User talk:Karmafist: Difference between revisions

To Be Categorized

• Category:If Templates
• Category:Boolean Templates

• /POTW Archive
• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3
• /Archive4
• /Archive5
• /Archive6
• /Archive7
• /Archive8

Don't let his latest edits (like the one here, and the one on WP:VPP) get to you. If anything, he's just helping create more evidence for his next RFAr (I think the VPP posting was particularly disruptive in the same vein as the other "stirring up trouble" bit was during his first RFAr). For now, just ignore him, hopefully the admins watching him will pick up on the fact that he hasn't actually edited an article outside of the Wikipedia or User namespace since his block expired (in other words, he's no longer contributing, just trying to stir things up). —Locke Cole 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a continuation of User_talk:Karmafist/Archive8#Candidacy_page and User_talk:131.155.229.224#Karmafist_Arbitrator_page. Your last reply was:

It probably is. I respect CBD as an editor, but guess I'll never understand why he respects someone who respects nobody else. I got so frustrated, ultimately to the point of feeling like I had to run for the arbcom, because that was an open and shut case. There were over 150 differences of his poor behavior at the rfar, another 100 or so at his rfc, and yet nothing was done to rectify the situation. What has CBD's defense of POTW done to rectify it? He's been blocked 13 times since October, 2 times since the arbcom case closed, most of which happened after I tried to help him at first and then shine a light on his behavior, which CBD sees as a behavioral issue in itself for some reason. karmafist 17:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Part of what I was trying to say to you, was that an Arbitration proceding should try to review all sides of an issue. Giving evidence for someone should not be misunderstood as having respect for that someone. Another possibility is that, the person giving evidence respects the notion of a "a fair hearing" (whether the "hearing" is in a courtroom or in a Request for Arbitration). I don't presume to know who or what CBD (or Pigsonthewing for that matter) respects or not and, I think, neither should you.

Rectifying Pigsonthewings behaviour is not within CBDs power or yours or even the ArbComs. Ultimately, Pigsonthewing is the only one who can try to change his behaviour. If I understand correctly, CBDs self-appointed job (and yours) was to point out the issues good, the bad and perhaps the ugly of Pigsonthewings case. Or more formally: the evidence (in favour of Pigsonthewing, against him and evidence neither for nor against but somehow related). The ArbCom had the unenviable task of decing upon that evidence (and their own research, if any) what should and can be done to encourage involved parties to improve their behaviour or to prevent poor behaviour. The ArbCom has decided and has agreed on several Remedies.

You can look on it this way: any Remedy passed regarding Pigsonthewing is a good thing. Perhaps more should be done. Time will tell. In the mean time, any time Pigsonthewing is blocked, he's not reverting, scaring or scarring users or being otherwise unhelpful (besides not editing). Conversely, any time you are blocked, you won't be displaying your "behavioral issue" (imaginary or otherwise) by making accusations of harrasment regarding Pigsonthewing (which aren't easily recognised as such by another admin, or weren't recognised as fact by the ArbCom), you won't be making generalisations regarding Pigsonthewing (like "someone who respects nobody else"), nor will you be calling him Pigs.

If the "behavioral issue" in "which CBD sees as a behavioral issue in itself for some reason." refers to what CBD said on my talk page ("I don't think further discussion (there or elsewhere) would resolve what seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion as to proper behaviour"), I don't think "behavioral issue" is quite what he meant. I understand "behavioral issue" to be usually meant as a problem with a behaviour resulting from a psychological issue, which often is not easily changed. I think CBD had a problem with your etiquette and didn't agree with your interpretation of the phrase and policy assume good faith, which presumably is easier to change.

I fail to see where you "tried to help [Pigsonthewing] at first and then shine a light on [Pigsonthewings] behavior" is regarded as a problem by CBD. I assume this happened in the evidence section of Pigsonthewings Request for Arbitration? Could you point it out to me?

I understand your frustration, disappointment and perhaps even anger and I hope you'll be able to put it all aside to make wikipedia a better place, as a editor, as an admin and perhaps later as an ArbCom member. For it is said (and perhaps misquoted) that anger leads to the dark side. Sorry for critising you, for being so long-winded and for raising the topic of Pigsonthewing again. Take care. 131.155.229.224 02:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... Also, I don't understand what this perception of a grudge is about since Freestylefrappe didn't vote on the Wikifanatic RFA..."

