Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Karanacs

Hmmm
This isn't even live yet, but there are two votes.  Enigma  message 01:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already reverted one vote and left a message with the editor to tell him when to check back. If that is an acceptable way to proceed, I'll do the same with these two; otherwise I can add back in the one I reverted. I'm not planning to officially list this for another week and a half. Karanacs (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Votes pre-transclude should be reverted. Notifying them is the right way to proceed. If they still wish to vote, they can watchlist the RfA and come back when it's live.  Enigma  message 02:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice and the formatting fixes! Karanacs (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Please drop me a note if I can be of further assistance.  Enigma  message 02:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how I find what I find, but this will be the first RfA I will vote in here in my quiet wiki career, and I'm very glad to support, so hurry the eff up! *Poke* Don't make me get a bigger stick. --Moni3 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Please don't get a bigger stick, I beg you!  Thanks for the encouragement but I have this darn vacation I already promised to go on.  It might cause a little hostility in the household if I stay home to do this instead ;) But I do wonder just what |you are implying? Karanacs (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you transclude now, I can answer all the optional questions as your authorized agent while you're away--and I'll answer them good, believe you me! Also, if you like, I can canvas all across the project telling people to vote for you so that you'll have a zillion support votes when you come back.  I will even engage in abusive sockpuppetry to stuff the ballot box..... but somehow I doubt any of that will be necessary; you'll pass without a hitch.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm one might argue that the vacation is needed much more after the RfA, but I would much more enjoy sticking my feet in the ocean than reading blanket opposes. Buy me a souvenir. --Moni3 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, would've been much wiser to run it this past week. In fact, if you started it after DHMO's RfA, you'd have been a guaranteed pass! But the main reason is that RfAs can make you lose whatever sanity you have left. Vacations are necessary.  Enigma  message 22:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It never even went live :( I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? – iride  scent  20:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Moni3, that is. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit count for Karanacs
User:Karanacs

run at Mon Jun 16 16:21:19 2008 GMT

Category talk:        15 Category:             67 Image talk:           2 Image:                160 Mainspace             6104 Portal:               1 Talk:                 2275 Template talk:        13 Template:             13 User talk:            727 User:                 111 Wikipedia talk:       216 Wikipedia:            1038 avg edits per page    2.69 earliest              18:56, 31 October 2006 number of unique pages 3998 total                 10742

2006/10 7  2006/11 0   2006/12 127   2007/1  208   2007/2  338   2007/3  373   2007/4  323   2007/5  573   2007/6  730   2007/7  889   2007/8  711   2007/9  849   2007/10 945   2007/11 764   2007/12 379   2008/1  551   2008/2  673   2008/3  669   2008/4  668   2008/5  814   2008/6  151

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red  denotes edits without an edit summary)

Mainspace 291 [2]List of romantic novelists 196 [3]Texas A&M University 170 [4]James Bowie 160 [5]Romance novel 155 [6]Traditions of Texas A&M University 145 [7]Aggie Bonfire 132 [8]History of Texas A&M University 126 [9]Lawrence Sullivan Ross 114 [10]Spanish Texas 102 [11]French Texas 102 [12]Roman Catholic Church 99 [13]Georgette Heyer 94 [14]Garth Brooks 80 [15]Battle of the Alamo 78 [16]Tim McGraw

Talk: 131 [17]List of romantic novelists 117 [18]Roman Catholic Church 101 [19]Texas A&M University 49 [20]Ima Hogg 39 [21]Fightin' Texas Aggie Band 31 [22]Aggie Bonfire 23 [23]Ima Hogg/additional material 22 [24]J. K. Rowling 18 [25]Mario Vargas Llosa 17 [26]Battle of the Alamo 13 [27]Traditions of Texas A&M University 13 [28]Texas A&M University/FA Push 9  [29]Romance novel 9  [30]History of Texas A&M University 8  [31]James Bowie

Category talk: 2 [32]Republic of Texas

Category: 4 [33]Texas-Indian Wars 3 [34]Spanish Texas 2 [35]Texas Revolution films 2 [36]Ships of the Texas Navy 2 [37]Ships of Texas 2 [38]Texas A&M Aggies men's basketball players 2 [39]History of Fort Worth, Texas 2 [40]Alamo defenders

