User:Karmafist/Response
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page isn't alphabetized, but please feel free to do so. I will try to respond to each vote, try to inform each voter of my response, and provide some run of the mill answers to common opposing reasons. I hope this can create a dialogue between those who voted on this re-rfa and myself to better Wikipedia as a whole.
Contents |
[edit] Arguments
[edit] Edit Summaries
It's ironic that many people went nuts over editcountitis, yet edit summary percentages are still seen as a valid reason to dismiss someone's knowledge of Wikipedia.
I remember one time as a kid during the Olympics, they interviewed a figure skater who said something like "Well, I could just skate around and wave my arms around and that'd still technically be figure skating, but it wouldn't be to me, because I consider figure skating to be in the context, in the meaning of the things I do."
I consider Edit Summaries to be the same thing. If someone put "akjkjhfdgakjnfd" in every edit summary and got a near 100% average, how does that help anything? Often, we Wikipedians do minor or near minor edits that are self explanatory, they don't need an edit summary. I refuse to do something that is superfluous like that figure skater waving his arms around.
If I consider an edit in need of being explained, i'll explain it. If I don't, then I won't. If you have a question about one of my edits and there isn't a summary, ask me: i'll likely give you a response if I remember what it was and try to work with you towards bettering whatever the edit was towards.
- Nah, you should always use an edit summary. Trust me on this. Be creative, have fun! And remember, edit summaries always. Thanks! El_C 12:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Petitioning Newbies
I've heard several reasons why this is bad, none of which i've understood, largely because I used to do this for a living as a paid canvasser for America Coming Together. I'll try to answer some of the reasons i've heard why this is bad.
- Newbies shouldn't be objected to wiki-politics
This was an argument for the prevention of Women's Suffrage, that Women shouldn't be "dirtied" by the ugliness of "Men's Business" in governance. I find that argument as specious as this one. If Newbies want to get involved with wiki-politics, they should have every right to. - Newbies can't understand wiki-politics:
See above. The person on the other side of the screen might have an IQ of 70, or may be a Nobel Prize Winner. AGF -- they're likely to get it if they want to. If anything, they'll add new perspectives that'll add a breath of fresh air to our stagnating atmosphere. Just a quick note, when i've tried to explain the user box wars to people I know in real life, they've all responded along the lines of "These people(both sides) sound insane."
- You shouldn't force people into wiki-politics
I wasn't, I was just asking them to do me a favor(looking at my petition and signing it if they agreed), which they did not have to do if they didn't want to. Ultimately, I got around a 3% response rate, which is average for rapid fire distanced persuasion political canvassing of any sort.
- Wiki-politics is too toxic for newbies.
Why do politics have to be toxic in the first place? That, to me, is a far more cogent concern than trying to bring people in to solve that problem.
If you can think of any other reasons, let me know. If anything, i'd be WP:BITEing them if I didn't make them aware that they could be a target of angry mobs, similiar to what happened to Joeyramoney. I only stopped for the time being per NSLE's request, since he aptly believed it would hurt me on this re-rfa.
- It's important to give em a chance to orient themsleves around the wiki, though. Not overwheleming them, etc., is the flipside. El_C 12:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Votes
[edit] Supports
[edit] NSLE
NSLE is honestly, one of my heroes, and probably in the running for my best friend on Wikipedia. He's had to go through things similiar to what I had to, albeit far less severe, and he got through it. I know he's always got my back, even if he doesn't agree with me, and I hope I can say the same. Karmafist 13:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mike
Mike, also known as Onthost, first met me just after the desysopping with an ASCII picture of a fist. I didn't read the intent of this at first, and I thought he was taunting me, but in reality, the exact opposite was true and we became good friends. I hope that things with Mike at at "NSLE Level"(like I said above, knowing he's got my back the best he can, even if we doesn't agree, for a reciprocal response.), which I think are.
[edit] MONGO
My friendship with MONGO is one of my proudest accomplishments on Wikipedia, for the full story, please see my first RFA. I believe we're at "NSLE Level", and I constantly use him as a reminder to be as civil as possible towards those I don't politically agree with, even when they're not around -- after all, it's just good karma to do so. :-)
[edit] Opposes
[edit] Kim Bruning
Kim Bruning, in my opinion, is one of the most brilliant users on Wikipedia when it comes to policy, although me and him have both caused each other to bang our heads against the walls far too many times, something that has bothered me -- I wish I could communicate better with him.
