Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2

It's a great pitty that the "association for more fun in WP" (or whatever the name was) didn't took over the planet... I mean the WP.

I saw some admins voting oppose, and their comments made me think of Christ and the phrase "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

I'm also wondering what would happen if one of those admins was in his place, here, having to counter those oppose arguments... anyway... talk to +MATIA 20:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm an administrator who opposed this request. I think it's overly simplistic to stereotype people into "perfect" and "not perfect" categories, or to suggest that only those without fault should criticize others. There are different degrees of offense; even the administrator who occasionally makes mistakes may point out serious errors in another's performance. If I had to re-run for adminship, I don't know what the results would be, nor do I know what sorts of complaints editors might bring up. But in response to your query, it would be quite easy to imagine what would happen if I were in his place, having to counter those oppose arguments. It would be quite simple in fact. I would simply politely remark: "I was not aware that I had been wheel warring, trying to recruit new members to my Wikipedia-political views, or inciting banned users to circumvent their blocks and stir up trouble; could you show me where you see this?" I think they would be hard-pressed to find such instances for me or most if not all administrators. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist's desysopping
I noticed that people (on IRC I believe) have said Karmafist was desysopped for his "other" actions unrelated to the Pedophilia userbox wheel war. As interesting as that is, when I go to Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war/Evidence the only evidence "against" Karmafist is his actions relating to Joeyramoney. I'm no ArbCom expert, but if they're (the arbitrators) acting upon evidence not presented (so it can be properly defended) then that's an awful thing to be doing IMHO. And it ought to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom is a court that sacrifices procedure in the name of expediency. It does not grant those tried before it the right to know the charges and the evidence (or any other right). It does not consider itself bound by written policy pages or prior precedent, preferring a fluid interpretation of what experienced admins (defined in a way unclear to me) consider to be policy at any given time.

The usual response to criticism of these elements is:


 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not that anyone disagrees with that but the catch-phrase is used to justify essentially anything. It is especially popular when people want to dismiss the Wikipedia community and its happiness as incidental to the project.
 * 2) More formalized rules or procedures play into the hands of trolls. Trolls love rules because they can obey their letter but subvert their intentions. This sounds plausible and there may well be something to it. It's not the whole story, of course, and in my experience trolls like ignoring all rules just fine as well.
 * 3) This is how it is. You have no rights. If you don't like it then fork off. This is true to some extent, but it's not a very good motivational message. Haukur 12:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything innately wrong with that. Wikipedians tend to concern themselves less with getting it right the first time, and more with fixing up mistakes later. In the majority of cases, process is unnecessary; were a long a drawn-out process be used in place of expediency, the same decision would likely be reached. On another note, mindspillage said in the proposed decision: "Karmafist has a history of using admin powers without due consideration; I think he should not be automatically reinstated without community input." Sam Korn brought up the "no substantial evidence" thingy, but later struck his abstention in favour of supporting desysoping and re-RfAing. Now, why would they do this without substantial evidence against Karmafist presented in the case? Maybe because Karmafist was already involved in another case (the Pigsonthewing one), where evidence was presented. *shrug* If you're unsatisfied, you can always request clarification from the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * At the time I sent every member of the Arbitration Committee an e-mail asking "If there is some other evidence against him (and for all I know there is) then please rule on that evidence explicitly." They did not. Haukur 15:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer questions on rfa is relevant

 * 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia Review post he made. -- Hinotori(talk) 14:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, the header of this project page is cited as "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karmafist 2", not "Wikipedia:Requests for re - adminship/Karmafist 2 without queries". rfa is still rfa. There is simply no excuse for the inability to answer these questions. Absolutely not. As for the talk of waste of time, I believe you would have to bashfully admit that it certainly wouldn't take beyond the duration of an minute. The queries help provide insight on the canidate and his intentions, etc. They are present for an reason. The answers reflect weather the canidate takes this seriously or not. The questions are indeed important, and the fact of leaving them unaswered leaves the presumption of Karmafist's neglect to take this seriously. Its simply not that difficult. -ZeroTalk 19:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would answering those questions "be a total waste of time"? Even though Karmafist has been an admin before, I assume Karmafist will still have to abide by Wikipolicy, so the questions are still valid. Answering a few questions doesn't seem like a "total waste of time" to me. And "indirectly" answering a question "tangentially"? This user doesn't really even seem interested in regaining sysop status.--Firsfron 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think anyone doubts his commitment to the project itself, even if many take issue with the way he goes about it. But since he posted answers, I suppose it doesn't matter. -- Hinotori(talk) 01:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the...
..oppose pileons really needed? I respect everybody's right to vote and oppose but what is gained by opposing an rfa which already has more oppose votes than supports?  Ban  e  z  16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For better or worse, it's no longer about whether he gets adminship back this time. It's become something of a defacto referendum on his behaviour and on his de-sysoping, and all the history behind that.  Regards, Ben Aveling 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The voting seems to be continuing after the polls are closed. hydnjo talk 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Sigh.  I guess this is evidence that the rfa may be closed, but the politics goes on.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)