Image: 5 [41]TheFlameAndTheFlower.jpg 3 [42]TAMUReveille1.jpg 3 [43]Holding My Own.jpg 3 [44]2007 CMA Music Festival.gif 3 [45]Clay Walker - If I Could Make a Living.jpg 3 [46]Ten Strait Hits.jpg 3 [47]Clay Walker - Rumor Has It.jpg 3 [48]Latest Greatest Straitest Hits.jpg 3 [49]WhereAreTheChildren.jpg 3 [50]One Step At a Time.jpg 3 [51]Pat Green Wave on Wave.jpg 3 [52]Merry Christmas Wherever You Are.jpg 3 [53]FreshCutChristmas.jpg 3 [54]GeorgeStraitSelf-Titled.jpg 3 [55]Honkytonkville.jpg

Template: 4 [56]Texas History 3 [57]Infobox Writer/sandbox 3 [58]Infobox Writer 2 [59]GA number

Template talk: 7 [60]Did you know 2 [61]WikiProject Texas 2 [62]Citation

User: 77 [63]Karanacs 9 [64]Karanacs/sandbox 6 [65]Karanacs/Barnstars 5 [66]Karanacs/Dispatches 2 [67]Bespectacled Bookworm

User talk: 103 [68]Karanacs 53 [69]SandyGeorgia 37 [70]BQZip01 35 [71]NancyHeise 19 [72]Oldag07 16 [73]Bhaktivinode 16 [74]BlueAg09 12 [75]Ealdgyth 9  [76]Karanacs/Archive1 9  [77]Red Harvest 7  [78]Karanacs/archive2 7  [79]JohninMaryland 7  [80]JKBrooks85 6  [81]Awadewit 6  [82]Irishguy

Wikipedia: 47 [83]Village pump (policy) 19 [84]Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive3 16 [85]Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive2 16 [86]Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4 14 [87]Featured article candidates/History of Texas A&M University 14 [88]Television episodes/RFC Episode Notability 13 [89]Featured article candidates/Aggie Bonfire 13 [90]Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive1 11 [91]Good article nominations 10 [92]Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan/archive2 10 [93]Television episodes/Proposed Objective Criteria 9 [94]Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-14/Dispatches 9 [95]Featured article candidates/Jim Bowie 8 [96]WikiProject Texas A&M/Announcements 8 [97]Featured article candidates/Michael Jackson/archive4

Wikipedia talk: 49 [98]Featured article candidates 24 [99]WikiProject Texas A&M 17 [100]Featured content dispatch workshop 16 [101]WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team/Mission 1 15 [102]WikiProject Texas 10 [103]Good articles 7 [104]WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem 7 [105]Notability (fiction) 6 [106]Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church/archive4 6 [107]Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 5 [108]WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team 4 [109]Citing sources 4 [110]WikiProject Christianity 3 [111]Hatnote 3 [112]Content review/workshop

If there were any problems, please [113]email Interiot or post at  [114]User talk:Interiot.


 * The edit count was retrieved from this link at 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC).

