User talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • This is a page for POTW threads and threads where he contributed, to avoid the essence of hostility which his comments bring to the main talk page, the large amount of similiar contribs he has made over a short period of time without deleting them entirely, and for the ease of those who wish to see his comments towards me in a centralized location. Karmafist 20:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is also now a page for anyone who acts like POTW -- i.e: Those who wish to further an argument rather than further our Encyclopedia and Community.karmafist 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] British Sea Power

I note that you've reverted my last edit to British Sea Power, without giving any jusification. Andy Mabbett 15:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Cease making personal attacks: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Andy Mabbett 10:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cease making personal attacks

Which part of "cease making personal attacks" are you having trouble with? Andy Mabbett 17:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cease making personal attacks

Several of your recent edits have been personal attacks. As you are no doubt aware, that's against Wikipedia policy. Desist immediately. Andy Mabbett 09:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 16:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine

Maybe you didn't see my response on my talk page. Anyway, changing the name of the page doesn't address my concerns. Anyway, it's your user space, your rules (more or less); just please consider whether or not it's a good idea to keep a "dirt" page publicly visible. android79 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Now recreated at User:Karmafist/Notepad, with mostly the same content, but no redirect from either of the former versions. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andy

Hi, I wanted to talk to you because I'm concerned about the way the Pigsonthewing arbitration is going. I stepped in to the Coleshill, Merry Widow, and Birmingham pages to see if he was really so impossible to work with. The originally stated issue(s) on all of them are now resolved. I'm no great mediator... indeed, I can show you a few thousand Usenet posts that make me out as a hothead. So how was this impossible task achieved?

Coleshill: [7] It is, by definition, impossible for one person to reach a consensus. So who was the other person who deserved credit for ironing out wording which everyone could live with? Wouldn't you be insulted in someone threw it in your face after you unbent a little to reach a compromise? To turn your question to him there around... why couldn't someone else have done what I did?

The 'SS' thing. Did no one think to look at the edit history? [8] Anonymous IP address with no significant overlap with PotW that I can see. Everyone just assumes without checking that he put it there under his own username and is subsequently lying about it? Or that this is a sockpuppet of his? He's been berated and belittled over this repeatedly, it is now evidence against him, and yet to all appearances he's the wronged party.

'Pigs' [9]: You know he hates being called that because he has said so repeatedly. Do you think needling him will make things better? Isn't it clear that he is not participating because he feels insulted by this procedure and thinks it biased?

Andy Mabbet is intractable, irascible, terse to the point of inscrutability, and generally a pain in the ass. He doesn't suffer fools gladly and anyone who disagrees with him is a fool. He also usually happens to be right... or at the least has a valid basis for his position. He has made thousands of edits which improved wikipedia without challenge or comment. Even his controversies are often beneficial in the long run. Take a look at the Merry Widow article before he put the tag on [10] and after it came off for good [11] and tell me it WASN'T vastly improved.

Is the goal to find a way to work with a sometimes difficult editor or just to get rid of them despite their numerous uncontested contributions and the good they sometimes do even when being annoying? --CBDunkerson 12:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .

And Andy Mabbett is still continually making edits to both the Merry Widow pages (operetta and ballet), making both useful edits and harmful edits, including edits which result in certain parts of the articles stating something completely different to what they should be stating, e.g. he misrepresents a tour of the Australian Ballet in England as a move of the production of "The Marry Widow" Ballet to England - his way of expressing it makes it sound like the production of the ballet made a permanent move to England, with an English ballet company, when the article should inform that the Australian Ballet toured England with their production of "The Merry Widow" ballet over a limited period of time.

