Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karrmann

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Contents

[edit] Karrmann

FINAL (17/21/9); closed by EVula 16:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Karrmann (talk · contribs) - I have been an editor for nearly two years, and I know the ins and outs of editing an article. it has been noted in how I have grown as an editor in the past year, as well as how I have contributed to the encyclopedia. I have around 7,000 edits last time I counted. I know the ins and outs of working on Wikipedia, and I know the processes. I am also an active vandal fighter, and I have made use of the premade templates, as well as using templates I made myself. I am an active team player and work with others on writing the encyclopedia, and I promise that as an Admin, I will be active in keeping the integrity of the encyclopedia. Karrmann 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Self nomination, so I accept.

[edit] Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?
A: If promoted, I intend to work to keep the encyclopedia's integrity away from Vandalism and other ill faithed editors. To do that, I intend to work in WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and WP:RPP. I already often posted at the ANI, as well as providing my opinion on certain incidents. I am also going to keep a close watch on requests for checkuser and on cases of sockpuppetry, as I believe that response to them is very slow, and that I believe that it will relieve the user filing the case more peace of mind if he knows that his case is gettigng noticed. I will also work at Requests for checkuser, and fufill those requests, as it seems that that page is getting slightly backlogged.

As an Admin, I know that I have to do certain housekeeping tasks on Wikipedia, and I intend to do those as well. I will delete nonsense pages or pages that only just have one line of text in them, orphaned images, as well as peforming any other needed housekeeping tasks.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: My best contribution probably has to be the Ford Taurus article, an A class article, which I am detirmined to make a featured article. I also have expanded many articles, such as Mercury Sable. I think that the Ford Taurus is my best contribution, because I put everything I got into that article, and I constantly am contributiong to it to keep it up to the latest standards. I generally edit automotive articles, as that is my field of expertise. I have continued to contribute to automotive articles over the last two years, and I have also contributed many images to the encyclopedia as well. I have also expanded many articles such as Mercury Mountaineer, Mercury Sable, and Ford Festiva. I also cleaned up Cadillac CTS, though I still need to do a little work on that one.
On a side, I also edit articles abotu biographies, murder victoms, and movies, as they are my side interests. I have yet to put myself to make a large scale contribution to those articles, as I perfer to keep automobile articles my main focus. I have a large knowledge of american automobiles. Some more lage scale contributions I plan to make in teh future is to trim the Toyota Corolla article, and reference the Toyota Camry article.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: My worst conflict has to have been a year ago, with User:Wiarthurhu. I admit that I handled it a bit poorly, mainly because I was still a young editor, and I took it upon myself to deal with the guy, instead of taking him through the processes or asking admins for help. I was provoked, as he preferred to insult me on some sensitive areas, but that is not an excuse. He eventually got blocked because he trolled and insulted anyone that came near him, and everybody eventually got plain fed up with him. I do sort of regret how I handled the situation. I wish that I would have asked an admin for help with him instead of taking it upon myself. But then again, I was still a young editor, so I didn't know better.
I have had two recent conflicts with User:Spoolintsi and User:DiabloSE30. I am proud of how I handled them, as I handled both conflicts both maturely and properly. I took them through the processes and I asked an admin to help in solving the conflict. Spoolintsi was adding images of highly modified cars to the Eagle Talon page, as well as trolling its talkpage and misusing the {{editprotected}} template, as well as sockpuppetry. After my 3RRs were up and he showed that he was just going to edit war, I got the page protected, and took him through the processes. he eventually got blocked, end of that. Diablo SE30 was doing similar things. He was replacing all the free images on the Lamborghini Diablo page with two fair use images. I reverted, but he just the edit warred, and told me that I shouldn't touch the page because I was adding false info and didn't know anything about the car. Please not that I just rearranged images, I made no textual changes of any kind. He later created two sock puppets and used many IPs to attack my user page, as well as continuing to edit war. I admit that in handling this guy, that I violated 3RR, but I did because his edits were aggressive copyright infringements, especially by how he was trying to force fair use images in the article. I asked for admin help with him, as well as filing a sock puppetry case against him. He too eventually got blocked.
In the future, I plan to deal with vandals and other disruptive editors by taking them through the processes, instead of taking it upon myself. If I become an admin, I will mainly help people deal with disruptive editors and vandals, as well as block vandals and do whatever I can to keep the integrity of the encyclopedia and keeping the community safe.