This oppose seems to come from the misunderstanding that arose from my Manifesto, largely in part because of the unwritten attitude towards user space having far more latitude as a "personal space" for the person in it, and therefore, a bit more sway for the person to make rules within that space. I wanted to avoid animosity and avoid "oppose" votes on my manifesto, thus making it like a regular petition. However, Kim saw it as just a traditional sociocratic Wikipedian discussion, and was offended when I asked him not to oppose or offer ideas on how to fix the manifesto to make it suit his concerns. I asked him for this several times (see User talk:Kim Bruning#Response, and Hopeful Explanation), but I guess the offense was so deep from the misunderstanding that we were unable to communicate after that point.
I would rather have him oppose me a thousand times, but gain that communication that we were unable to gain rather than have him support me and never talk to me again. Karmafist 13:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ambi
Ambi is like many Wikipedians -- brilliant in a certain area (Australian state politics), but unable to show any tact to other humans, much like many people with Asperger's Syndrome I know, much like I once was.
I am not surprised by her opposition, and I would not look to curry her favor in future rfas until her attitude changes, it's remarkable that she was on the arbcom at one point, and it's a miracle that her abrasive prescence hasn't caused more animosity than it already has. Karmafist 13:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Phroziac
Phroziac is brilliant in terms of refrigerants and history of the arbcom, but also has a bit of a smart alecky streak that hurt Phroziac during the Arbcom Election in December. I personally think Proziac is an excellent person, but only a so-so admin, something Phroziac has said as well. I never have seen Phroziac have any ill intentions towards anyone on Wikipedia, but unfortunately, Phroziac's situation off Wikipedia could be described as precarious at best, thus necessitating the need to be part of "The Clique"(the name me and Johnleemk agreed is superior to "The Cabal"), which I understand even though I don't agree with.
Phroziac told me that the average time for re-adminship for those who had been de-sysopped was a year, and i'd expect a strong support then if I haven't ruined our friendship here, or if I haven't regained Phroziac's trust by one of the seemingly 20 or 30 renoms I'll have on the horizon by that time if I can manage to make sure the nightmares I have of this place don't over take me. Karmafist 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jtrost
This response is incredibly insulting, and what i've found to be indicative of the close minded thinking of most of "The Clique". I'll explain the sockpuppet post in more detail above, but if this person had a slightest inkling of the pain that most of those people have recieved from Wikipedia just because they thought differently than the clique (something i've experienced firsthand), he'd make hundreds of sockpuppets. Also see the edit summary reasoning above. Karmafist 14:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Evilphoenix
I have to go, so I may say more later, but I believe that Evilphoenix has an axe to grind with me, despite what he may say(actions speak louder than words), and i'd ask for an injunction against him from the arbcom if I believed that they'd actually listen, which seems unlikely right now. Karmafist 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrals
[edit] Titoxd
I understand his reticence, and ultimately, Titoxd is an indication that I have a far way to go as a person in terms of my temper, because he is one of the finest Wikipedians we have and I would be honored by his acknowledgement at one point that the demons within me have finally been overcome. Karmafist 13:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Grutness
As my friendship with MONGO is one of my greatest successes in my opinion, the problems i've had with Grutness are one of my greatest failures. Grutness is a New Zealander Wikipedian, and probably could be considered "The King of Stubs", nobody likely knows more about stubs than him. However, in my opinion, stubs are way more complicated than they have to be, and instead of just saying this out right, I over bolded and made several stubs and stub redirects in regards to New Hampshire, since I didn't want to have to be checking what the stubs were each time and it's difficult to remember the terminology of the categorical stubs (some have hypens, some have spaces while others combine two words, some are capitalized while others don't, etc.) I wish we could have discussed this in the first place, as now it's probably too late. Unfortunately, we got into a big heated argument, and eventually it cooled down, but the damage was done. Karmafist 14:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
