User talk:Karmafist/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i didn't say anything in the ArbCom, it was completley unclear to me where/if i was allowed to, and if (doubtful) it would be taken into account. the resolution is bullshit. i'll be sure to support you inf you do chose to reapply for adminship (and i hope you do.) --jfg284.

I agree that it was unfair as well. Long reply at User talk:Karmafist/Archive15 --User:Dr Debug

Contents 1 Just checking back in 2 desysoped? 3 Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising 4 ArbCom ruling 5 No worries!! 6 sure thing...I guess 7 I wish I could do more 8 Wikipedia charter 9 Userboxes 10 Your petition is signed 11 Final decision 11.1 Support 12 Template:Kwelcome 13 Disruptive type of vandalism 14 An appeal 15 RFA 16 Support of SPUI 17 So we meet again for the first time! 18 Adding Jimbo to the Cult of personality article 19 I got this barnstar from "The Emperor" and immediately thought of you... 20 Another Esperanzial note... 21 Hoping to defuse a 'situation' 22 I would be lliing 23 Thanks for the thanks. 24 Sorry, your session has timed out... 25 My userpage is up for deletion 26 I've become a goon. 27 Your user page 28 Hi 29 Your welcome templates 30 Your petition 31 Happy Valentine's day! 32 Welcoming 33 RfAr 34 License rights on Beerpartysign.png 35 Re: Your Comments 36 "What do you think?" 37 My dear Karma 38 Re: your manifesto 39 RFC Style 40 Silly Rilly

[edit] Just checking back in

Jesus H Christ, looks like I took a break just in time! What a mess. And they're planning to give you the same punishment as someone who indefinitely blocked 1 respected user and 2 admins without good cause?! That's an absolute disgrace. Though I don't agree with you entirely here, I believe Jimbo's leadership is valuable and that Wikipedia should not be trying to head towards a democracy (with parliament, bill of rights etc), your treatment in this case is terrible. Jimbo can make mistakes, and many people supported your unblocking. You just stumbled into Jimbo at a bad time as far as I can see.

Oh well, congratulations on reaching 2000 I guess. The way things are going we're going to need a lot of fresh blood around here to replace those being driven off. the wub "?!" 12:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] desysoped?

You were desysoped?? What the..?? It is so hard to stay on top of everything here. And now Radiant! is leaving. Suckage. *tries to find relevant ArbCom whatevers..* --Fang Aili 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom ruling

A sad day. I commend you for your resilience. Haukur 13:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No worries!!

Hey man no worries!!! As forrest gump once said, "Shit Happens"!! If you need any help with anything let me know! 209.89.24.196 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC) and i'm a dumbass, forgot to sign in Mike _{(T C)} 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I might just go make that userbox LOL. Also if you have to reapply for RFA you'll have my vote, and the vote of a lot in the community. I find it sorta annoying that Jimbo is viewed as infalliable, especially since wikipedia is based around every user is the same, and no user is more important than any other user. Mike _{(T C)} 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dumbass userbox: {{subst:Userbox |border-c = #000 |border-s = 1 |id-c = #fff |id-s = 12 |id-fc = #000 |info-c = #039 |info-s = 8 |info-fc = #fff |id = [[Image:Donkey_1_arp_750px.jpg|50px]] |info = <center>'''It's ok to be a dumbass'''</center> }} Mike _{(T C)} 16:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sure thing...I guess

May I ask why? I was just triing to help you out. I hope I dint do anything wrong pickelbarrel 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I wish I could do more

I regret that I could not have been of more help to you in your cause, but I will subside, as is your wish. Hey do you know aht infinity minus infinity is...its a question I cant sem to find an answer to pickelbarrel 20:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia charter

I saw your charter. I am going to put some thoughts together on it tonight (I laud the intention, but don't agree with the implementation - and I promise to be civil in giving my reasons why!). In the mean time, I thought you might be interested in this conversation:Jimbo.