I don't know in the following will be of importance with respect to the RfAr, but I thought that I would mention it just in case. In October, Andy Mabbett put a cleanup tag on the Electromagnetism article, claiming that the caption on the picture was not in English 1. At the time that he added that tag, the caption was in English, except for one small, trivial, and easily correctable grammatical error. It is true that there may have been some words in the caption that he did not know, but that would be because he did not know the terms used within the subject, and not because it was written in a non-English language. Figaro 18:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett is back, again editing The Merry Widow (ballet), a topic on which he is entirely ignorant. This is distressing both for myself and my mother, who, along with myself, is also editing the articles for Wikipedia under the banner of Figaro (my mother has done the bulk of the work on the ballet article). My mother suffers from angina, and the stress caused by the constant interference of Andy Mabbett is placing an unfair strain on my mother's heart. Andy Mabbett shows all the signs of being a serial stalker. Figaro 09:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Andy Mabbett would appear to have transferred his interest almost entirely to The Merry Widow (ballet). He has not touched The Merry Widow (formerly titled "Die Lustige Witwe") since 17:03, 15 November. This would seem to confirm the stalker hypothesis, since the majority of the edits on the page have been done by myself. Andy Mabbett is continually reversing my edits on The Merry Widow (ballet). He has also taken to describing my edit summaries as "abusive", without justification. Figaro 11:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Andy Mabbett has returned to The Merry Widow operetta article. Figaro 12:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
And now Andy Mabbett is ridiculing my mother. Is he trying to force her to have a heart attack? His malice would seem to extend that far. Figaro 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
And now Andy Mabbett is ridiculing my mother. Provide evidence for that vile slur, or retract it and apologise. Andy Mabbett 16:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I note that, though Figaro (or his mother) has been active, there has been no such evidence, and no apology. Andy Mabbett 16:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inapprpraite use of Admin powers

You recently blocked me, with no justification and contray to every applicable policy. You should appologise, and retract the false allegations of vandialism you have made against me, on every page on which you made them. Andy Mabbett 11:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Karmafist/users to watch

Howdy. What's the purpose of this page? It appears to an outsider to be a list of "dirt" on other users, but I hope its purpose is more benign than that. android79 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone told me that I was on this page. Is it true? I'm sorry if you feel unhappy with the way I edit in any way or if I have offended you, but I think it would be great if we talked about this to clear the air. Borisblue 04:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Now recreated at User:Karmafist/kittens and sunshine. Andy Mabbett 08:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

From WP:CIVIL#Examples:

Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:

* belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice

* ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another

More serious examples include:

* personal attacks

* lies

* calling for bans and blocks

.

Andy Mabbett 11:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POTW

Can't someone get rid of him? Scott 00:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

From WP:CIVIL#Examples:

More serious examples include:

* calling for bans and blocks

.
Andy Mabbett 11:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coleshill, Warwickshire

Hi, I saw a complaint on WP:RFPP that you've protected a page in which you were involved in a dispute, after reverting to your favored version. On checking I am surprised that this seems to be correct. What's up? Why did you protect a page you were editing? --Tony SidawayTalk 20:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


I wasn't involved in the dispute, I was mediating the dispute. Protected the page initially, asking for all sides to come to a consensus on the talk page before unprotecting. It appeared that it happened and I inserting what looked like an amalgamated edit, but Pigsonthewing decided to revert anyway, he and G-Man were both 3RRing a few days before (POTW twice, GMan once, and one day with a 2RR). I blocked Pigsonthewing, he complained at WP:AN/I, nobody listened, and then seeing the hostility on his talk page, I figured the only way to resolve this was either protect the page from POTW reverting or blocking, he seems to be the instigator there. Karmafist 20:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably would be better in future to let someone else revert and go to WP:RFPP to ask for protection. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Karmafist most definitely was involved in the dispute. There was no consensus - someone proposed some new wording, I suggested a further amendment to make it more accurate. Karmafist went ahead anyway, so I added my amendment to the page. Karmafist then reverted me, breaking a fixed stub and re-ading a redundant link I'd removed. At that point, he threatened me on the talk page. Having checked on the admin noticeboard that he was not allowed to carry out taht threat, I told him so and carried on editing, but he blocked me with additional threats, contrary to policy, wrongly accusing me of vandalism. I have NOT beached 3RR (this has been pointed out to Karmafist by others, but he persists in making that false allegation). Andy Mabbett 21:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, this is getting a but ugly. Andy, Karmafist, would either of you mind awfully if I took a crack at mediating the dispute on article content? I think I've got a reasonable grasp of the issue at hand, and I think I can probably manage it without going around blocking people or editing the article.
I don't like to jump in and tread on the toes of another administrator, or foist myself on unwilling disputants, so please let me know if either of you would object to my intervening. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Karmafist's false allegations, abuse of power, blatant lies and threats are more than ugly. Never mind the article content; I'd like someone to stop Karmafist from behaving in such an outrageous fashion. Andy Mabbett 23:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I slightly altered Karmafists's comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Coleshill.2C_Warwickshire to soften what Andy Mabbett obviously perceives as a personal attack. I hope I did not cause any offense by doing so: I was simply trying to help. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-25 T 02:17:39 Z