3a. Optional Question from User:TwoOars: Would you consider your interactions with User:Bull-Doser on their talk page as a conflict? (Please explain why you reacted the way you did, to put things in proper context). Do you think you'll react differently if a similar sequence of events happens now?
A: I guess that you can call it a conflict, as he previously inadvertantly caused problems with the the autos project. he wwas adding poor quality images as well as other unhelpful edits to automobile articles. I tried to be nice to him, when he was still using his previous account, User:Take Me Higher. Please note that this isn't a case of sockpuppetry, as he switched accounts because he lost the passowrd for Take Me Higher. I gave him tips on how to improve his images and tried to help him out. he seemed to ignore our advice and any talk page messages we gave him, as well as blowing off an RfC we created for him. Overall, he was starting to become a problem. I still don't condone my actions though. But when he switched to the Bull-Doser account, many were runnin gout of patience with him, and some have taken upon themselves to yell at the guy. I deeply regret some of my conduct at the time, even issusing an apoligy to him. I feel extra guilty when I found out that he was autistic. But, I know if I were back then like I am like now, I would have handedled it differently, and continued to be friendly and keep a cool head.
Although we all have come to an understanding with him, I think if he want back to his old ways, I would instead act calm, and calmly remind him the standards we require automotive articles to meet, and perhaps try to help him with his edits. If I could redo that situation, I would instead mentor him instead of just taking to yelling at him. One thing that I have learned is that when you are calm and friendly, you can easilly get the job done, while being rude adn firm fisted will get you nowhere.
3b. Optional Question from User:TwoOars Can you also please explain what this is about? Thanks.
A: I admit that that was uncalled for. I was cranky and in somewhat of a fog when I wrote that. I was just annoyed that he just ripped an entire section from my profile. However, I deeply regret that comment, as I do not own my profile nor what I put in it. I have even placed a tag on my profile since that shows that my profile is freely licensed. I do wish that I wouldn't have jumped teh gun and would have been mor elevel headed about it. If I were in the mindset then that I am today, I wouldn't have jumped the gun like I did. I have made a comittment to being levelheaded, and to never jump the gun like that again. I understand that I made some mistakes in the past, but I am to comitted to not repeating them in the future. Karrmann 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Optional Question by SirFozzie: What is your view on Ignore All Rules and when should it be applied on Wikipedia? SirFozzie 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I have mixed feelings on that. Rules is what keeps Wikipedia from ebing a freeforall, as well as keeping the intregirty of the encyclopedia in order. I also think that many editors with ill will will take that as an excuse to edit war and push their edits on others. But, I think that some rules or policies make editing articles soemwaht difficult. Mainly, our fair use policy, as it is very hard to illutrate article on old or rare cars, bacause many think that we can just take a free image of any car on a whim, when it is not that easy. As a result, many automotive fair use images are being deleted, even if they illustrate articles in which it would be next to impossible to make a free use image.
5. (Optional question from Zeibura (talk · contribs)). Would you consider turning the "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option on in Preferences/Editing? Do you consider using edit summaries important, and why or why not?
A: Yes, I would turn that on. I didn't know that I could do that. And yes, I do find edit summaries important. I often sue edit summeries as a way to tell wether an edit was made in good or bad faith. Like if an edit summary says something like "STOP EDITING THIS PAGE! IT IS FINE THE WAY IT IS!", then I can safely say that the edit is in bad faith. I will turn that on to remind me to leave an edit summary. I don't ignore edit summaries, but I admit that they often get somewhat overlooked. I will make it a habit to leave an edit summary whenever I make an edit.
As an addendum to that, how does the importance of leaving edit summaries for admin actions relate to the importance of leaving edit summaries for regular edits? Why? GracenotesT § 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that leaving edit summaries for admin actions is something that is very important. Admins need to tell what they are doing, and why they are doing it. If I were to block a user, I will have to tell why a block was justifible. Whne I am protecting a page, I have to tell why the page needed protection. Wether is is for an edit war, dispute, or vandalism. Edit summaries are how admins know eash other's actions when using admin tools, and they are very important. And I will make it upon myself to use a summary whenever I were to be doign any admin actions.