No-one on the thread seems to think this is controversial. I find it positively horrifying. What do you make of it? ElectricRay 17:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it absolutely disgusting. I'm beginning to wonder if the inevitable outcome of this is a full-blown fork where someone takes the entire Wikipedia database and sets it up somewhere else as-is, with the only difference being no Jimbo and some sort of meaningful process in place that will hold admins accountable for their actions. --Aaron 22:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very interesting idea, as a matter of fact. I have some ideas about what this process would be, too - somewhat controversially, there'd be pretty much an *absence* of process - the controls would be around registration as a user in the first place, and thereafter sophisticated reputation management - in a nutshell, the same thing that keeps eBay participants honest, and dispensing with metaphysically misconceived rules like "maintain a neutral point of view". I have been discussing the idea on and off (because that's the only way one can communicate with him, as the admins block him on sight) with banned user Zephram Stark. He's an enigmatic and controversial chap, but clearly (a) knows his way around computers (he's very resourceful at evading his block) and (b) despite a somewhat contrary air (he's not always polite - put it like that), also has some very good ideas about reputation management. The discussions we have had are all scattered around the place - I will try to collate and summarise them but, that's the gist. ElectricRay 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pleased to hear that. I thought maybe I was going mad. I must say, I'm thinking of getting out of here - if this truly is the regime, then I'm just not going to commit any more intellectual capital to it - I'm not happy to freely give my talents, however meagre they may be, to fluff the pillows of another man's vanity. ElectricRay 18:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

check out this also: part 1 part 2

I will wait and see if Jimbo makes any response, but I really do think I'm gone. The only valid vote is a vote with ones feet. ElectricRay 19:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not so worried about Wikipedia itself becoming some sort of skynet - it might be possible to control this site, but not the whole internet. Ultimately Wikipedia is just another wiki: a dominant one, sure, with a prime mover's advantage, but it is no more impregnable than Pan American. It is reliant on, and (whether Jimbo's acolytes like it or not) answerable to, the whole internet community. If it gets that wrong - if it can't adapt to what the community collectively wants - Wikipedia will survive no better than a colony of dodos who have just spotted a sail on the horizon. ElectricRay 23:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

You seriously have too many. All meaning is lost. Nobody is really going to go through and read them. You should snip it down to some essential subset of what you currently have now. Keep only the important and relevant ones; nobody really cares what particular foods you eat and including those boxes just diverts attention from the ones that really matter. --Cyde Weys 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are seriously lacking userboxes. This was an original idea by A Man In Black (See: User:Kelly Martin), but I made it into a userbox especially for you with your favorite color as the background. Feel free to display it on your userpage. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your petition is signed

I did so gladly. as far as the answer bewing zero, that was my first guess, but my brother said it was not. Thenb I got to thinking about holding a couple of mirrors up next to each other, resulting in them casting an infinir=te number of reflections. Now if you took one of the mirrors away you would have successfully taken away an infinite number of reflections, but you would still have one mirror left, and it would still cast one reflection. So maybe the answer is ONE what do you think? My brother who is very very knowing presents problems like this to me all the time and I hope with help I can get this one correct. pickelbarrel 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war case Raul654 23:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. And I'll be first in line to vote Support the moment Karmafist requests reinstatement as an admin. --Aaron 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
2. The outcome was as expected. A mockery of process. I'll be voting Support as well for you. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
3. You definitely have my support 100%, mate. NSLE _(T+C) 00:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Support from me as well, the ArbCom decision was totally unjustified. So what, you undid Jimbo's block: his block was wrong. (Note to self: if the boss wants to shoot himself in the foot, don't take the gun, let him do it). Their decision to keep you desysopped seems like it had less to do with the unblock you performed and more to do with certain people having it in for you. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Support - I guess I'll be voting support too. I know I opposed you in the ArbCom election, but ArbCom and admin are two entirely different things. --Cyde Weys 05:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. If only for the fact that the ArbCom and Jimbo are pushing their weight around in a way which is totally unhealthy for the project. I always wondered why so many people left. Now I dont anymore. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 12:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
7. support. The man has a fist of Karma, a Hammer(er) of the Gods. --ElectricRay 00:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
   