[edit] Reversions

I note that you are again making reversions to my edits, with no edit summaries, and no justification. Desist. Andy Mabbett 10:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another threat

I've told you before, I won't give in to your threats. Andy Mabbett 15:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pigsonthewing Arbitration case injunctions

Two temporary injunctions have been made in the Arbitration case involving Pigsonthewing, which will hold until the conclusion of the Arbitration. Firstly, he is banned from editing any page in your user space (but not user talk space); any sysop may block him for a short time, up to three days, for any edit violating this injunction, and all such edits may be reverted by any editor without regard to the limitations of the three revert rule. Secondly, due to repeated personal attacks, he is subject to a standard personal attack parole: any administrator may ban him for a short time, up to three days, for any edit which, in the opinion of that administrator, constitutes a personal attack.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have made no personal atacks. Andy Mabbett 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And I have only once edited a page in Karmafist's user-space, a page which bore the invitation This article is actively undergoing construction. However, you are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well.. Andy Mabbett 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Pigsonthewing

Hi Karmafist, I was wondering if you could give me some advice. User:Pigsonthewing has been following me around and making minor edits to 6 [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] of my recent edits. I'm all for people helping update and improve Wikipedia, of course, but I feel he trying to undermime my efforts and thus am not enjoying my time here - I feel bullied. I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done to help me. Thanks for your time. --SaltyWater 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it.. Andy Mabbett 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That's nice. It doesn't give you the authority to stalk users though. —Locke Cole 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
While I think there's nothing wrong with the individual edits, perhaps Andy Mabbett could agree that seeing your edits followed by an edit by the same person, time and time again, is a little bit creepy. And it's not just a edit of the same article. No, it's in the very thing you just edited. 131.155.229.224 12:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversions

You have again taken to reverting my recent edits [18], [19], with no explanation, and no justification. Desist. Andy Mabbett 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want your writing to be edited and redistributed by others, do not submit it. —Locke Cole 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "the stub people are basically trolls"

Please explain what you meant by the stub people are basically trolls.". Thank you. Andy Mabbett 20:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] POTW

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)

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

[edit] Another lie on AN/I

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)

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

[edit] Personal attacks

Once again; cease making personal attacks [20]. Andy Mabbett 15:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] karma, you either do not know or do not care who is doing the harrassing.

Arbitration has been requested in a matter you are involved in. WP:RFAr r b-j 05:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Response Answered Your Own Question

The tone of your response made it pretty clear that she was right in believing that you were harrassing her. Like I said before, don't do it. karmafist 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

"tone" is your subjective evalutation. You are wrong. As was she. It still doesn't explain why you decided to rub my nose in it 3 hours after I walked away from this. You cannot avoid that fact. r b-j 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You Should Continue Walking Away Then

