Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist

Case Opened on 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Karmafist (talk · contribs)
• Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs) (Bringing this request)

The dispute in question revolves around Karmafist welcoming new accounts with a message including links to his "Manifesto" and Wikiphilosophies pages.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

A great deal of discussion - only a small bit of it on my part - has been tried. As a result of these discussions, Karmafist has taken a break from the political welcomings at least once, but always with a statement that he may resume again. In light of the number of good-faithed people who have discussed this with Karmafist, including people I think are his friends here, I do not think an RfC would be a productive or good idea.

Statement by Bunchofgrapes

Karmafist has, on-and-off, been welcoming newbies with a greeting that includes links to several of his own pages. Here is one of more than 50 such greetings from today, March 12. In the middle of a fairly standard looking welcome message appear these paragraphs:

Also, if you could, please sign my petition

If you'd like to know what's going on in regards to the internal workings of Wikipedia from an experienced user, here's an insight into the unwritten rules of this place.

The first link ("petition") is to User:Karmafist/manifesto, the second to User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies. The manifesto espouses certain political and/or governmental reformations of Wikipedia, and the second is an essay listing Karmafist's take on good, bad, and ugly pieces of how Wikipedia works.

It is my belief that welcoming newcomers with these links causes immediate and direct harm to Wikipedia. It is an attempt to draw newcomers away from writing an encyclopdia and into the world of Wikipolitics, and to tilt them toward the view of Wikipolitics espoused by one user.

If this case is accepted, I request an injunction against the addition of such welcome messages during its deliberation. Such an injunction would have no bearing on Karmafist's ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Karmafist

My goal is not to sow dischord, but to find ways to reform the poorly defined and easily overtaken processes that govern this incredible website. The methods of doing so, which seem to be the issue here, are not nearly as important to me as actually doing so. Karmafist 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

For my thoughts on the welcoming and why I do it, please go here. I have no issue with including other people's perspectives on substed welcomes, and absolutely no problem with stopping my asking new users to sign my petition, which as described on that link above, I believe they are quite capable of choosing to do or not to do just fine without anyone's assistance.

My goal is not political activism on Wikipedia, that is just a means to an end, a means I have been around in one form or another since 2003. No, my goal is serious and substantive reforms such as a legislature for policies, clearer policies, no more bullying, equality under our policies and guidelines throughout the project and so on. And I will give up my reputation and my ability to edit under this name in a heartbeat if I think I can make strides towards achieving those things, which will stem the tide of good users leaving Wikipedia on a daily basis.

Quite frankly, the main reason why I went through this route because is because I thought you(the "established" users) were no longer listening. If you're listening now, let's talk. You know what I want and i'm always willing to listen if people are willing to meet me in the middle. Otherwise, you'll have to excuse me, i'm busy and I don't have time for games like this. Karmafist 01:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. I was leaning towards a reject until I saw some of the comments on this request. James F. (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Accept, concerned about incivility as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Welcoming new users

1) Editors who welcome new users are likely to be seen as representatives of Wikipedia. Their welcomes should thus be friendly, helpful, and reflect the priorities of the encyclopedia. Welcome messages are also an exception to the community's general dislike of internal "spamming". Since new users are as yet unfamiliar with Wikipedia's functioning, such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind.

Passed 7-0

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other, see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Passed 7-0

Disruption

3) Users may be banned or otherwise restricted for editing in a way that constitutes clear and intentional disruption.

Passed 7-0

Assume good faith

4) Users are expected to assume good faith with respect the other users, who share the common goal of creating a useful reference work. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Passed 7-0

Edit summaries

5) In general, edit summaries are to be used only to help explain why an edit was made. Using them for discussion, contentious claims, or incivility is inappropriate.

Passed 7-0

Wikipedia is not a battleground

6) From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same unto them. Users are expected to either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore objectionable flavouring, or ignore the relevant message entirely. When a conflict continues to bother you or others, users should adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution.

Passed 7-0

Findings of fact

Karmafist's political welcomes

1) Karmafist has welcomed new users with the text:

Also, if you could, please sign my petition

If you'd like to know what's going on in regards to the internal workings of Wikipedia from an experienced user, here's an insight into the unwritten rules of this place.

These welcomes link to Karmafists personal wikipolitical advocacy pages, User:Karmafist/manifesto and User:Karmafist/wikiphilosophies. The "wikiphilosophies" page, aimed at new users, portrays Karmafist's personal views as fact, and may be misleading to new users.

Passed 7-0

Karmafist ignores consensus

2) The issue of Karmafist's politically-charged welcome messages was discussed on WP:ANI, and there was substantial consensus demonstrated against the use of such messages (discussion). Despite the consensus, Karmafist indicated unwillingness to accede, and continued the disputed welcoming. He has since moved the link to his signature, where it is still included in a welcome message. Karmafist was blocked for 24 hours for continuing [2].

Passed 7-0

Karmafist is uncivil

3) Karmafist has frequently been uncivil to other editors and administrators [3] [4] [5] [6] , including making personal attacks [7] [8]. He has been blocked a total of four times for personal attacks [9].

Passed 7-0

Karmafist assumes bad faith

4) Karmafist has, both implicitly and explicitly, attributed the actions of others to bad faith. These assumptions of bad faith have often been stated inappropriately in edit summaries for unrelated edits. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Passed 7-0

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Karmafist's welcomes

1) Karmafist is prohibited from welcoming with any template or wording other than {{welcome}}. He may not link to personal advocacy pages, or include political language, in the welcome message, signature, or edit summary. He must use a reasonable, civil, relevant edit summary. "Welcoming" is to be interpreted broadly, to prevent gaming. If Karmafist violates this remedy, he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Passed 7-0

Karmafist placed on civility parole

2) Karmafist is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Passed 7-0

Log of blocks and bans

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC): I blocked Karmafist for 24 hours for this welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC): I blocked Karmafist for 48 hours for a series of welcome messages in violation of this ruling, including this one, edit summary "fuck it. The Kangaroo Court wants me gone? Let them get their wish." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 15:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC) : I have extended Karmafist's block to one year. Since the conclusion of the arbitration case, he has made dozens of edits, substantially all of which have been disruptive. His edit summaries and talk page comments make it clear that he wishes to leave the project but that he would like some help in doing so. In that light, I do not see any wisdom in waiting until he has violated his remedy for the sixth time before blocking him for a lengthy period. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 00:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC): Block reduced from a year (which was out-of-place), to one week (the maximum possible). Left a note on Karmafist's talk page, and will do so on UC's talk page too. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:29 UTC (2006-04-19)
• 19:23 and later, 2006 April 19 (UTC). User:KFSP blocked indefinitely. The block log is self-explanatory. —Encephalon 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• 03:30, June 2, 2006: blocked for 1 week for spamming in edit summaries. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that a block under one of the remedies in the RfArb? I don't see it. Remedy #1 applies to new user welcomes only, #2 to civility and assumption of bad faith. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I am here merely noting that I blocked him. Whether it relates to the Arbitration remedies or not is up to others to decide. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Blocked for 48 hours for a violation of his civility parole. --Cyde↔Weys
  • 17:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Block extended to one week after this; my previous leniency in assigning a block of only 48 hours was unjustified. --Cyde↔Weys