the community believes Jimbo was ultimately wrong there, and therefore, he should never have lost adminship. Tentative due to the oppose reasons, especially a prior version of the {{kwelcome}} template, but since adminship should(?) never have been lost, this would be a vote to restore. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Hahnchen 02:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong Support. Very helpful and very nice. Jimbo isn't infallible. --Dragon695 05:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support; getting desysopped for being right when Jimbo was wrong is goofy. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) —vote struck per the whole Phroziac deal.. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. In the interests of symmetry, then. El_C 09:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC) As much as I'd like to counterweigh GMaxwell's charm, I'm withdrawing my support for now, as per this El_C 15:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Bah, I changed my mind, again. In the interest of symmetry, again. El_C 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support. Exceptionally valuable user, whose main error was reverting one of Jimbo's decisions, albiet in good faith. It would be a grave disservice to this project to not have him as an admin. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support I'm an Objectivist; private property is sacred. Jimbo and the WMF can do whatever the hell they want with their own servers. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Jimbo needs to decide whether this is going to be a wiki or a normal site with some wiki-like features. If it's the latter, that's fine; I'm willing to work within that context. If it's the former, then it needs to be a wiki ALL THE WAY or else it's just a big lie. This means that Jimbo's word and actions carry no more weight than anyone else's, regardless of what they are. Jimbo claims that this is a wiki; thus, his blocks are no more untouchable than any other admin's. The de-sysopping was therefore unjustified, and this is a way of rectifying that transgression. Kurt Weber 18:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wheel warring with anyone, whether Jimbo or not, is a bad idea. You're supposed to consult the blocking admin before you unblock anyone.--Alhutch 20:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason given for Karmafist's de-adminship was not simply for removing a block without consulting the blocking admin. It was specifically because the block was set by Jimbo. If this is really a wiki, then who originally set the block should make no difference. Kurt Weber 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but feel your vote isn't based on Karmafist as a user, but rather as a way to seek vengence on what you consider to be an unjustified use of power by Jimbo and the ArbCom. Their decisions aren't what we are discussing here. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. The desysopping should never have happened; this is the only way that mistake is going to get rectified. Kurt Weber 01:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Consider him to be a good editor. Sophy's Duckling 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Cannot support strongly enough due to his priorities being firmly in check. It's a danged shame that he won't be re-sysopped; he's a valuable resource to Wikipedia. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Should not have lost admin access indefenitely over the whole userbox incident. Perhaps a temporary desysopping was in order, although enough time has passed since then for my support. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 04:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support - Asset to the community Brian | (Talk) 07:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. zafiroblue05 | Talk 08:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Looks like this won't be sucessful, but I'm not afraid to say I support. The Userbox incident was unfortunate, but I do not believe it implicates Karmafist's overall qualifications for adminship. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Even though Karmafist may have done some rash things in the past, I believe that people can change for the better. He's done well on the Esperanza Advisory Council, though it seems that he will no longer be on it after the election is finalized. I hope you do not let us down, Karmafist. For yours, ours, and the Wiki's. Jfingers88 02:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Give Him a second chance. -- Eddie, Tuesday February 28 2006 at 05:27
  61. Support In what I would call a surprise move, Karmafist nominated me for my adminship. It was a surprise for at one point, I think he would have preferr that I disapeared from Wikipedia altogether. We had had a number of hostile dispute over content but even though he was probably more right than I ever could have been, he recused himself and broke off engagement from our battle. This wasn't a sign to me of weakness or that I had "won", it was s sign that he was the stronger one. I am not in agreement with some of Karmafists latest actions but see them as a small bleep on the radar in an otherwise long history of decent work here. Should this attempt for readminship fail, I encourage him to move towards article creation and enhancement and recognize that either way, adminship doesn't make him a better wikipedian or above any other contributor here. You can always refer to yourself as "retired".--MONGO 12:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[4][reply]
  62. Support All admins do not have to be the same. Actually, it is nice to see someone with the drive to make change.--Colle||Talk-- 17:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support - talk to +MATIA 20:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support. A bunch of editors, admins, and even Wikimedia board members have acted strangely irrational in connection with the userbox brouhaha. Karmafist was one of them, but that's a tiny flaw in an amazingly helpful editor and former admin. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support absolutely --rogerd 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Per MONGO. Banez 06:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Support per Locke Cole. It would behoove you if you didn't add to this (i.e, the note on your user page). But, I believe Jimbo was wrong in desysopping you just because he knew the biased ArbCom would back him up. But let's not get into that now. =) Acetic Acid 08:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. He has served his debt to the community. If he abuses admin power again, I have faith that ArbCom will come down like a ton of bricks. youngamerican (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. I just don't see the harm that Karmafist can do. If he does wheelwar with Jimbo (or any admin) again, I'm sure the repercussions will be more severe. Besides that this user is really doing a lot of good for the community. He seems a bit paranoid regarding the "cabal", but again, I cannot really see the harm in that. It's aways good to have those who are sceptical, even if it's not really warrented. Keeps everyone alert. jacoplane 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support no brainer, maybe controversial but would do more good than harm. - FrancisTyers 16:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Token support because this RfA is becoming a bloodbath. Keep up the good work, Karmafist. Ashibaka tock 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Joe I 04:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. strong support though for the life of me I don't know why Karmafist wants to be an admin again - just enjoy untrammeled editorship, man! - but, if adminship's what he wants, that's fine with me. ElectricRay 13:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong support Karmafist makes good edits and is good for the project. Everything needs people who question how things are done. If it wasn't for people like Karmafist there would be no advancements. The Halo (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2006