   And while I'm at it, here's a Barnstar to The Hammerer of the Gods for his heroic attempts to stick it to The Man. --ElectricRay)
8. Support, you are a good user. --Terence Ong 14:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Stickin it to Da Man Support, for daring to speak truth to power. And to undo a petty injustice.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kwelcome

I'm sorry, but I had to vote for the deletion of Template:Kwelcome. It's nothing personal, I just really don't think that's a good way to welcome users into Wikipedia. I hope you understand. --Cyde Weys 04:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this template into your userspace, to User:Karmafist/Welcome. Please, if you could, subst: all the current appearances of the template so the redirect can be deleted. I would do it myself, but you should have known not to put a personal template in the main template namespace. Thanks.--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, karmafist. First of all, I want you to know that I respect you as one of the friendliest and most helpful members of the Wikipedia community. And I feel that the Arbitration Committee's recent decision against you was unwarranted and altogether too harsh. That being said, I humbly ask you to please reconsider the wording of your new welcome template. It is very negative, and it introduces newcomers much too quickly to the nasty underlying administrative functions of the Wikipedia community. If you were a new user, would you want to be greeted with a message dominated by negative comments about the infrastructure of Wikipedia, or would you like to be thanked for your first contributions to the encyclopedia? It might be a good idea to mention your new policy proposals in your welcome template. In fact, that might add a bit of a personal touch (which is lacking in most Wikipeida welcomes), but I strongly encourage you to change the wording of your template so as to emphasize the positive aspects of the Wikipedia system, while possibly introducing your ideas to improve it dramatically. After all, we wouldn't want to scare away any potential contributors. --TantalumTelluride 06:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Well I for one would want to be made aware that when you enter this place you and your articles can be thrown out on the whims of any authority figure that feels like it without so much as a chance to defend yourself. And that the guidlines are just that, and do not have any neccisary meaning if an administrator decides xe doesnt care for you, your oppinions, or your actions here at wikipedia. If you let everybody know going in that this is not a democracy and that any rules implied are subject to change without notice, then they cant complain if they are booted off for no reason. I no when I was kicked off for a month for being such a jerk I was a little pissed at the system. IF I had been made aware that this was the policy ahead of time I wouldnt have taken it so badly. If you think that this policy may scare off some newcomers, I would fault the policy, NOT the statement of that makes people aware of it. pickelbarrel 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive type of vandalism

I wonder if you have any insight on how technically to deal with something. Of course, I told you before that I think semi-protection should be used massively more than it is; but that's probably not going to happen. Anyway, I mentioned this certain vandal that I seem to have attracted via maintaining the Ward Churchill page. The thing that was most troublesome about the vandalism is that this person (under ever changing usernames, but often related names) would blank the page and replace it with, e.g. 500 copies of a picture of Bush.

The result, unfortunately, of this change is that I can never seem to load the diff to see specifically what the change is, presumably because the WP server times out before sending all that graphic data. Some other editors rolled back the vandalism of this type to my user page or user talk page, but I don't know if they had actually seen the diff, or just assumed the worst. The thing is that I can view the diff: "Vandal->Reversion" (because the page itself, below the diff, is reasonable); I just can't view the diff: "Good->Vandal".

I just found an example of the same thing on the Churchill page. A user, "Mr.Trezon" (but it'll be a different name next time), made this change, with the edit history comment like "minor spelling fix" or something innocuous seeming. I simply could not load the diff to see if it really was a proper change or if it was vandalism. As it happened, the same username had made a comment on the talk page that made me fairly sure (overtly claiming to praise Churchill, but obviously meant sarcastically). So I rolled back to the last version, but with less than perfect confidence I was reverting an actual vandal. Once I made the reversion, I could look at the prior diff, which proved my guess correct. But I don't like reverting blindly.

Any thoughts? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An appeal

Hi Karmafist. Let me start by saying that I respect your support for SPUI. I understand why you feel aggrieved. I understand why you put that code on your page. I will not remove it, as I can see very clearly that your intent is not to troll or to disrupt. However, I still request that you remove the code from your userpage. Apart from anything, it is counterproductive. It reminds people of why SPUI received his ban. It really is not likely to achieve anything productive.