6. DeLarge's diff below was from more than three months ago, and it is clear that you have grown since then. For the purposes of this question, please put yourself back into that situation. Sable232 had just made his/her 15:05, 10 March 2007 comment in that thread and you had discovered the Honda Civic photo replacement. If you were an admin, how would you have handled that situation differently? -- Jreferee (Talk) 14:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
A: I would have handled it much more differently now than I would have then. Instead of cursing the guy out, I would hold back my anger and try to talk to him. I would calmly explain that we take shots of cars randomly in the parking lots and the streets as a very last resort, and that we try to use the highest quality images possible. I would have also explained that just because the image is from a certain user or is of a certain genre doesn't mean that it has to be inserted into articles. At the time though, he would mostly ignore us and continue to keep doing what he continued to do. If that were the case, I would have done what I said above, and if after my calm explanation, if he continued to ignore us, I would have taken him to RfC in hopes that could get all of us on the same page.
I think it is good that you recognize that this would not be a suitable situation for you to use your admin tools as you were personally involved in the matter. -- Jreferee (Talk) 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please keep criticism constructive and polite. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Karrmann before commenting.

[edit] Discussion

Support

  1. Support (weakish) — Edit summary usage isn't very good... I don't believe this person would abuse the tools, though. Article edits looks OK. Matthew 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support - as per Jimbo Wales and also I don't think anything is wrong with his answers :)...--Cometstyles 17:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Isn't Karrmann male? Eddie 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    He is and everytime I tried to change it I get edit conflicted with you and Majorly..hehe..--Cometstyles 17:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I am indeed a male contributer. Karrmann 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Support I was honestly thinking of nominating you yesterday... good experience, answers to questions fine, here to write an encylopedia - definitely good stuff. Majorly (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Support- I think he has enough experience for me to trust him with the tools. Eddie 17:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support I've seen Karrmann around a few times; seems fine. Acalamari 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Support changed to Oppose Karrmann is a dedicated user who contributes effectively and understands policy. He's made a lot of good mainspace contributions. Here is an example of Karrmann being careful not to bite a new contributor and leaving a personalized message on the new user's talk page to explain the reversion. He appears to be more concerned with helping create a collaborative environment than simply reverting unconstructive edits. Leebo T/C 18:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Hi Leebo! I just wanted to note that he's not being careful as you say; in this situation, he's acting as he's expected to act with regards to candor, hehe. There's nothing special about this, other than that he inappropriately referred to WP:CRYSTAL, which tries to prevent unverifiable information. The newcomer actually provided a reliable source and prefaced his comment with the assertation that Ford had made no official announcement. This was actually quite an inappropriate reversion and use of policy by Karrmann and further shows that he is not ready to be an administrator at this time. gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I tried searching the source that the new user provided, and I didn't find any information about a next generation Taurus, but you may be able to highlight the applicable text. Even so, without an official announcement, there's not really a need to mention it in the article. Leebo T/C 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Support, the opposes so far don't worry me at all. —AldeBaer (c) 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I have to admit I don't like the diff provided by DeLarge below. Not changing my support since it was in March and other diffs that would corroborate a tendency have not been brought up. —AldeBaer (c) 23:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support, as it appears he'd make a good admin. ~EdBoy[c] 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support. With all due respect, many of the opposes are groundless. Anyone who's ever seen CAT:CSD on a bad day is not going to nitpick about edit summary usage. And I can't see anything wrong with placing an indef-block notice on a page for a user who was indef-blocked - indeed, Karrmann should be thanked for doing something that the blocking admin should have remembered to do themselves. Waltontalk 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support Not likely to abuse the tools, at least so far, which is all what matters, really. —Anas talk? 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Support -good 'pedia builder and someone who shows some pragmatism.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support I am confident that he will be a great admin. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. Seeing that it may be difficult that your RfA passes this time, if that's meant to happen, please don't be discouraged; I know for a fact that you're a hard working and dedicated editor, and the experience you'll gain from this will surely serve you well. Remember: your excellent work is much appreciated, and next time, you'll make it for sure. Love, Phaedriel - 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Support Your text convinces me to support you.--LucasBunchi 16:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    Probable SPA, if you look at xyr edits. Majorly (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Support per Cometstyles and Phaedriel. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  15. Support. Great candidate, one of those people you think is an admin. We need more admins that are willing to take the extra minute to help the newbies. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  16. Support. Bucketsofg 12:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Support DeLarge's diff was almost four months ago. Just because you are learning about that post for the first time now does not mean that it represents who Karrmann is today. If you look at Karrmann's contributions since early March 2007, it's obvious that he recognized his problem on his own and addressed it. He has handled himself well in this RfA, which is a tough thing to do given how personal it is. I do not think it reasonable to make Karrmann wait until the end of September 2007 for adminship because of something he did in March 2007. Karrmann can be trusted with the mop and is ready now to be an admin. -- Jreferee (Talk) 06:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose I'm really sorry as I rarely oppose. However 1) Answer to Q1 is inceridbly weak and undefined. 2) Admin powers per your response is about the worst possible way of viewing adminship - no big deal and all that. 3) Nothing in Q2 or Q3 indicates that you have any understanding of admin tools. 4) Your edit summary use is very poor. Really sorry, but please continue your great work in editing this project, and my best wishes.Pedro |  Chat  17:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Upon that I rewrote and expanded my answers. Karrmann 17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Updated reasoning this diff from 30 minutes ago at writing really is not admin quality. A) How did you expect a new editor to understand your meaning by referencing a guideline alone (i.e Wikipedia does not predict future events is the way forward) and B) how do you think Hey Man is really befitting as an introduction to a potential new editor to a quality internet based encyclopedia??? . Sorry. Pedro |  Chat  17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Personally, I'd rather receive a message like that, than a cold templated message. "Hey man" isn't exactly outragous for a greeting, I see it as friendly. It may have been best to include a welcome template, but it's not a huge deal I don't think. Leebo T/C 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I was trying to be friendly. Instead of putting myself above him, I thought that I would act as a friend to the guy. I knew that he didn't know of the guideline, that is why I explained why I reverted his edits. Karrmann 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Karmann, that was a great thing you did, don't listen to Pedro. We don't bite newcomers here, and using a friendly handwritten message instead of a boilerplate template is much better. I encourage everyone to do it. Majorly (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Your re-written Q1 answer is much improved. I must admit that my rationale behind the diff was as follows: Majorly supported post my oppose and I respect his opinion a lot. I therefore decided that I had better check still further to see where I was wrong in my initial oppose. However that very first diff created immediate minor concern over and above my first thoughts, thus bolstering, in my mind, my oppose reasoning. The Hey Man is not the main issue. The lack of clarity behind the reference to crystal was. Pedro |  Chat  18:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Per this You placed an indef block on a user when you were not in a position to block. This was then reverted. Poor Judgement.Pedro |  Chat  18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    The user was blocked, his user page was tagged... the user was unblocked, user page was de-tagged. Matthew 19:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Surely the blocking admin places such notices? For editors to do so without blocking powers undermines the whole process of preventative blocks? Pedro |  Chat  19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    The blocking admin did not place any blocking notices whatsoever. Not on the talk page or the user page. When I left the template on the user's talk page, I even noted that I was not the one who instituted the block. Karrmann 19:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Indeed, good job Karmann. This oppose is pretty baseless, and I encourage Pedro to rethink opposing a fine candidate. Majorly (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Majorly - please see [this. Another user, another time, but that's why it worries me.Pedro |  Chat  19:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    But this time, the user was blocked. Majorly (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I understand your concern Pedro, but i did it for a completely different reason. I didn't think it was OK because I see non admins doing it, I did it in a good faith way to inform the user and the community that he had been blocked in order for him to be able to request an unblock if necessary. And again, I simply didn't know better. Karrmann 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Oppose per Pedro (though not as strongly). Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 18:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Seeing that you tried to indef block a user (for what reason I don't know) I am now Strongly Opposed to your candidacy. Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Note that Karrmann was not "trying to indefblock the user". The user was indefblocked, but the admin didn't place a tag. Karrmann placed it a good 45 minutes later, probably just for clarification. Leebo T/C 19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I did not try to block the user indef. The blocking admin did not leave any evidence of the block, so I did that for him. Karrmann 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    The subsequent diffs indicate the block notice was removed by another editor, and nevertheless it was not your place to add that notice. It undermines the whole point of blocking when an editor recieves a block notice without guarantee they were blocked - and only an admin can do that. Pedro |  Chat  19:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    The subsequent diff showing the removal was by the blocking admin, who later decided to unblock the user and give them a second chance. Leebo T/C 19:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    edit conflict to my agreement on that. The point remains. Non admins ahould not place block notices. Why did he not go the blocking admin and request the block notice be placed?