  76. Strong support The only user I've ever given strong support to. Karmafist is not afraid to do what he feels is right to help the encyclopedia, and we need more admins like him. --Bushytails 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC). (who is now going to go back to crying rather than wikiing)[reply]
  77. Support - Illness gives one time to think. And here's what I've thought. Karmafist was once a good user. That means he has a chance of being a good user again. And for what it's worth, I don't like bearing grudges. Perhaps I opposed for personal reasons, perhaps not. Point is; I was just listening to Circle of Life. And I thought of that film. You know the part where the monkey whacks the lion on the head, and then says it doesn't matter; it's all in the past? That's kinda where I'm going with this. It's time someone put out an olive branch; said to the die-hards, "ok, it's an encyclopedia" - but at the same time, said to the community, "we've hit one million. We need you more than ever." Never put down he who re-evaluates himself. Rob Church (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

close of voting

Support doN't belieVe in CensOrshIp 18:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - two weeks time as non-admin was enough. Johntex\talk 23:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Redeemable. Also, what Phaedriel said sums it up very well. —Nightstallion (?) 10:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. I disagree with the contention that Karmafist "almost always acts" in good faith, since a number of pages in his userspace (such as the Wikiphilosophies page) assume bad faith. However, I reluctantly oppose because: 1. I have not seen Karmafist abuse adminship (besides wheel warring with Jimbo, and I prefer giving second chances); 2. I think adminship should be no big deal. If being an admin will do no harm, I don't see a reason to oppose. However, I strongly feel bad faith should not be rewarded or encouraged -- bad faith harms both the community and the encyclopedia. Johnleemk | Talk 09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Certainly not. — Dan | talk 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Assumes bad faith far too often. android79 15:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Attempts to bring [5] new users (through nonstandard [6] welcome messages) right into politics and plays politics with the content of the encyclopedia, among a number of other problematic things. --Improv 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Yes, he's been engaging in dialog, but he has shown heroically unsound judgement in some recent actions (spamming newbies with welcome messages including ads for his wiki-politics pages, frequent complaints about the "cabal", and, yes, ok, reversing a block of Jimbo's without discussion first). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose As per Johnleemk.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, per Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs). I was very enthusiastic in my support of Karmafist last time, and I still think he's a great guy, but I'm not sure his judgement is sound anymore. Wheel warring (with Jimbo, for crying out loud!) and enthusiastic participation in wikipolitics is bad enough, but encouraging newbies to do the same is terrible. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per Bunchofgrapes and Android79. I normally don't vote an opposition in RfA, but I agree the candidate tends to assume bad faith too easily. --BorgQueen 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Karmafist appears to be willing to continue to use any privileges granted to him to pursue an irresponsible political agenda that values iconoclastic exercise of free speech over the survival of the project, and he doesn't appear to respect what little decisionmaking structure we do have in place. While I'll be the first to admit that our overall decisionmaking processes could use improvement and even overhaul, casting sand into the works of what little structure we do have in place is hardly a useful means of achieving positive change. Unlike other admins who were involved in the recent unpleasantness, Karmafist has responded by (i) encouraging banned users to create sockpuppets and return to Wikipedia, (ii) by engaging in Wikipolitics in the article space (also [7]), (iii) has added a copy of the markup from User:SPUI's page [8], for which SPUI was banned for a time, and which yet remains on Karmafist's user page despite several people asking him to remove it, and (iv) is using newbies as a political resource as noted above. This is not a pattern of behavior of someone who wishes to respect community norms. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Too scrappy. Markyour words 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. History of revert warring in violation of our image use policy. Editors who expose Wikipedia to legal danger like this should be blocked, not promoted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Regretful Oppose. Far too often when I see Karmafist mentioned it seems he's in a fight with someone.  :-( Regards, Ben Aveling 16:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Desysopping Karmafist because Karmafist undid Jimbo's block was too harsh I think (although undoing other admin's block without discussion with the admin in question or at WP:AN/I is never a good idea). However, must oppose per Karmafist's welcome template; the links there were not appropriate for welcoming newbies. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. I've got no problems with this being accepted 13+ days. However, the points raised by UninvitedCompany are a nice summary of why I don't think Karmafist should be given the mop at this time. The newbie welcome template is a huge one for me. --Deathphoenix 17:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[9][reply]
  15. Oppose As per this http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1140365086 ILovePlankton 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to point out something, unless Karamafist verifies that this was their post on a outside board, it cannot be verified. Mike (T C) 17:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to this, Karmafist said this. Also note this -- Karmafist linked to a post by this Wikipedia Reviewer in his acceptance of the nomination, and this same Wikipedia Review member made the "sockpuppet invitation" post. I think it's pretty much established that we're talking about the same Karmafist here. Johnleemk | Talk 17:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also another reply here, in response to Phroziac's question just before David's. Note that this is not the reason I am opposing. -- sannse (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, I'm sorry to have to do this, but I feel it important that we have some form of ultimate authority on the site. Until there is an alternative, Jimbo is it. I feel I have to oppose anyone who is willing to go against that authority (this isn't to say that we can't, or shouldn't, disagree with Jimo and argue against him as our consciences demand). I would be more than willing to remove this vote if Karmafist were to say that he would never reverse one of Jimbo's actions again. -- sannse (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Bringing n00bs into politics really sticks in my craw. --maru (talk) contribs 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose attempting to induct n00bs to become wiki-political partisans in his war was quite unacceptable. --Doc ask? 