I understand you want to make a stand. Your "manifesto" puts that forward very strongly! I recognise that you feel you have been wronged. However, this statement feels like attempting to make the situation flare up again. It is not the way to complain about maltreatment of SPUI.

I would not consider complaining about your protests against our treatment of SPUI (if you can get your head around that sentence). I am only suggesting to you that your method is not the most productive, and many users are likely to find it annoying. They might even feel that you placed the text there in order to disrupt. I recognise that that was not your intent. But you are leaving yourself very open to criticism along those lines.

I hope you consider my advice.

Yours,

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I shall reply to you more fully tomorrow. I am currently not feeling very well and am very tired. However, I protest very much at you placing me in a cabal. I strenuously deny it. Beyond that which is natural and inevitable with people in a social group, I do not (and do not intend to) take part in any cabal activities. I am a strong supporter of the influence of the community. However, there are three competing influences: process, community, and product. I am strongly product oriented, with community coming with it, because, without the community, there would be no product. However, I strongly believe the community must have the intent to enhance the product, not to exist for its own right. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

On Feb 25 I will be nominating you for RFA, is this alright with you? Mike _{(T C)} 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh I also added the dumbass userbox to your userpage =). Talk to you later. Mike _{(T C)} 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it a mistake or a subtle joke tht you've got "It's ok to be a dumbas" on your user page twice?
brenneman^{T}{L} 02:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's ok to be a dumbass

I'll put the subst here if the box haters decide to delete it for no reason....again...Karmafist

[edit] Support of SPUI

Hey! I hope you don't mind, but I copied your "In Support of SPUI" code and put it all on my userpage as well. Thanks for supporting my friend who I've known personally for six years. --Analogdemon (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed your quote of SPUI from your userpage. It's inappropriate for reasons that have been made clear elsewhere. As should be clear by now, many of us have no sense of humor about this at all. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And I reverted that removal, for I don't find it inappropriate. I did mention I'd observe 1RR if it got removed again, though, but just letting you know mate that you have my support. NSLE _(T+C) 01:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User pages are not and never have been sacrosanct on this project, and it is a very old principle that our goal of writing an encyclopedia is more important than any perceived goals of providing a soapbox upon which to test the limits of free speech. Yours is not the first user page that has been edited back by others and I doubt that it will be the last. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, this is straight from Wikipedia:User pages. I've removed this. Jimmy Wales, who, despite what you think, has ultimate authority on the project, has made it clear that devisive userboxes are not to be used. SPUI got banned and put on probation for this userbox. None of us are above the law. Bratsche^talk 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the Foundation Board of Trustees supports him. Because he founded Wikipedia. Because he has dedicated his life and money to the project. Because the community supports him. Because he knows what is best for Wikipedia. Bratsche^talk 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Also because you don't have to think for yourself, apparently...

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dense, but I don't understand what you mean. Bratsche^talk 03:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to get on IRC or AIM right now to discuss this further? I think that would expedite things. (IRC:Bratsche; Yahoo!IM:talkingbratsche AIM:talkingbratsche GTalk:bratsche1) Thanks. Bratsche^talk 03:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for discussing this civilly. I'll talk to you on AIM in a sec. Karmafist 03:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So we meet again for the first time!

User: Pickelbarrel seems to think I need to speak with you. I know you have had some recent trouble. Pickelbarrrel seems to think I am the cause of it & has asked me to forgive you for our past conflict and also help you regain your administrator position. I am not sure what I can do to help but I will work with you in whatever way I can. I have already signed your petion but I will do more if you feel I need to. Also thank you for your work with Pickelbarrel. He has come a long way with your help and I think he may go further yet! Lastly since you are the boldest of all editors (bold to the point of being foolish) I will grant you a title ( an honor I have only bestowed once before). From this day forth you shall have by the command of Cenestrad --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC) a title of devine right of Karmafist the Bold & Foolish (or Boolish). This title you may use, abuse, ignore or give away as you see fit. This I order for the Common Good. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 03:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Jimbo to the Cult of personality article