Actually he did, here, erasing it with a head-scratcher of a comment 13 hours later, here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he couldn't remember <del></del> or <s></s>. —Locke Cole 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, I find that a headscratcher. I'm scratching my head as I type. :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you guys gotta teach me how to type without any hands ;-) karmafist 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. =) —Locke Cole 04:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jokermage/List_of_NHHR_alpha is a work in progress. I need to finish the numeric lists before I can finish this. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, not thinking again, there were subsections already there. We could still make links and not duplicate until there's a sign that's actually worthy of a sign on its own. Huh? Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 10:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go to User:Jokermage/List_of_NHHR_alpha#G, then click on George Wentworth. You'll be taken to that marker's section in the chrono list. That's all this is going to do: link to chrono. Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 10:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I've certified it; let me know if I did anything wrong there— I haven't made a point of studying the operations of RfCs before. Also, I was curious if this edit [1] didn't belong somewhere in there. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just might...might as well, considering - as you said - the amount of articles i already edit that concern it. Also, I was just a little confused by the claim on the English/Latin Rivalry article that directly conflicted with something I had recently read about the A/E rivalry being the "oldest continuous schoolboy rivalry in the United States" (Boston Globe, Nov. 15? 2005). I think the wording that makes it clear its the longest number of consecutive yearly meetings makes it clearer. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 14:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Honsetly, I think a lot of these claims - especially with high shcool rivalries - there'll be sources for both sides. A reporter reports on a rivalry, saying its "the oldest (insert adjective) rivalry in the nation," and gives a starting date - not many editor's are likely to question the accuracy; they'll likely assume he wouldn't state something like that if it wasn't true. However, two years later, another reporter reports on a seperate rivalry, reporting the same thing, and another editor is also not likely to question it. This will give us conflicting sources. E/L has been around for fewer years than A/E. A/E been around for 127 years, in which theyve played in 125 games. They're still playing now. Does that make it a continuous rivalry? In my definition, yes. Does that mean they played every year consecutively? Obviously not. So it's certainly fair to report on E/L as the "rivalry in the nation with the longest consecutive games-played streak" (clearly it could be better worded), but what we need is basically to come to a conclusion as to what "continuous" means. (A further problem is the definition of "high school rivalry" - one of the sources cited was only including public schools, which neither Exeter nor Andover is). In essence, I really added the dispute tag so that someone would stumble across the talk page and my comment wouldn't just go unanswered for two years. I could've checked the history and come straight to you, but I didn't think of that. In any case, you're right - help desk is probably a good place to go with this one. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 21:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karmafist, Thank you for your support on my RFB. I withdrew it with a final vote of 14/5/2 and am planning on wait awhile before possibly re-applying. Thanks again for your vote. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips. Seamus 05:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Nice. :D --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karmafist, Freestylefrappe is disputing my right to add evidence to the RfC page after it was certified/endorsed [2]. Just to make sure everything's on the up-and-up, I am letting everyone who certified/endorsed the dispute summary before I made edits of the changes I made. I added more detailed evidence of my conversation with him, and the concerns it raises, as well as a summary of same, so you should take a look. Obviously you're free to suggest I change what I wrote and/or withdraw your endorsement if you see fit. -- SCZenz 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not be too critical of him. He can make procedural points if he wants to, even if they're silly. -- SCZenz 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but not at this time. I wouldn't want to add my name unless I was in a position to commit to some effort. --hydnjo talk 04:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, fellow Esperanzians! This is just a friendly reminder that elections for Administrator General and two advisory council positions have just begun. Voting will last until Friday, December 30, so make sure you exercise your right to vote! Also, I'm pleased to announce the creation of the Esperanza mailing list. I urge all members to join; see Wikipedia:Esperanza/Contact for more information. All you need to do is email me and I will activate your account. This will be a great way to relax, stay in touch, and hear important announcements. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?)

This message was delivered to all Esperanza members by our acting messenger, Redvers. If you do not wish to receive further messages, please list yourself at WP:ESP/S. Thanks.

This page gets a strange number of brand new users who never edit any other pages. In general, I'm pretty suspicious of any editors whose edit history is devoted to one single page, especially one that concerns something politically contentious.

I could be wrong, but I have a strong hunch that Fluterst is an account created by User:Keetoowah to evade his block. The edits just give me that feeling. If not, I still think this might be a new user with some edit warring intentions. If you wouldn't mind keeping one eye on this article again, that would be great.

Just in terms of whether or not this is an attempt to avoid a block, the thing that strikes me is that the new stuff is not merely partisan, but specifically restores old organization and some older sentences that have been modified significantly. Some of that stuff is definitely worse, but not only in the POV sense, it's also just less well organized and written. I don't think someone happening along who had encountered the Churcill affair in the press would write exactly the old sentences; and genuinely new users don't tend to have enough knowledge of WP to find old versions and work from those. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever it is, s/he's actively putting in long diatribes that are not even remotely encyclopedic. Maybe it's time to protect the page again (but please at a version absent all the utterly unprofessional cruft, like Delldot's last edit before Fluterst came along: [3]. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... I just read Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. This looks absolutely perfect for the Ward Churchill page. We seem to get all these brand new users who come along and make very destructive changes. Your prior protection worked pretty well, though a big part of that was also blocking Keetoowah stemming from the RfC. But semi-protecting the page would be even more fine-tuned to address the specific problem. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the vote of confidence and for the barnstar. Now that I've reached the bottom of the support list, it's time to thank my opposers. FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:28, Dec. 17, 2005