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I think his combination of politics and religion is detrimental to the Wikipedia community. For a more complete explanation of what I mean by this, see the Comments section. --Michael Snow 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose gren グレン 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose: I've seen too many intemperate outbursts. Jonathunder 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose as above, and also in agreement with Doug Bell below. Questions 3 and 4 are vital given Karmafist's history of poor response to stress (often stress he's caused himself through poor judgement) and his behaviour since being desysopped. I'm also wary of people who spend so much time editing user pages and worrying about who is their friend. This isn't MySpace. --ajn (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose I am very shocked by the behavior of this editor towards new wikipedians. I also find the blatent defiance fo Jimbo completely incomprehensible, and your inability to answer your adminship queries below laughable. -ZeroTalk 22:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to Oppose after analysis of the answers in this talkpage comment. -ZeroTalk 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've transferred the previous conversation to the talkpage. -ZeroTalk 16:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. The Uninvited nicely summarizes the concerns I have with restoring Karmafist's administrative privileges. Especially disturbing are the attempts to recruit new members to his politics and the post on Wikipedia Review—these are not indicative of adminiship suitability. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per Cryptic. JYolkowski // talk 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firm Opposition I'm afraid. Rob Church (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Changed to support. See the still-tangled-thoughts reasoning above. Rob Church (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose with regret, as a fellow Esperanzian. The welcoming template does not only border, in my opinion, WP:BITE, but it also goes against what Esperanza is about. Being involved in wikipolitics should (and can) be optional, and no cause you are trying to uphold by getting as many people as possible to sign your manifesto is worthy enough to justify such a severe lapse in judgement from someone who does know better. -- Rune Welsh | τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Oppose largely per UninvitedCompany and Bunchofgrapes. I find advising banned users to get sockpuppets and to contact the media with proof of the cabal to be very unbecoming conduct for an admin candidate. His attempts to recruit new people to his crusade and his rants about particular admins that he considers to be part of the cabal are inappropriate and show bad judgement. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose As per The Uninvited, Johnleemk, et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. No. Mike H. That's hot 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. I just can't do it; We've a lot of great administrators here and those who are de-sysopped really, really need to earn a second chance. Karmafist is a Wikipolitican, and gets new users involved in politics too quickly. Edit summary usage applies to all, too, and 20% for major edits is not enough. I would explain in more detail, but this is an RfA vote and it really isn't the place. Simply put, no. :p Esteffect 01:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC
  31. Oppose with regret per, for example, Uninvited Company. Karmafist has done some great things, and I've enjoyed interacting with him in the past. However, the ways he has acted on his WikiPolitical views have sometimes been detrimental to the project, and I don't see much evidence that he has fully disavowed such actions. If he demonstrates a change to his confrontational approach, I would gladly support in a few months. -- SCZenz 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Absolutely Not. He had his shot, and he blew it. This not a case of trusting that someone will not use admin powers irresponsibly, but a case someon who had and did. What led to his desysopping wasn't a one-off, ust the straw that broke the camel's back: he arguably should have have been desysopped long before then. --Calton | Talk 03:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Ummm... Either I somehow can't see the answers to the questions below or Karmafist hasn't answered them. If thats the case then he has no initiative to be an admin. Also per all that has been said above. DaGizzaChat © 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, while I agree with Karmafist on many issues I do not particularly trust him to use admin tools in a non-disruptive fashion. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Karmafist doesn't actually do anything that requires admin tools and helps build the encyclopedia - he just uses them to be a general dickhead and play power games. There is nothing to be gained from his regaining the adminship powers he was never suitable for in the first place. Ambi 08:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per Uninvited Company, Sannse. Simply not trustworthy. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Weak oppose per Zero (vote #23) - Waggers 10:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. I don't believe Karmafist met a reasonable standard for disengagment, diplomacy, and gentleness when last an admin. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Oppose Doesn't include many edit summaries, and has abused admin tools in the past. Answer to #4 is disgraceful. Just because it's easy to make a sockpuppet doesn't mean you should endorse or encourage it. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[10][reply]
  40. Oppose - Still not ready. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[11][reply]
  41. Oppose "Karmafist is a brilliant user who's unfortunately gotten a little too involved in unfortunate happenings recently". That says it all.--Firsfron 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Reluctantly, as per SCZenz. I'm convinced of Karmafist's good intentions and good faith, but I feel the wikipolitics, manifestos, and off-site rallies are more determental than helpful to healing the encyclopedia. Like others, I'd say if Karmafist removes the manifesto and spends more time contributing to the mechanisims for improvement already in place, I'd be happy to support in the future. InkSplotch(talk) 17:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per SCZenz and Firsfron. SushiGeek 19:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak oppose. I'm not entirely happy with the circumstances in which he was de-opped; as per Raul654's comments on the original case, it wouldn't hurt if JW's role as project leader were made more transparent, in such a way that it was clear when tangling with him was a mop-confiscation matter. (I asked JW to consider doing so. [12]) OTOH, KF does indeed to be pretty "scrap-prone", in a way that's not ideal for admins; his run-ins with WP:WSS (the gnome cabal?) are one example, as witness his participation in SPUI's on-going incitement to WP:POINT: [13]. I'd be happier with a longer period of non-contentious contributions as a basis for consideration. Alai 20:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Very strong oppose. Karmafist actively and explicitly opposes consensus. As per User:Karmafist/manifesto. I'm very unhappy to oppose here, because otherwise karmafist is a very nice person. :-( Kim Bruning 20:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[14][reply]