I'm trying real hard to see your side in this, but I'm quite rapidly coming to the conclusion that you just have an axe to grind. Bratsche can speak for himself but for my part, I'm not doing this to be Jimbo's toady. Rather, I'm sticking up for the project as I see it. And I remember precedents from before you joined, most notably with User:JesusIsLord! (that may not be the exact spelling), where there was lengthy and protracted debate about freedom of speech vis a vis building an encyclopedia. That was almost three years ago and we decided back then that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We haven't changed our mind. I realize you've contributed a great deal, but I believe that you misunderstand the nature of the project. And while your contributions can and do lead the community to overlook certain indiscretions, you've gone well past that point. If you want to turn into another "Wikipedia doesn't love me as much as I deserve to be loved" flameout, you're already on the path that will lead you there.

I also note that in an edit summary you threatened to create a bunch of socks. Like your edit to cult of personality, this is hardly an effort at the sort of reasoned debate that you claim you wish to be known for.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you Karmafist. This is where you should have added Jimbo; Category:Cult leaders. Next time get it right or leave my kingdom. --The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 04:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I got this barnstar from "The Emperor" and immediately thought of you...

I think you've been hurt worse than me by wikipedia pickelbarrel 05:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another Esperanzial note...

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower ^háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

[edit] Hoping to defuse a 'situation'

Karmafist, in the spirit of our last positive interaction, I wondered if I might challange you about Template:Kfwelcome. You are entitled to your views on how wikipedia should be run - but is canvasing ultra-noobs for support the best way to go? It seems to me that a) 'signatures' of the newly arrived hardly strengthen your case b) it could be seen as an attempt to turn noobs into partisans before they've become editors. I don't want this to get nasty and end up as another slug fest, so rather than delete it or do anything to futher antagonise the situation, I'm asking you to have a think about it. Perhaps if you see me as too partisan, you might discuss it with some more moderate wikipedians before you continue to use it. Thanks. --Doc ^ask? 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Doc and have replaced your welcome messages with the standard ones. If you want to carry on a war, leave the noobs and the articles out of it and hash it out somewhere suitable. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I was doing something similar to another welcome template of yours. Please think about whether inducing newbies into wikipolitics doesn't constitute WP:BITE. The Land 00:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would be lliing

If I said it didnt bother me alittle bit that you took down the barnstar that I gave you. I was attempting to show how you being ostrisized from the administrator community had hurt you, and that it goes against the "we dont punish, we just do things to prevent" policy they have. I appreciate the honesty, but it would have been nice if you had at least kept it up there for a while to show your pain. But if you like the other barnstars better then I will give them to you instead, although I cant see that It eximplifies your situation quite as well.

The Douchebag award is supposed to have a slash through it...to show you are NOT a douche bag, but The Emperor wasnt sure how to do that...maybe you could figure it our and send it back to me, as it is I'm kind of embarresed to have a picture of a douchebag for an award, But I appreciate the gesture. ANyway I hope your back to administrating soon...I have tried to talk to people I thought might help...I noticed you started talking to Sam Korn as well. I am sure things will work out for you... I seem have pretty good luck in here so far. 205.188.117.69 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • I went aHEAD AND MOVED THEM TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE FOR YOU, AS i KNOW YOUR BUSY WHAT WITH ALL THATS GOING ON...pickelbarrel 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the thanks.

No need to thank me mate, I just support your policy because it makes sense. Though I don't want Wikipedia to become just another government, the idea of a more efficient and proven method of administration is very welcome. -MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Which policy is that, by the way? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a policy, I suppose... his manifesto. Sorry for the confusion! -MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 01:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, your session has timed out...

Hi again, sorry that I'm being such a nuisance... I was just wondering, recently I've been recieving large, shiny red text that informs me that "[My] session has timed out, please try again or log out and back in," whenever I try to submit an edit. Did I mess up the gears of Wikipedia? Or is it just my computer inexpertise? -MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 01:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that what happens when you try to create a page and your login expires? The "remember me" checkbox on the login page should prevent you from being logged out. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't time out. I can log in with the box checked, and on my second edit within 5 minutes of logging in, I get the message. Next time I get it I'll copy it in. --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 02:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My userpage is up for deletion

Would you mind going to the article's section and voting to keep it please? Thanks! --Analogdemon (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've become a goon.