    I didm't know that it was against Wikipedia policy to place a block tag just to inform the user of his block. I didn't know that I had to request that the blocking admin do it. Trust me, it was all in good faith. Karrmann 19:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's not really a policy thing - just a good sense thing. If you put a block notice and are not the blocking admin, how can you be 100% sure they were blocked, or indeed unblocked by the time you placed the note? I've run into this before and I am very wary of non admins putting notices they can't substantiate on user pages. I will assume the faith that you checked the block log, but my point still remains - request the blocking admin to place the forgotten tag, don't assume. Pedro |  Chat  19:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I did check the block log. But all and all, it was all an action of ignorance. I simply didn't know better. But llike I said, it was done in good faith. Karrmann 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Anyone can place a template, Black Harry and Pedro. Please reconsider your opposes - this sort of thing is allowed. Majorly (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I respect your honesty and have struck through the word strong. BH may or may not do the same, which is up to him. Nevertheless I still feel this, and the other issues, to be too concerning to abstain or support you. My very best wishes. Pedro |  Chat  19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    That is OK. I just wanted Black Harry to know that it was a total misunderstanding, and that what I did was done in good faith. I didn't try to do anything bad, I jsut wanted to inform the user that he was blocked. Karrmann 19:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    It's all good and I sincerely wish you well in this RFA. My oppose stands, but this is not a vote. Assuming you become an admin this issue will become incidental, but I urge you to consider the ramifications of the discussion. I certainly respect the time you have given in providing answers. Pedro |  Chat  19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. I don't feel as though Karrmann is well-suited for admin buttons at this time. I believe he lacks the necessary judicious nature and levelheadedness to effectively deal with keeping Wikipedia's integrity safe from vandals and other nonsense, to quote the candidate himself (see his answer to the first question for more context). He often jumps the gun a bit when reverting and warning other users. For example, this conversation illustrates my point. This is actually my only direct encounter with the candidate; I'm not sure if this is entirely relevant, but it might be worth noting. You'll see in this conversation that he maintains that he reverts a user manually, although his edit summary clearly shows that he is using an automated tool called "TW" (Twinkle). He admits being "protective" of a user, and this apparently clouded the fellow's judgment. However, he did not remove the inappropriate warnings he left for the user following our discussion, which leads me to believe that he doesn't care that much about rectifying his errors or antagonising newcomers to the project. In addition, this discussion further shows his propensity for misinterpretation and biting others. It seems that he and his conversation partner were able to amicably resolve things, which is quite nice, however, his first two posts are highly inappropriate and a bit ridiculous. While he appears to be a nice enough fellow and a good article writer (specifically in the field of autos), he lacks the fundamental social graces and common sense one would want someone using the block function to have. Referring to administrators as having powers is also concerning, as first mentioned by Pedro; this sort of rhetoric can create a divisive nature among the community and is a mindset that completely goes against what Wikipedia is and is supposed to be. gaillimhConas tá tú? 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Admins do have powers - indeed, the whole "XfD is a discussion not a vote" thing has (unfortunately) steadily increased the scope of admin power. That's not a good thing, but it is a fact. I agree that going around shouting "we have powers and you don't!" would be divisive, but I don't see any evidence that this candidate has done that. Waltontalk 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I just want to let you know that if the Adminship passes, I will not let it go to my head. And if it doesn't pass. THen oh well, spilled milk. I will just continue to do what I do best; improve the automotive articles here on WIkipedia. I mainly want to be an Admin so I can keep the integrity of the encyclopedia and help in the fight against vandalism, as well as protect WIkipedia from trolls and other ill faith users. I am not going to place a large value on myself if I become an administrater, that I promise. Karrmann 19:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    I should probably note that Karrmann is not the first to refer to admin tools as "powers". GracenotesT § 20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Karrmann is a good editor, but I'm not sure he's ready yet to be an admin. He is prone to overreacting to certain situations, has a tendancy to over-value his own contributions (example: the Ford Taurus article is not necessarily the example which all other auto articles are prepared against), and has a temper. I'd like to see him mature a bit before he becomes an admin, but I definitely would like to see faster action against vandals and sock puppets. IFCAR 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose somewhat reluctantly, as this is certainly a good user and an asset to the project. I wouldn't oppose on any one of the following concerns alone, but the poor edit summary usage, the rampant typos, the concerns identified above, concerns about civility and an apparent misunderstanding of who has checkuser rights (sysops do not) seem to suggest to me that in sum perhaps this user just needs more experience/maturity. There's really no excuse with edit summaries, as it's an option