  46. Oppose per Improv, Uninvited but especially Cryptic. --Wgfinley 23:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. I too find his defiance of Jimbo's actions incomprehensible, in addition to his formerly unwelcome welcome template. enochlau (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Very strong oppose per user's repeated refusal of consensus, his "manifesto" and spamming newbie pages, his blatant point of view on many things, and lack of edit summaries. Ral315 (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Not yet, and per Kim Bruning.--Sean Black (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Karmafist is a rude user who blames his unwillingness to play nice on aspergers, much to the insult of people with aspergers everywhere. It seems from his text below and his commentary on Wikipedia Review that he now intends to spend his time on Wikipedia keeping it safe for other abrasive and disruptive users. No thanks. --Gmaxwell 09:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strongly oppose per UninvitedCompany, sannse, Johnleemk, Kim Bruning, Improv, and Ambi. Alphax τたうεいぷしろんχかい 09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Too much wikipoliticking; more trouble than positive aspects. David.Monniaux 09:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Strongly oppose Although I have many positive things to say about Karmafist, his welcome template, designed to factionalise newbies, was completely unacceptable, and should instantly disqualify him for adminship. Chairman S. | Talk 11:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Very sad, regretful oppose. Karmafist is an editor with a strong vision of how Wikipedia should be, and was once one of our most promising editors (his RFA wen't virtually unopposed, with a final tally of 53 to 2!) However, recent activity has been full of conflict--including a bout with Jimbo, of all people. The "manifesto" and Wikipedia Review post are also highly questionable, and his ArbCom candidacy was run with a platform advocating sweeping changes. My advice? Don't try to revolutionise Wikipedia. Don't try to fight everything. It's not worth it, your editing has suffered and, surely, it can't be much fun for you either. Come back to being the productive, fun, and well-respected editor you were circa September of last year, and after things have cooled down, you'll get your adminship back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose as per Uninvited Company. The newbie welcome message demonstrates very poor judgement and is not behaviour consistent with good adminship in my opinion. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose per the several significant ill-judged decisions in the recent past and the general lack of need to resysop the desysopped without extraordinarily good reason. Having nearly gotten de-sysopped not so long ago by the ArbCom, one supposes Karmafist might have taken a cold shower and tried again. The newbie petition-welcoming is particularly, and uniformly, distasteful and I would oppose any editor engaged in such. -Splashtalk 02:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. TacoDeposit 02:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Means well, but statements this user has made prevent me from supporting. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. STRONG oppose. With edits like this [15], I don't even think he should be editing at all unless he apologizes.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 04:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Seems a little too interested in the politics of Wikipedia. We need more contributors, not power-grabbers. Relatively few Talk namespace edits. AucamanTalk 05:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. In October, 2005, Karmafist's behavior in escalating a minor dispute over Coleshill, Warwickshire, apparently oblivious of the effect of his actions, gave me cause for concern. Purporting to mediate the dispute, he proceeded to edit war with another user[16],[17], then block him for edit warring on the article [18], and when the block expired and the other editor resumed edit warring, he reverted the article [19] and protected it on his preferred version minutes later [20]. This was some of the most inept sysopping I have ever witnessed. Since then, nothing in his behavior has suggested that he possesses adequate judgement to make reasonable decisions. It has been suggested to me by a mutual friend that Karmafist's actions were influenced by provocation by the blocked (now banned) editor, but I see no provocation in this instance, only a very minor editing dispute that resolved itself as soon as, with Karmafist's permission, I lifted protection. --Tony Sidaway 13:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness the other editor involved in the Coleshill edit war was Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing), a noted edit warrior in his own right. David | Talk 17:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite true. This doesn't explain, let alone excuse, Karmafist's multiple abuse of his sysop powers. --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose, mainly due to the welcome template. Stifle 23:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. We have so many admins, and so many new admins every week, that if you lose your admin powers you have to really prove that you deserve a second chance at recieving them again. Karmafist hasn't done that, in my opinion, and it's way too soon after the incident that created this whole situation in the first place. As a matter of my own standards I don't think I'd support anyone who got desysopped by Jimbo. I kind of think you abdicate any privilege to administration when that happens. Mo0[talk] 23:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Oppose per UninvitedCompany, Rune Walsh, Sarah Ewart, and Voice of All. I've got a Wikiphilosophies section and am in a few organizations myself, but he goes way overboard with Wiki politics and incivility, as demonstrated by the "manifesto", the war with Jimbo, and the diff that Voice of All provided. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Karmafist has made it clear that he's willing to do whatever he feels is best for the encyclopedia, regardless of policy or consensus. I don't like unpredictability from admins: it makes it tough for people here, and Karmafist is one of the more unpredictable ones, IMO. Mangojuice 06:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to remember the whole userbox scandal started out with an admin workingwithout consensus or process, but it was not wrong. Karamfist acted in what he felt was in the best interests of the wiki, even if it was out of process, same book different cover. Mike (T C) 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. I can't honestly say that I trust him not to misuse admin powers. David | Talk 11:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Good editor but position on contentious issues doesn't seem consistent with admin. We have enough people with authority pushing their own agendas. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. I think karma needs more time as a non-admin. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Nice person, but needs more time as a regular editor. I will consider voting support in the future. —Viriditas | Talk 07:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose per many above including the Uninvited and Voice of All. And, yes, the many who consider the newbie-welcoming template to show very poor judgment. He "just loses his cool" way too often. FreplySpang (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose; I was surprised and disturbed when I first discovered that he'd become an admin. I'm afraid that I don't trust him with admin tools and responsibilities. (His edit-summary usage is perhaps indicative of his attitude, too.) --Mel Etitis (Μみゅーεいぷしろんλらむだ Ετητης) 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. I was hoping he learned something from the wheel war. After reading a little more, like the POTW archive and the block log, I think there's more than just the wheel war involved in Karmafist's history. --Elkman - (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Low usage of edit summaries can possibly lead to failure to explain why deleting a page.--Jusjih 00:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose May have been hard done by over original incident, but has since shown judgement inconsistent with a position of responsibility (e.g. encouraging sockpuppetry (even if subsequently clarified), lack of balance in introducing new users to wikipolitics, and inappropriate retaliatory references to users' personal lives, as outlined above and elsewhere). Needs to get some perspective. Not at this time, and maybe not ever. Badgerpatrol 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. Elf-friend 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. From what I can gather, Karmafist has learned two things from losing his adminship. He was right in his actions that led to losing adminship, and those who can't see things his way (including Wikipedia's founder) are wrong. Admins are the people those of us who are new to Wikipedia look to for guidance. The first point that stuck in my mind when I started with Wikipedia was that we build Wikipedia through consensus and collaboration. This is completely contrary to the attitude I see at work in Karmafist's actions. Mikereichold 08:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC) ::WOW. I wrote the above before reading his answer to question three. The perceived hostility in others that he responds to with hostility just indicates he is temperamentally not suited for adminship.Mikereichold 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose: needs more problem-free experience to demonstrate he can stay out of fights. Thumbelina 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose: user lacks the maturity needed for adminship. Putting the SPUI-supporting template on his user page was unnecessary, and resuming his requests to new users to get involved in wikipolitics was also inadvisable.-gadfium 08:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. No vote - I'm not very familiar with Karmafist so I want to understand more throughly the comments made on this RFA so far - it is my opinion that whenever we want to look for instances of actions which do not warrant granting adminship we are always sure to find them. What precipitated this, and why is it so persistent? Likewise, the situation vice versa also applies. If we want to look for supportive behaviour on the part of the user, we are sure to find them. So far, the concerns presented seem to incline more towards a basis of a particular kind of subjective sentiment, and this in itself makes me uncomfortable to lean towards that direction. --HappyCamper 16:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The nomination hasn't even been accepted yet. Although [L]eaning oppose due to drama and lack of edit summaries. --ZsinjTalk 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See above, where Karmafist's first two words are "I accept". android79 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral, not familiar enough with user's previous stint as an admin, although I have a dislike of politicising through Wikipedia. Essexmutant 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral leaning oppose. Like Essexmutant, I'm not familiar enough with the nominee's previous history, and the politicing is a big negative. Also, the user seems to be a force for increasing the stress level through his actions as an admin, and I think that's moving things in the wrong direction. Also, the nominee has not answered any of the questions below. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral leaning support I like Karmafist as a user, but too soon after arb-com desyroping, Sorry --Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral towards support I to like Karmafist as a user, but there are a lot of faults. ComputerJoe 20:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Neutral I like the user but can't support for the above reasons. Moe εいぷしろん 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Changed from oppose: Blantant honesty: I am just opposing to be evil. No, seriously, I just agree with the others, may change to neutral though :-) εいぷしろんγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Regretful Neutral - As much as my heart wants to support Karmafist for his boldness in standing up to many things on Wikipedia that I find are crippling the project, I find his tactics in doing so tend to be self-defeating. A clear case of agreement in goals, but disagreement in methodology. Considering his recent apology, if he shows that he has truly changed, I will be ecstatic to give full, honking support. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Neutral. I like Karmafist as a user as well, but I do not feel I can support at this time, for reasons stated. Robert 05:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Neutral I hate voting anything but oppose, but I really have a hard time telling blocked users to create sockpuppets to get around blocks. I understnad your reasoning, but it just doesn't justify it for me. There are rules and policies and if they can be bent or broken when the cause is just is a slippery slope. I will not oppose and I may change back to support befoire this is all over, but that just gives me a bad taste in my mouth (for an admin). :(Gator (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Neutral. I believe that Karmafist has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and often supports measures which I feel are good - so I won't oppose - but we've clashed heads too often for me to feel comfortable about supporting him. Grutness...wha? 23:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[21][reply]
  13. Neutral: after browsing through all the opinions so far, I honestly have no idea what to think. I am unable to disregard all the opposers, but neither can I ignore the great work you have done. Raven4x4x 00:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Neutral Unfortunately carries much of the baggage of being an admin and having to make decisions and those decisions being open to scrutiny (unlike non-admins who can reach a conclusion but don't voice it). Ultimately those desysopped will always face a tougher challenge than those "virgin" to the process. I have my doubts that the "punishment" fitted the crime, however some of the points raised above do raise questions of judgement (or lack thereof), I can't then in good faith oppose or support. --01:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    This vote was made by Pgk, partially signed.