I'm just reaching out and touching certain people (not inappropriately) and proposing your manifesto, to raise awareness. [1] Heck, when we didn't have these newfangled computers, we did it all by mouth. And email. --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I mean, a broken kneecap never hurt anyone, right? I'll stop cluttering your talk page now. --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I heart baseball bats.

[edit] Your user page

While you're entitled to use your user page to express your disagreement with the Arbcom's decision, your use of a userbox to do so is disgracefully provocative, potentially disruptive, and could be constructed as a violation of WP:POINT. I suggest you refactor. Snottygobble 04:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• After reviewing the page history, I see that you are well aware of the implications of your position. And you say if you're banned you'll only come back as a sock puppet?! I guess I'm wasting my time here. Snottygobble 05:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you remove your "process is important" userbox then? Snottygobble 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any other option, but if you have one, please let me know. I see lots of options, and I've already suggested one. Evidently they are unacceptable to you, for reasons unknown to me. I would have thought the only absolutely unacceptable option was becoming what you hate. Snottygobble 05:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I never said that SPUI violated POINT; I don't know the first thing about SPUI. All I know is, immediately following the ArbCom ruling about the pedophile userbox, you expressed your opposition to the ruling in the form of a pedophile userbox. That, to me, is a disruptive violation of POINT. Snottygobble 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how a user page can be a potential disruption. It isn't going to brainwash anyone into vandalism. If a user page expresses a view you vehemently oppose, go somewhere else. Nothing forces you to read the page. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 05:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your first userbox seems to contradict your decision to go against due process. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the bit in quotes at WP:IAR. Also worth reading Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Like most dissenters, I tend to leave when I'm sick to the guts of the bullshit, and come back when I can stand it for a few days.

One principle I stick to is that content creators get leeway with me. If a guy is building the encyclopaedia, I think better of them than I do the posturing bullies who spend their days trying to ruin other people's fun.

Having said that though, please do try to continue the good work you've done here. Don't get to thinking that the politics is everything. It isn't. Most of the work of the encyclopaedia goes on despite the bullies. Grace Note 05:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your welcome templates

Hi Karmafist, I'm really concerned about your welcome templates. I don't think it's a good idea to mix welcoming new users with campaigning for support for your petition. Don't get me wrong: I don't have any strong opinions regarding your petition either way, and if you want to go around and ask people whether they would like to sign it, I don't see anything wrong with that. But mixing Wikipedia politics with welcoming newbies doesn't seem right. How about the following alternative approach: create a subpage User:Karmafist/petition that can be used as a template to ask anyone, not just new users, to support your petition. That would address at least two concerns: it would keep personalized message out of the official template namespace, and it would cleanly separate the task of welcoming new users from political campaigning. Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mark, it was my idea to place the message in the welcome message. Karmafist didn't at all force me to do it. Also, I tried to make the message as unintimidating as possible; I'm not rushing up to people and staring them down, but rather proposing something that might be of interest. Like I stated, I didn't barge in and shout "Vote for Karmafist,". Hence why it states please consider, not do. --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 16:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your petition

Happy to sign it! --Analogdemon (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your manifesto, so I un-signed it. I'm not sure what else to do. The simple fact that huge numbers of people are flocking to it and taking numbers just ... brrrr... scares me. Kim Bruning 12:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an E-mail, with contents a little too close to flame for this margin. (There's an old wikipedia adage which says "Take flames to e-mail!"). Hopefully you'll read it in good faith, and flame me back good-naturedly :-) Kim Bruning 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, you haven't pissed me off. Just that I'm comparing what you're doing with ... certain interbellum events ... which is meant to be objective, but is still emotional territory for a lot of people even 70 years later. Kim Bruning 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Since "Wikipedia is not a democracy", your World War II analogy is false. I'm sure we could find a number of analogous scenarios in history accompanied by documents that seem to parallel Karmafist's manifesto, and I suspect we would find they mostly had positive results. The only reason for choosing Adolf Hitler's scenario is the fact that you do not like Karmafist's suggestion.