in your preferences and I tend to think it's a little bit inconsiderate to other editors not to explain your edits. By itself I'd be willing to overlook, but combined with everything else I'm opposing for now. --JayHenry 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Since I learned that there was a tool that reminded me to leave an edit summary, (As of a few hours ago) I have turned it on so that I will always remember to leave an edit summary. Karrmann 20:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose After some recent encounters, I am unsure that this user will react appropriately to the more intricate varieties of trolling that admins can be subjected to. Riana (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong oppose; nowhere near level-headed enough. This tirade of abuse ("You did it again, on Honda Civic. DID A SINGLE FUCKING WORD I SAY PENETRATE THAT THICK FUCKING SKULL? JUST STOP EDING ARTICLES PICTURES AS YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW A GOOD ONE FROM A BAD ONE! Karrmann 12:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)) on User:Bull-Doser's talk page may now have been three months ago, but Karrmann already had a year or more of heavy editing under his belt, and indicated that he's learned nothing about how to control himself after the conflicts of 2006 to which he's already referred. He subsequently apologised, but only after I left a note on his own talk page warning him that I was ready to go straight to RfC if he didn't. I've seen plenty more instances of hot-headedness, and a casual unfamiliarity with the general rules/policies/guidelines which are supposed to govern our contributions, but the above edit was the easiest one to dig out a diff for. --DeLarge 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that was when he was still going around replacing high quality images with poor quality images of cars randomly shot in parking lots. I think what I did was ver y uncalled for, and that I had no excuse whatsoever to come at him like that. I have come a long way since that, and I have become a lot more level headed since then. I know I really screwed up some times in the past, but we need to keep looking to the future. Karrmann 16:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per DeLarge. Civility is of the utmost importance in administrators, and behavior like that, even if just 1 or 2 times a few months ago, is unacceptable. GoodnightmushTalk 15:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose changed from Support - I was unconvinced by the previous Oppose comments, and was satisfied by the contributions I reviewed, but DeLarge's diff is not something I cannot brush off. Such a response is not acceptable, no matter how frustrated you may feel. Leebo T/C 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per the diff shown by DeLarge; as said above, civility is very important, especially for admins, who usually deal with vandals and users assuming bad faith but must keep civil even if these others aren´t civil at all. Sorry. ♠TomasBat 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Per Defarge diff and other oppose concerns. I cannot be certain that Karrmann will be civil at the times when it is important. Captain panda 05:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose also per DeLarge's diff. Being able to express your feelings without flying off the handle is important to me. Dureo 11:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per DeLarge. There are serious concerns with temperament here; candidate needs a three or more calm months of steady editing before I could support. Xoloz 16:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Um, DeLarge's contrib was four months ago, and there have been about three months of steady editing. Karrmann 16:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose — I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power-hunger. Kurt Weber 18:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose - may go sideways with mop. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Knowingly that you're breaking 3RR yet you still go for it made me worried. And how he answers Q5 tells me he's still not familiar with WIkipedia. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per the diff pointed out by DeLarge. Presumably, the candidate was sober while making those edits, although at least he didn't say, "I WILL ROK YOUR SHIT!" --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose as per above. Andre (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, changed from neutral. I found another raunchy statment this user has made. I gotta say I don't think you have the right stuff, unfortianatley. Maybe I'd vote for you if you ran again some time but right now, I cant. Cheers, JetLover 03:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  20. Weak oppose I'm of the opinion that anyone who has demonstrated experience and maturity is a good candidate for admin, but I've seen a number of times when you lost your cool, which is unfortunate. I believe in second chances, but I don't like to see this kind of language on Wikipedia, especially more than once. My ideal candidate has had someone provoke him, and responded diplomatically. I think diplomacy is important in online communities. DOSGuy 10:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Sorry, but it looks to me like the candidate has a temper that spills over into his interactions with other editors. Having a temper is fine - I have one myself - but in my view an admin needs to be able to step back, and come up with a more constructive way of dealing with other editors, even if this means waiting a while before editing. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I remain Neutral Pending answer to Q3a Q3b- TwoOars 18:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Though Karrmann's answers to my questions are satisfactory, incivility is a major concern for me and not justifiable under any circumstance. This combined with Gaillimh's comments prevent me from supporting. I think Karrmann could do with a bit more seasoning. - TwoOars 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neutral, for the same reasons as TwoOars. I respect that the candidate has been honest and critical of his incivilities, but they're too recent for me to support now, and I choose to remain neutral as I haven't had any personal interactions with this user and must therefore restrict myself from making too many judgments. That said, some diffs provided in the questions have led me to believe he may not have the right temperament for an admin. A bit more time, with a lot more cool-headedness employed when approaching conflict, will help show that Karrmann can handle heat without reverting to insults, or jumping the gun like with the Cyde issue pointed out by Gaillimh. I hope he continues making excellent contributions to articles, however, and that if this RfA doesn't pass he won't be discouraged. Just for clarification, the issues brought up by Pedro and Black Harry don't concern me in the slightest. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neutral I am wary of support in this case, since I am not too certain of your knowledge of the project as a whole, but I am not going to oppose since I believe you are growing into a wonderful editor, and will be able to be a good admin...someday. Jmlk17 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    Neutral, I don't know what to think. Both sides make good points. Cheers, JetLover 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neutral I'm not too sure per the oppose votes and everything stated above. ~ Wikihermit<;/span> 00:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. Neutral - I had intended to vote oppose, actually, for several reasons but Pedro's comments and diffs actually paint this editor in a good light. Frankly, I totally approve of non-admins posting block messages on blocked users' pages as these people need to know what happened and what recourse they have and (and this really bugs me), too many admins are blocking editors without informing them of the event! Unless they're very blatant socks or something, that kind of thing is very wrong to me. So kudos to Karmann for picking up the slack there - Alison ☺ 00:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    Trust Alison to positive spin it! Actually you make a good point, in that Karmann had to cover for the failing of an admin. I agree that it is vital a blocked IP / account be informed of the reasons, so in this instance there is merit in the action. I still feel that he should have asked the blocking admin instead, but I guess that placing the warning was more important than spending time awaiting for a response from the admin. In light of this, I am still staying as oppose but I am sure the closing 'crat will take note of comments by Majorly and Alison that this can be seen as a positive and not a negative action and weight accordingly.Pedro |  Chat  09:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  6. Neutral - It appears to me that the user has the wrong concept of adminship. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 14:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    How so? Eddie 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    In his original answers to the questions he stated he would use his "admin powers" in such and such away. Though he has changed it after that issue was addressed. His original answer nonetheless slightly concerns me. Also I feel that his apparent lack of self control per the above diffs, is slightly worrying. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
    As Gracenotes pointed out, even the Big Guy himself referred to admin tools as "powers". Eddie 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. Neutral. Karrmann, it's not that I don't see a problem with you becoming an administrator, its just that some of the opposer's point's have drawn me to a unknown and neutral decision and I just don't know whether you know what exactly administrator's can and can't do. I may even withdraw this vote for support later on in the RfA if I believe you have developed a better approach. Good luck with the RfA. E talk 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    I have rewritten my answer to question number one, I just reworded it to make it more clear what I intend to do is promoted. Karrmann 14:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Neutral. Good candidate, but oh my... he used the word "powers" to refer to admin... er... well, powers. Obviously that's no good. Though ... well, what exactly should we call them, then? "Administrator rights" is no good, since it's not a "right", "administrator privileges" is no good, since it's not a "privilege", "administrator status" is no good, since it's not a "status"... See where this obsessing over words gets us? Now we can't even describe a technical feature properly for fear of violating this bizarre form of political correctness that is being foisted upon us – Gurch 10:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    How about "administrator technical features" per your good self, or indeed the old fashioned "buttons"? Pedro |  Chat  11:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    I'd say rights is fine, the log for keeping track of promotions is, after all, the user rights log. I've no problem with the word "powers" either, mind. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    They're not "promotions". Adminship is not a trophy. (See the problem? By the preceding voters' standards, had you left the above comment while on RfA, you would be opposed too) – Gurch 22:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Neutral I don't have a problem with trusted and experienced non-admins helping out with admin related tasks that don't actually require the tools, such as placing block notices when an admin has forgotten to do so, answering block related questions which have obvious answers etc. It's not like the tools come with a special secret admin handbook and decoder that only admins have access to and are therefore the only ones qualified to answer questions and such. We all have access to the policy and guideline pages. However, the civility and temper issues prevent me from supporting. Sarah 14:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.