Your most recent message shows that you don't understand how things work around here. I don't care whether you think whether you think someone is wrong or right, you will be nice to them. Period. I see you're a frequent USENET contributor, which apparently explains your rudeness. That's not the way things work around here. How it works is that users like you are nice to other users, or admins like me block you, repeatedly if necessary until you learn. I suggest you continue walking away from the prior situation and don't get into any future situations because now I and several other admins will be watching your contribs. karmafist 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

karma, this is evidence of you acting like a big tough bully: "I'm the big tough admin, and you better shut up or me and my tough admin friends will be watching out for you." You are the one being rude. You are now threating to block me because I am being frank. The ArbCom will not be ignorant of it. And you think you're good for the ArbCom? When someone is on the ArbCom, they think about things a while before making judgements.
BTW, i am highly respected on comp.dsp. i.e. "guru" status. once in a while some troll or jerk hears a mouthful from me (usually regarding the Dirac delta function, mathematician don't like how engineers think about it), but normally my posts are regarded as very helpful. and a few years ago, comp.dsp was rated one of the top five newsgroups for signal-to-noise ratio. so, let's see... highly regarded contributor to high S/N newsgroup. i should be ashamed of that? there are other newsgroups where i am much lower profile, like sci.physics.research but a few Nobel Laureates hang out there. it's good to walk softly there.
one more thing, i was involved in a WP slugfest that went to ArbCom (Bogdanov Affair) and came out smelling pretty clean. you and Phroziac have both underestimated my legitimacy as an editor and my competence to make a case. like Fearless Leader, you have likely overreached and your arrogance is showing. r b-j 06:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:No confidence

Edicts from above are a growing concern for those who believe Wikipedia should be what it purports itself to be in newspapers, magazines, and to new members: a community of editors. As a community, we believe that members who have greater power should use that power to promote consensus and a neutral point of view. When an administrator abuses his or her greater power to promote self interest or personal POV against or without the consent of the community, we believe that member should lose his or her administrative or higher powers. Would you be interested in starting and/or promoting a Wikipedia:No confidence area for the purpose of demoting administrators and above who use their power to push personal POV?

In such an area, any editor could call for a show of support or no-confidence for an administrator or higher. People would sign for either support or no-confidence along with examples of the editor in question creating an edict without consensus, or a statement of why they believe the alleged edicts are in line with community consensus. Please feel free to start or add to Wikipedia:No confidence and to duplicate this message or tell other editors who want to see Wikipedia succeed. --KIMP (spewage) 19:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Karmafist! The message left on your talk page was trolling by a sockpuppet of banned Zephram Stark (talk • contribs) (confirmed by CheckUser). By policy, all edits by a banned user may be reverted. "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." If you wish to keep the message, please revert the removal and be assured that I will not be making any second attempts to remove the message. Thanks! Carbonite | Talk 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I started the article. Please feel free to initiate votes for those who have been abusing their higher access privileges, especially in the area of deleting and decategorizing user boxes without community consensus. --Cunning Linguist 22:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Karmafist! This message left on your talk page is to inform you that I took good care of yo mama last night. Categoricalrun 23:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: We'll Just Have To Agree To Disagree Then

If he were truly a constitutional monarch, he would have followed policy in regards to Joeyramoney (AGF and BITE, Joeyramoney was a 16 year old kid with under 100 edits who was unaware about the seething mob developing around him), but he didn't. It's pretty hard to AGF when there's a wheel war (even if Joey had nothing to do with it). Sometimes the best way to get discussion going is to prevent people from doing anything else but talk. Furthermore, it's Jimbo's project, and he has to do what he think is best for it (in the same way that Queen Elizabeth would show Tony Blair a thing or two if he unilaterally declared the UK to be an autocracy), and whether he was right or not, the fact is that pedophilia is not a joking matter. If Jimbo had tolerated this, it would only leave room for things to worsen (the slippery slope), until they reached critical mass. (Note the reaction to SPUI's userpage, which emphasised the lesson -- don't joke around with pedophilia.) If you want a soapbox to stick nice bumper stickers joking about having sex with kids, Wikipedia's not the place for you. That was what Jimbo was trying to do. Now, was he right to block Joeyramoney for a week? I don't think so. But it is you who is not assuming good faith, because Jimbo had to do what he thought best for the project, not what would be best for free speech or for one particular newbie.