Can I ask why you added the {{hoax}} tag to Dr. Ronald E. McNair Academic High School. In particular, I wonder why you didn't give any reasoning on the talk page for the article. Alleging a hoax is a rather extreme allegation. I've alleged it myself, but only after careful research in advance. Putting the {{verify}} is quite reasonable, but the {{hoax}} tag requires much more caution, as it goes against WP:AGF. It's essentially accusing a person (the creator) if intentionally putting misinformation into Wikipedia, and commiting vandalism (a criminal act). If you feel somebody did such a maliscious thing (a hoax) then an explanation on the talk page is warranted. Note, the tag's text itself, clearly directs people to the talk page, for an explanation, yet none was present. I'm further perplexed why you didn't leave a related message to the article's creator on their talk page (though you did leave a welcome message). --Rob 12:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although I am not sure about putting a link to NFL playoffs, 2005-06 directly on NFL because a link to 2005 NFL season is also not directly on there. But they are both currently on Template:NFL. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm trying not to get too involved. You may be right about 'government therefor not copyright', but that's sufficiently esoteric that neither side was aware of it (Bitola eventually acknowledged in an edit summary that the material was copyrighted). FSF was 'acting in good faith'... following admin policy as he understood it. I agree there were some flaws in that understanding and he was too aggressive in applying penalties, but my general approach is to work for improvement rather than identifying 'lost causes'. I'd say that FSF and Bitola have both learned new things about wikiquette and will be better (though not neccessarily perfect) contributors for it in the future. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 23:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that although I might seem to have "turned against" you on the Pigsonthewing arbitration case (especially so soon after you gave me that lovely bear), I still immensely respect you as an editor and administrator. I hope you haven't got the wrong impression and I know the Arbitration must have been stressful for you. Anyway I was randomly browsing and found your list of users you welcomed. 500? You must be crazy!

the wub "?!" 00:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Good luck in the Esperanza elections.

Ok then. I just happened to read your user page, and I clicked on the link to see what it was about. I also read the Newton/Einstein/Gates speculations. Interesting topic. Then I discovered there was a category, and it was created by an anon rather recently, so I figured you probably were unaware of the category, which clearly isn't as offensive as, for example, Ayn Rand. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:13, Dec. 19, 2005

I think you forgot to add the website for the Manchester Republican Committee to the Manchester, New Hampshire page when you added the website for the Democrat link. Don't worry, I added for you. Wouldn't want anyone to assume you have a certain political POV when editing articles. Assawyer 22:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't resist the dig for the Manchester dem links. I have been adding some {{Project New Hampshire}} tags to various New Hampshire pages (see Special:Contributions/Assawyer) some UNH and some little stuff here and there. I posted a question on Talk:Seal of New Hampshire about versions of the Great Seal of NH; wondering what you thought about it. I think I am going to finish up the pages on the NH courts. Other than that, if you had something you wanted help with or thought I could do I am game. Assawyer 22:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input on the Seal. I tend to agree with you. I will definately help out with the RSA pages. I dont know what your last message was getting at. But, if you mean I should have let you know about the edits then I appologize and will do better in the future. If this isn't what you mean, then by all means let me know and I will do my best to improve my conduct. Assawyer 01:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Communication is a two-way street, lucky for us Wikipedia is easily editable! I am going to work on the Title LXII: Criminal Code page when I can find the time. Assawyer 01:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Bishonen that changed the topic to that, it was another user—

* JesseW changes topic to 'Status: UP | Funds raised: http://ln-s.net/9i0 | Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org | No, deleting active projects doesn't work, see an example at: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals | Today's Challenge: Do a 10-page test, nominate one article for FA status and send another one to AfD'

—Locke Cole 07:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that the hard way last night, thanks for being honest with me Locke. I suppose its JesseW that enjoys kicking people while their down, then. karmafist 16:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're down as being an an active cabalist. Is that still true? There are plenty of cases awaiting mediator response, please drop by if you can! Dan100 (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you could respond to my questions on AN/I Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kmweber here. Thank you, --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You sent me a welcome message, so I'm disposed towards seeing you as the ranking authority here. I may have gotten a little carried away in a discussion about notable alumni at my high school Talk:Newtown High School of the Performing Arts. I would appreciate your input on the matter... not so much in terms of contributing to its resolution, or interceding on anyone's behalf. More helping me to understand how this community works and whether I'm doing the right thing as a contributor. Joestella 12:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't. Any user can welcome any other. Andy Mabbett 13:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll be more clear. I'm writing on this page because Karmafist welcomed me. I'm asking for advice about dealing with disputes, not welcoming people. :) Joestella 14:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that the first time; he's still not a (let alone the) "ranking authority". Andy Mabbett 14:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, Karmafist. I might leave the debate for a few days and see if calmer heads prevail then. I think it's worth having the standards debate, if only because it'll come up for every non-elite school, where the notability of alumni is questionable. Joestella 14:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see above, POTW is back trying to stir things up again. I was wondering if you might drop in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_clear_breach_of_policies and comment on his latest wiki-stalking. Thanks! —Locke Cole 13:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no stalking; except in the abuse you post. Andy Mabbett 14:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm prevented from answering it there, I'll point out here that your recent post on AN/I is another of your lies. Andy Mabbett 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As is this. Andy Mabbett 14:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]