Discussion of EditoroftheWiki's oppose
(Discussion carried over from main page.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Weak oppose I am impressed with your FA work. However, incivility like this forces me to oppose. While I know I might have been on the strong side sometimes, I always give the user that I offended an apology. Since the incident on April 17, Karanacs has not offered me one, which "gives me little confidence that you have the judgement to be an admin." I hate to be a party pooper, but I apologise. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, I don't think anyone should have to apologize for opposing (or for any other civil expression of their opinion). Thanks for putting forward your point of view, EotW.  I would also like to ensure that commenters focus on Karanacs's contributions (which of course, they may or may not want to criticize) rather than on EotW's.  Many thanks.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur. What EotW did could be viewed as self-promotion, and Karanacs is entitled to his opinion. I don't believe this was incivility at all. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to self-promote, though it might have come across that way. Right here I apologise, if I haven't already, by creating drama at the ANI. I simply want an apology from Karanacs, and I'll be happy to switch to support. This is pretty much a null vote anyway, since the RFA is definitely going to pass. I do not hold gudges, and good luck on adminship Karanacs!I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If she believes she didn't do anything wrong, then I fail to see why an apology would make her more suited for administrator. Admitting you're wrong is a valuable trait, but only if you in fact do recognize that you did something wrong.  Enigma  message 00:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no reason at all why Karanacs should apologize... she wasn't uncivil, and you yourself agree she was right (or at least more so than you). · AndonicO  Engage. 01:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur that Karana wasn't being uncivil - she was just telling it like it was (or at least how it could very easily have been perceived to be). Indeed, I think she handled that situation very well given the highly inappropriate ANI thread you made to continue the dispute. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "telling it like it is" and holding people up to ridicule. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Now now, I don't like to hold grudges against people, but I don't see how "That edit was blatant self-promotion and was deliberately misleading" couldn't come across as incivil. I started the ANI discussion because I didn't like how Karanacs was treating me. I simply ask for an apology and explanation for this comment which I myself find incivil. Also, the only innappropriate part of the ANI discussion was that I might have been a bit perky to start such without much discussion. But don't you guys have better things to do on a Monday night tan discuss my oppose? Another editor has voted oppose and another neutral for the same reason. I imagine Karanacs was trying to give me positive feedback, though it soon degraded into feedback "indelicately worded though they may be", as Joe says. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 03:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Ridicule was certainly not my intention (and I don't believe it was the result). I would likely have toned my comments down if they had been made on a regular talk page rather than an editor review, but I felt that since EotW was (self-described as) actively working towards adminship he should have known better. As I said, I'm not perfect, and I see that there are differing opinions on how appropriate my comments were. Karanacs (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent:) As I have said at the RfA itself, I personally think that what Karanacs said at EotW's editor review was fine. But I should also say that I think that EotW had every right to go to WP:ANI and seek feedback and "advice" (as he himself described it).  Moreover, he opened that thread in an appropriately cautious way, acknowledging that he "might be overreacting here."  I don't think he needs grief for starting the ANI thread.
 * Again, I say this even though I also thought that Karanacs's contributions to his review were fine. We don't need to be right to start up a thread at ANI.  We can simply be seeing what admins and other editors think about some incident or another.  I don't see any evidence at all that EotW generally rushes to ANI.  Again, I think he was wrong about Karanacs in this case.  But I have no problem at all with his opening up an ANI incident to check with others about it.
 * Can we let the incident rest now? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an ANI thread is not to to "check with others"; it's to induce the community to take punitive action. As in going to your teacher and saying "Please Sir, Karanacs was rude to me". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the ANI action was not the right avenue for EotW. However, EotW is not the candidate for the RfA, and the focus on that action obscures the reason why he sought redress. The fact that Karanacs is still refusing to acknowledge that her comments created ill will with one of her peers is bothersome. People come to the Editor Review page in search of a hand -- and that hand shouldn't be slapping people across the face.  I don't care if the comments are made on a Talk Page, an Editor Review page or whatever page -- rudeness is not acceptable. (And for the record, I think EotW is doing a great job here.) Ecoleetage (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. Karanacs wasn't rude, EotW got his feelings hurt and is doing a bang-up job of creating major drama, and now there's talk of taking this to ANI?! Someone tell me I'm reading this incorrectly. Yesterday I agreed to remove my reaction to this oppose, and now I wish I had not. I used to respect EtoW, this is absolutely ridiculous. Tan   |   39  16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you are sort of reading it incorrectly. EotW did take it to ANI after this thing happened (which was admittedly not the best idea), and it went nowhere.  Obviously, most people don't see Karanacs as being rude, but that is not a unanimous opinion. As major drama goes, this is pretty much at the community theatre level in comparison to other recent RfAs. If there is a positive element to this, at least we can say this is not boring discussion. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I did read it correctly; I was too astounded to type proper English. You're right that this isn't a Giggy RfA, but I had previously respected EtoW... and this was a huge, huge letdown. A complete reversal of my previous opinion. Tan   |   39  17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the proper place to discuss anyone's opinion (good, bad, neutral) of EotW. The ANI thread was closed with no action taken.  He has the perfect right to oppose a candidate for any reason, and hasn't (in my opinion) really tried to start any more drama over our previous run-in.  Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Awww, don't be too rough on EotW. He's done and is doing some fine work here. If you ignore everything wonderful about him to focus on what appears to be an isolated aberration, then nobody profits.  We all make mistakes, and with luck we can use the lessons of those errors to prevent others from falling into the traps that once ensared and isolated us. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the proper place to discuss our opinion of his oppose, Karanacs. It's clear other people agree with me - what you did was in no way uncivil or even remotely rude. The fact that EotW is opposing an obviously brilliant candidate over something as petty as this is galling. However, I understand that people (read: you, jbmurray) want us all to shut up about this now, especially since I am firmly entrenched in the support camp. So, done - Tan   |   39  17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you guys just let this die! The ANI thread was opened to review Karanacs conduct almost tow months ago! Notice how I voted weak oppose in that Karanacs refused to give me an apology for something that I took as incivility. Whether it was or not ("blatant self-promotion and was deliberately misleading" are certainly not the best phrases one could use in the constructive criticism part of the editor review), Karanacs has not shown the civil remark of an apology. I am not the one creating the drama, it is the editors fault for discussing this on and on. I do not see Karanacs as being a rude person and I see this mostly as an isolated incident. Also, to Ecoleetage: I can stand up for myself, I actually applaud Karanacs for trying to end the drama, and I am perfectly capable for sticking up for myself. Anyway, there are much better thing to do than discuss on and on about my opposition when this candidate is obviously going to become an administrator. I suppose this will be my final edit to this talkpage. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, your oppose appeared to have more to do with the fact that you didn't like Karanacs and/or were insulted by him than whether or not he'd make a good administrator. IMHO your oppose was unjust. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  03:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of Gears of War's oppose
(Discussion carried over from main page.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Very Weak Oppose.My oppose is a complicated one. You are no doubt a awesome editor, no doubt about that. But my concerns are with the nomination, which to me messed up the entire RFA. "does not need the admin tools", not eaxactly a reassuring statement. you have been grossly uncivil and yet you are a great editor. I really think that you need to work on your attittude(if it hasn't changed since the incident) and get someone else to nominate you(no offence to first nominator). Gears  Of War  05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. On another current RfA, I've been suggesting that people should not support simply on the basis of the nominator's statement.  It would seem consistent to ask you to think twice about opposing on that basis, too.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read past that part of my comment you woud notice that that is just a small reason and is not to reassuring. Gears  Of War  05:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors submitting to editor review, such as Editor review/Editorofthewiki, request feedback from the community; it's not quite fair to qualify requested feedback as gross incivility. Editor review should be eliminated if people can't speak freely there. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you call being uncivil speaking your mind, then you a mistaken. Gears  Of War  05:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is absolutely nonsensical. Being civil is all about keeping a discussion focused on useful things, rather than degenerating into violent conversation; in the context of an editor review, it's discussing the editor at hand. It's not uncivil or a personal attack to provide solicited feedback or even disagree vehemently: criticism is permitted and is vital to the operation and improvement of an open community. east. 718 at 08:30, June 17, 2008
 * Gears of War, I'm very disappointed by your commentary here, considering the highly incivil comment you justified by your speaking your mind. giggy (O) 09:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being accused of "incivility," or making a "personal attack", I'm driven to express my opinion that this is about the most ridiculous allegation of incivility that I have ever seen on wikipedia. I realise that the wiki definition of incivility has been drifting away from common usage and towards "anything I don't like", but this really does take the biscuit. Gears of War really ought to consider growing up. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, and before you start jumping on me, I have been mildly incivil in the past. Back in January, when I didn't know about many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I made what (It didn't occur to me) could be perceived as incivility. I was pointed toward WP:POINT (no pun intended) and when I failed to listen, I received a 72 hour block. After I apologised and explained my situation, the same admin who blocked me reduced my block to 12 hours. Notice how GoW (hey, everybody loves to abbreviate my username and, even since he changed his username, giggy) is not running for adminship here. But I think that, if he ever does or waants to be respected higher, he should. Apologies are very important in real life and in the wiki-world. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 13:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Editor, I think I have to disagree. Respect in real life and on wiki should come from within. Seeking an adminship in order to get more respect is a false idol. Motivation on what and how one edits and behaves should come from a place of confidence and stability in yourself. You behave and edit because you know it's the right thing to do, not because it will win you favor from strangers. If you work to please the masses, you will be easily swayed by what they want and true to none of their desires, since it is impossible to please everyone. I have some of the highest respect for editors who do not wish to be admins, but instead want to work on what they choose in the manner they see is right.  --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it like that. If anyone apologises, they should be sincere about it--that goes without saying. I'm not advising Gears of War to seek adminship because it will gain him more respect, rather, I'm asking him to gain respect if he ever wants to become one as it is a position that requires a lot of it. He should work out what he feels is right in his heart, but obviously "super strong opposes" like that should not be taken lightly. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't the fact he's running for adminship (your 13:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC) comment) should have any affect. WP:DICK applies to everyone, all the time. giggy (O) 06:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay lets get some things straight. One, the comment Giggy insists is uncivil, is not uncivil. Second if you want me to grow up, you might have to wait cause Im 12. Next I I do not owe editor and appology. I owen KieferSkunk one because I was uncivil to him. My apposal was the exact opposite of uncivil. I followed the vote policy, spoke my mind and now I'm being called uncivil. Im tired of being led to stupid links of my opions. I mean what I say. I was not uncivil, so Editor, if you want a appology, I hope you got a life time cause I aint do nothing wrong. Gears  Of War  20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another thing, this time i said weak oppose so how is it that out of everyone elses oppose, I get called out of the group. Think about that dude. Gears  Of War  20:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it helps, Gears of War, I do not think your oppose was the least bit uncivil. I think you might have just gotten "lucky" in getting singled out.  Hopefully everyone's gotten it all out of their system and we can talk about something more fun... Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur. This has gotten way out of hand. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  06:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)