  15. Neutral Is in the middle of quite a lot of politics in WP. Can still do good work as an editor. novacatz 16:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutral - I cannot, in good conscience, vote either in favor of or in opposition to Karmafist, for different reasons, and I also cannot, in good conscience, not say anything. --Cyde Weys 00:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Neutral. I see many good contributions from your account, but at the same time, you have behaved in ways that are simply unacceptable, and there's no other way to describe them. No matter how much angry or irritated at "the system" you may be, there is no reason why you had to go and recruit new users to the fracas of Wikipolitics.
    As to the desysopping itself, it is not an issue in my mind. What is an issue is your wheel-warring. No matter how wrong you believed that Jimbo's block was, you had no right to just go and undo it yourself, becuase adminship is not a sheriff's badge, it is just a mop and a flamethrower to kill the weeds. I'm saying this not because it was a block by Jimbo, but rather, because it was trying to bypass the judgment of another administrator. I know I would not like to have my decisions overriden, no matter if you think they may be wrong. So, what do you do if you think they are? You discuss it on the admin's talk page, you sort it out with him/her, instead of trying to use the route of most resistance. I haven't seen any indication that you're willing to do that; if you are, then I'll gladly reconsider my position. I urge you to consider Starblind's advice, but until then, I'm neutral leaning towards oppose. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[22][reply]
  18. Neutral Can't bring myself to say yes, can't bring myself to say no. ςפקιいおたДИτς ☺ ☻ 03:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Neutral I respect all the editing work that Karmafist has done, and realize that he does all of this with the best of Wikipedia in his heart, but there are too many issues that still need to be resolved. Bratschetalk 03:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Neutral - Whilst I really, really loathe his ideas for policy reform, and the fact that he thinks Jimbo should have to obey like the rest of us (no he doesn't - he owns the site, and Wikipedia is vehemently not a democracy), that should not be what is being addressed here. Karmafist was a good administrator, and despite the unfortunately bitey tone of his bespoke welcome messages, was on the whole a benefit to Wikipedia as an administrator. However, the abject edit summary count drops my vote down from weak support to neutral (as an (ex-)administrator, he should know what a pain it is when people don't use edit summaries). Proto||type 09:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Neutral I'm in agreement with User:Raven4x4x. --kingboyk 13:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Neutral. Thoughtful, if controversial, candidate. Largely solid record as an admin. Currently a bit volatile; "adminship should be no big deal" cuts both ways. The candidate should enjoy not being an admin for a while, and clarify some of his goals and positions re: settling disputes with other admins. +sj + 19:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Neutral. --JuntungWu 13:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Neutral. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Neutral. I had problems with Karmafist back when (almost) no one else did. Since then I think he has improved a great deal... but a few more people have noticed the issues which bothered me or have issues of their own. Karmafist does alot of good things and works very hard at what he believes in. He just needs to learn to walk away from or tone down conflict rather than escalating it. The person who argues loudest always loses, even when they 'win' the argument. --CBDunkerson 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Neutral. the wub "?!" 11:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 20% for major edits and 27% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace. Mathbot 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Karmafist's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
Distribution of days since started editing for Karmafist RFA voters. Support=Blue. Oppose=Red.
Distribution of edit count for Karmafist RFA voters. Support=Blue. Oppose=Red.
  • First RFA NSLE (T+C) at 01:52 UTC (2006-02-24)
  • Hm. You fellows are aware that this RfA isn't even listed on RFA, right? Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, right. Apparently now you can't place this on RfA until the nominee accepts. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karmafist's two weeks has not expired. This shows a basic disrespect for an ArbCom decision. Please withdraw until your punishment is over. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.72 (talk • contribs) .
    • The case closed on Feb 10. Today is Feb 24. android79 15:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Case Closed on 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC) - I guess 13 days and a few hours is enough for you. Karmafist should be a man and wait the full 14 days.
        • ...so says the guy hiding behind an AOL proxy. Stop trolling. android79 15:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Android, it's not a big deal, either with the AOL IP troller or waiting a few days. Now, if you'd all excuse me, i'm going to go be a man per the anon's advice and head over to the urinal because nature is calling. Karmafist 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Be careful man. The janitor hasn't finished mopping up that mess...{slip}AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUえーゆーUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!*crash!* --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Android, I didn't see it (edit conflicts and all) :). Thanks!Gator (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to point out that ArbCom is not here to punish but rather to uphold policy. Karmafist was no punished, it was a cooling off peroid before a RFA was opened. Actually I think it was more to his advantage to have a 2 week break between the decision and RFA. Mike (T C) 17:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why does his user page say he is an admin? Did I read that wrong? I'm confused.Gator (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To elaborate on my comment above: I agree with Karmafist's statement that "Nobody is irredeemable if they want to be redeemed." But such a statement is highly religious in tone, and symptomatic of what I think is the underlying problem. Based on his other statements, he doesn't like that Jimbo is being seen as a deity and developing a cult around himself. Yet most of us I venture don't actually feel that way, in reality it's Karmafist who's approaching this as a religious exercise and seeing everything through a religion-like filter. Witness his efforts to be a missionary to those not converted to the Wikipedia "gospel". Even worse, to fight his battles in this supposedly religious setting he's applying the tactics of politics, when history teaches the great perils that come from mixing these two.
