Misplaced Pages

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)
2. Certainly not. — Dan | talk 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Assumes bad faith far too often. android79 15:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Attempts to bring new users (through nonstandard 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)
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)
6. Oppose As per Johnleemk.⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages, (ii) by engaging in Wikipolitics in the article space (also ), (iii) has added a copy of the markup from User:SPUI's page , 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)
10. Oppose. Too scrappy. Mark 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
11. History of revert warring in violation of our image use policy. Editors who expose Misplaced Pages to legal danger like this should be blocked, not promoted. —Cryptic (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
15. Oppose As per this http://wikipediareview.proboards78.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1140365086 ILovePlankton 17:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    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)

    In response to this, Karmafist said this. Also note this -- Karmafist linked to a post by this Misplaced Pages Reviewer in his acceptance of the nomination, and this same Misplaced Pages 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)

    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)

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)
17. Oppose. Bringing n00bs into politics really sticks in my craw. --maru (talk) contribs 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose attempting to induct n00bs to become wiki-political partisans in his war was quite unacceptable. --Doc 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
19. I think his combination of politics and religion is detrimental to the Misplaced Pages community. For a more complete explanation of what I mean by this, see the Comments section. --Michael Snow 18:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose gren グレン 20:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose: I've seen too many intemperate outbursts. Jonathunder 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
23. Weak 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. -Zero 22:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

    Karmafist was an admin since October 11, 2005. Criticizing him for not answering the usual questions regarding adminship is completely unnecessary. As anyone can see, the reasons people are opposing him are entirely unrelated. -- Hinotori 03:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Karmafist may have been an admin before, but I didn't know him then. All I know is that he was desysopped for some very stupid behaviour. That means I need to see answers to the questions below even more. If he's such a good admin, those questions should be dead easy for him to answer, and those answers would be there by now. Waggers 09:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    I wonder if you read the third sentence of my comment. The first three questions (the usual ones) have absolutely nothing to do with why he was desysopped. Answering those would be a total waste of time. The fourth question (an added one), is the only one that would shed any light on the situation. I too would like to see an answer to that question, but in his defense, he indirectly addressed it (albeit very tangentially) in the Misplaced Pages Review post he made. -- Hinotori 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages Review—these are not indicative of adminiship suitability. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Cryptic. JYolkowski // talk 22:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
26. Firm Opposition I'm afraid. Rob Church (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
27. 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 | ταλκ 23:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
28. 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)
29. Oppose As per The Uninvited, Johnleemk, et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. No. Mike H. That's hot 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
31. 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
32. 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)
33. 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)
34. 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. DaGizza 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
35. 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)
36. 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)
37. Oppose per Uninvited Company, Sannse. Simply not trustworthy. --Nick Boalch 10:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
38. Weak oppose per Zero (vote #23) - Waggers 10:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
39. 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)
40. Oppose Doesn't include many edit summaries, did not answer any of the questions, and has abused admin tools in the past. If he improves on the first two, then I would be willing to change my vote. Jtrost ( | C | _#) 14:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose - Still not ready. --Phroziac _. o º 15:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
42. 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)
43. 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 17:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
2. The nomination hasn't even been accepted yet. Although leaning oppose due to drama and lack of edit summaries. --Zsinj 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

   See above, where Karmafist's first two words are "I accept". android79 17:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Neutral, not familiar enough with user's previous stint as an admin, although I have a dislike of politicising through Misplaced Pages. Essexmutant 17:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Neutral leaning support I like Karmafist as a user, but too soon after arb-com desyroping, Sorry --Jaranda 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
7. Neutral I like the user but can't support for the above reasons. Moe ε 21:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
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 :-) εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Regretful Neutral - As much as my heart wants to support Karmafist for his boldness in standing up to many things on Misplaced Pages 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 03:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)
• See Karmafist's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.
• 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)
  • Oh, right. Apparently now you can't place this on RfA until the nominee accepts. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• 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)
    • 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)
        • 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)
        • Be careful man. The janitor hasn't finished mopping up that mess...{slip}AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!*crash!* --D-Day 15:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Android, I didn't see it (edit conflicts and all) :). Thanks!Gator (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war, which is linked in the nomination text (as unfortunate happenings). android79 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages "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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• Information on applications for readminship: (List of reapplications)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Misplaced Pages in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Misplaced Pages backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

A.

2. Of your articles or contributions to Misplaced Pages, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A.

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.

4. You seem to be encouraging banned users to create sockpuppets at as of the 19th (5 days ago). Before I or others change their votes, would you mind explaining that?

A.