He wheel warred, and when I tried to remind Jimbo that he was just a kid, Jimbo had a hissy fit and stole my adminship. You can't wheel war when you are the ultimate wheel. Your decisions are binding, so it is not wheel warring to enforce them (whether the enforcer is Jimbo or another admin). You knew the situation was tense at the time. You knew everyone was in a bad mood. But you unblocked Joey anyway. You didn't even bother discussing the situation with Jimbo -- you just unilaterally unblocked. That's wheel warring, and again, Jimbo had to prove wheel warring -- especially when policy (because Jimbo is policy) is clear on the particular dispute -- is unacceptable.

The very fact that Jimbo could arbitrarily get rid of someone is my concern, Wikipedia is getting large enough to be soon in anti-trust territory: one person should not have that much control over such a large information source, especially one who is becoming insulated from differing opinions (by people such as yourself). You give Jimbo too much credit. Any arbitrary decision would have to be supported by the community, or else the community would throw a hissy fit. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. Joey was wrong to joke about being a pedophile, and so was SPUI -- banning them permanently from Wikipedia would be far from arbitrary (although it would probably be far from being commensurate with the level of the offense). You are blatantly assuming bad faith here. Jimbo wouldn't ban anyone he hates just for that — if he did, he'd take heat from more than a fringe group of Wikipedia Reviewers.

If he wants to talk, that's fine. I'm here. Until then, i'm keeping my guard up because i'm addicted to this place and Jimbo might have another temper tantrum at any moment. This has bad faith splattered all over it. Johnleemk | Talk 10:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ok, Then

What on earth are you talking about? "Filled with hate"? Where did I imply any animosity whatsoever towards you? I'm really sorry, but I don't see what you're getting at. A polite disagreement with your views is not an "OMG KARMAFIST IS TEH EVIL YARR". I don't see what you mean by Wikipedia being greater than any one person. By definition, any organisation is bigger than one person. What you seem to be misunderstanding is a simple fact of realpolitik on Wikipedia: Jimbo runs the servers. Therefore, what he says goes, barring a fork. If there were a way around this, then I'd certainly like to know it. But otherwise, it appears to me that the only way to ensure Jimbo doesn't meddle with Wikipedia's internal workings is to remove his control on the servers, which is rather impractical, and only transfers the responsibility for running the servers to somebody else. And what makes you think I haven't disagreed with Jimbo in the past? You are jumping to conclusions, my friend. I've already repeated numerous times (in other discussions on Jimbo's authority) that Jimbo erred when dealing with Radiant, and that he should have hastened to unblock Joeyramoney. Just because Jimbo can tinker with the project if he wants to doesn't mean he's always right or even always justified in what he does. I'm merely stating a fact. I also think that you should still AGF towards Jimbo, since he consulted with the arbcom before blocking/desysoping anyone. He also personally undid his block of Joeyramoney two days after the first block. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell?

Why the hell did you do what you did on User:Karmafist/Response? That was absolutely bullshit. My transsexualism is absolutely, totally, irrelevant. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Erm, all you're doing is proving that you'll never be a reasonable admin candidate again. I think you know what I think of you now. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Hallo Karmafist- I don't believe we have spoken before, and I have little interest and only an incomplete understanding of the ongoing debate at hand. However, I saw the comment the above user is refering to, and I would just like to say that I think you are a disgrace. You might want to get some perspective- this is an encyclopedia for hobbyists and nerds to read and write about what they are interested in, it isn't a war and no-one is dying here. Think about what you are saying before you say it. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 21:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/r/User_talk%7EKarmafist_POTW_Archive_b376.html"