  • I'm happy to have efforts to "redeem" various disruptive users. However, this needs to be undertaken in a more sensible fashion than Karmafist has done. One issue is understanding that a great deal of disruption is simply tolerated (to make it less disruptive), so when you're trying to help people whose disruption has brought consequences, you're generally dealing with hard cases that will require more dedicated effort to redeem. Frankly, you have to choose carefully who's worth the effort (and make sure they truly want to be redeemed), then actually do the work to redeem them, not just argue based on the potential for redemption. Another issue is that when people are understandably skeptical, patiently explaining why they don't understand the full situation is the right approach, while making countercharges is decidedly the wrong course to take. Accusing those who are hesitant to accept the formerly disruptive of having ulterior motives is divisive, counterproductive, and frequently just wrong.
  • Also, in this situation the physician may yet need to heal himself a bit before serving others. --Michael Snow 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment I'm going to repeat sans vote on the re-RfAs of everyone the arbcom desysops (though this one's already pretty well underway without this being a serious issue): I would strongly urge that people would consider their decisions to accept or reject a re-request without holding the arbcom decision against the candidate. That is, suppose the person asking for adminship again had done exactly the same admin actions, but hadn't been taken to arbcom: what would you think about that person retaining admin status? I don't think a second request can be handled fairly otherwise. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is, don't give weight (or too much weight) to the arb com decision, just make your own judgments regarding the alleged actions and if they would warrant an oppose vote. Is that right?Gator (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, this is probably a pretty minor thing in relation to the recent goings on, but what happened to your edit summaries Karmafist? :) Banez 21:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to ask everyone who said he was sysopped for doing a stupid thing, revesing jimbo's block. But isn't Jimbo suposted to be treated as any other editor, therefore anyone wheelwaring should be desysopped then and sent to ArbCom. Mike (T C) 00:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had the actual quote at hand though I'm too lazy to look for it; at some point Jimbo said something to the effect (and I'm paraphrasing here, so blame me if I got it wrong) "I can't, by definition, wheelwar" on the basis that all his decisions on the wiki are ultimate. -- Rune Welsh | τたうαあるふぁλらむだκかっぱ 02:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No he isn't. And even if he is, as others have said, wheel warring with anyone is bad. Anyway, those of you who are supporting because the reason for desysoping was not valid should recall the arbcom stated this was not based on Karmafist's wheel warring alone; that was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Having said that, if Karmafist had followed Starblind's advice between his desysoping and now (instead of embarking on his crusade to prevent newbies from meeting Joeyramoney's fate, as well-intentioned as said crusade was), I would unreservedly support (and will, if Karmafist heeds Starblind; hell, I'd even nominate him myself). This RfA is not a referendum on whether the arbcom or Jimbo was right, but whether Karmafist should be an admin. Johnleemk | Talk 03:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voters might want to see this candiate address the folowing comments that he made about another user that led to a WP:WQA, WQA here comments here, also he requested that i vote aginst him to basiclay add legitimacy and extra support to his adminship campaing as well as accusing me of sabatoging his edits, [23]. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting both Boothy and Karmafist were blocked yesterday for calling one another jerks. Some, including myself, have objected to this. See discussion on User talk:Karmafist. Johnleemk | Talk
    • I'll explain this more thoroughly on my responses. Karmafist 14:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Karmafist's References to Responses.
  • This RfA was closed a while ago when a 'crat took this off WP:RFA, but forgot to add tags mentioning this to the RfA. I have done this. Johnleemk | Talk 14:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters: Note Also check the first rfa, most of those answers still apply. Karmafist 20:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A. Mostly those having to do with Recent Changes (WP:U related, vandalism, etc.) , since RC makes up the majority of my Wikipedia experience now. Currently, I am hovering around 3,300 welcomes, or around 1 in every 300 Wikipedia User Accounts.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop is nearly at featured list status, in my opinion, so that's definately one. I made Current Major League Baseball players by nationality mostly from excel formulas, which was definately interesting(the methodology is on the talk page), my welcomes have given me pride, I often do it to help out new users, letting them know "the score", as well as feeling like Sir Edmund Hillary with Mt. Everest -- with thoughts of people saying "You can't welcome that many people!" and then doing it, pushing myself to see how far I can go.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A.Many, many, many. I've talked about my conflict with MONGO before, so I won't go into that, and ultimately, this is my achilles heel. My buttons are pushed by those whose main intent seems to be instigation of hostility, often making me hostile.
This unfortunately, only fuels them, and fuels my own anger towards them. It's a vicious cycle that I hope I can grow out of, because the only way to beat hate isn't with hate, but with love. Whenever possible, I want to communicate with others, learn from others, help others. Even those who think they are my "enemies" I would reach out to if they wanted to discuss things with me. My only true enemy is myself and my temper.
I'd like to get away from it, but I honestly don't know if I can. I feel like a wiki-bodhisattva, eschewing the bliss of just ignoring the trivial problems around here for trying to help those who have felt slighted by an increasingly paradoxical system. If the arbcom is wrong in my opinion, i'll say so. Same goes with Jimbo. Same goes with those who supported me or opposed me above, the same goes if I agree with any of the above. I will say how I see things, and will do so in as civil a manner as I can.
However, that doesn't mean that I'm not pliable. I am very, very pragmatic. If something makes sense, i'll follow it if someone discusses it with me and asks me to do so in a calm manner. Intimidation usually creates little more than resentment, and resentment only causes more hostility, so intimidation cannot be used to stop hostility(i've forgotten this too many times when I saw someone getting hurt.) It's just a vicious cycle, and we all need to escape it. I'll let you know how my run for freedom from that cycle is going.
However, I do have one victory in terms of ending that cycle with someone, a user named Lawyer2b. Lawyer2b is a Floridian law student that is also a Libertarian. I can provide diffs later, but when he first got on Wikipedia, the majority of his edits were anti-Liberal, similiar to Bigdaddy or Ultramarine, basically just goading and POV. However, even though i'm a Liberal myself, I stepped in and let him know that basically the path he was going down was counterproductive, both to himself(since he'd eventually get indef blocked for some POV issue stemming from hostility towards other POVs, like many other arbcom cases), and to his ideology(since fewer people are likely to respect the words of someone who basically just seems to be there to argue.) Me and him often disagree on political issues, but in the end, we're both Wikipedians, we're both humans, and I consider those similiarities to be bigger than our differences, and I hope someday everyone, both those who are in rarified air here and those who feel like they've become victims, can see things that way too. I'll do whatever I can to make that happen, just let me know and give me constructive feedback, and we'll get there eventually.
4. You seem to be encouraging banned users to create sockpuppets at [24] as of the 19th (5 days ago). Before I or others change their votes, would you mind explaining that?
A. Yes, I apologize for not clarifying this as soon as NSLE nominated me, just sometimes, life gives you too many balls to juggle at once.
Before I answer, let me clarify with one precept I have seen from the workings of Wikipedia...
It is incredibly easy to make a sockpuppet
95% of my edits come from a laptop with wireless access, around 75-80% of my edits come from when i'm on AOL. If I was indef blocked, I would only need to wait a few minutes or go down to the street to another hot spot to create another account if I wanted to. Many vandals are stupid, but many aren't, and they know this, thus why you'll see about 50 "User:CURPS IS TEH TATOR TOTS SUCKS FIREFOX" every day. (and no, I don't make those accounts, before anyone reads into what i'm saying)
However, for every 10-20 of those nihilistic vandal accounts, there is the account of someone who could contribute valuable content from their expertise, whatever that might be, but unfortunately, they've run afoul of someone important or they've broken some asinine rule(it's my belief that they need to be reformed since most of them are so vague that they're just asking to be ignored, such as with the New Year's Day Userbox Purge, or they contradict or have been contradicted arbitrarily by other policies.)
Those people are the key. To me, Mistress Selina Kyle is the perfect example. She's never going to win "nicest person of the year", but when she wasn't being nasty towards others for what she believed in, she was contributing to the encyclopedia. Selina Kyle and Lir and all of them over on Wikipedia Review could add something that would make Wikipedia far more credible to outsiders: balance of viewpoints.
They're exceptionally critical of Wikipedia, and they could add that expertise in a NPOV and WP:V manner and make Wikipedia better by doing so, despite being banned forever for doing whatever the hell they did in the past.
Because ultimately, that's just the argument that those who disagree with me usually use -- "The Encyclopedia comes before all else." That argument goes both ways. If Lir or Selina Kyle or anyone else can contribute to the encyclopedia in a constructive and civil manner, and anyone tries to stop them, whether it be Jimbo or the arbcom or some overzealous admin, then I say Jimbo/the Arbcom/those Admins are wrong. The encyclopedia is bigger than any of us. Bigger than me, bigger than Jimbo, bigger than the Wikimedia Foundation, it's hopefully a truthful and open sourced collection of all human knowledge. I still try to believe in that, regardless of whatever boundaries anyone puts up towards gaining that.
And ultimately, if we can stick with that ideal, that Wikipedia will continue to thrive. It is theoretical that we could get a good criticisms section on here for Jimbo Wales, but it is highly dubious that there would ever be a balanced portrayal of Bill Gates at Encarta, or even if there was, that people would dismiss it as Microsoft trying to get some good PR. We're still not at the preconcieved bias stage yet(see Fox News for a perfect example yet), but once there are sacred cows, we'll be there, and we'll be no different than Encarta, which would suck because I can't edit Encarta. And in order to do that, we need people to assualt those sacred cows in a civil and constructive manner, thus what I said on Wikipedia Review.
I hope this clears up things. Karmafist 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karmafist, I am presently writing a response to this on part of my talk page. Probably by the time you read this, it will be there. It's just my 2¢ -- I obviously can't speak for everyone. --Improv 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. What have you learned from the userbox fiasco and the wheel warring that followed? What has the Wikipedia community learned from this? What would you do in the future if you disagreed with one of Jimbo's decisions, or another admin's decisions? --Elkman 14:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Karmafist_2&oldid=1089731473"