Actually, I showed karmafist a (very late) weimar republic document that happened to have identical posting rules to the page he made. It predates world war II by roughly a decade. Kim Bruning 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, what are you referring to? Did you mean to say "80 years later"? Does it matter which moment in history you're referencing, if you're still talking about the end of the Weimar Republic? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What other analogies might we make? We might make a completely opposite Hitler analogy, which is easy to arrive at when one considers the democratic nature of the immature wiki concept prior to Wikipedia. This demonstrates that comparing people to Hitler never makes an effective argument.

We might also compare this with a certain attempt to extricate a poorly-represented colony from the absolute control of a monarch and his parliament. Similar to Karmafist's manifesto, the United States Constitution represents an effort to take power away from an autocrat, to establish a representative bicameral legislature, to clearly delineate divisions between branches of government, and to declare the equality of all. Its words were also carefully chosen for effect, and it was signed by a number of people.

Ultimately, however, such comparisons are irrelevant; Wikipedia is not Germany and it is not the United States. Wikipedia needs serious discussions of the problems in its power structure, not a prolongation of the status quo. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant! Oh wait, you said that. I agree all such comparisons are irrelevant. Excellent strawman attack! :-) Kim Bruning 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If we agree on that, what is the point of objecting to Karmafist's proposal using comparisons to German or Russian history? How are you not attacking straw men? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sent. It's a historical document. It does refer to historical characters, but it's in a historical context, so please take it that way (and not in the these-days-more-common internet/godwin type context) Kim Bruning 01:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I recall one particular method that was used by these dudes. (See email) I think that it might be worth your while to study that voting form carefully. Please do, every word on that document is apparently carefully chosen for effect, nothing is left to chance.

Knowing who designed it, you might want to think about his aims. Do yours coincide? How would you design such a document differently? What things might actually be useful?

Kim Bruning 01:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to stop. I'm not telling you to go. See, I was worried you'd start thinking things like that. Try replace the name with "John Jones". See if you can read the form objectively.

I figure if you want to change stuff, that's great. I'm trying to do the same. Let's work together. At the same time, I think we both have a lot of learning to do to figure out how to be effective. I'm sharing one thing I learned in school. Kim Bruning 01:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A second thing, please read User_talk:Karmafist/manifesto#project_space_might_need_this.2C_but_the_encyclopedia_does_not, which is merely a summary of something like a weeks' hard work by two people (and some fast computers :-) ). See if you understand that, and what it has to do with your manifesto as stated. Kim Bruning 01:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit torn on moving my statement to the talk page. You're a nice person, and I'm an obliging fellow. But... *looks at feet* You see, then the petition page starts to look <mumble>a bit like the document I sent you</mumble>. (You knew I'd come to the reason at some point.) *scratches head*. So, I'm not sure if I'd be helping or hurting your aims by doing so. Kim Bruning 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about the above and let you know, hmmm, tomorrow evening, if I'm in early. And answered you on the manifesto talk. Kim Bruning 02:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Added clicky, for those of us who are cut-and-paste-challenged :-) Kim Bruning 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and for clarity. Just because I think this one particular idea may or may not suck, it's just this one idea. It doesn't say anything about what I think of you personally. You're cool, as always, of course :-) Kim Bruning 02:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Valentine's day!

[edit] Welcoming

Hey Karmafist,

I know Wikipedia can be an ugly political battleground, but I think it's a very bad idea to make your view of it into the first impression that new users get. Since most new users simply edit articles, and only get into the site's politics later, your encouragement to jump into the argument first seems to me to undermine our purpose here. Can you please stop?

Thanks,

SCZenz

Karmafist, while I signed your petition, I agree that it is not concucive to the Wikipedia project itself to be involving newbies. I am in support of your manifesto in principle, but I'm adding my voice to those requesting you to please stop getting newbies into something they didn't come here for. NSLE _(T+C) 03:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I stated this above... anyway, I'll just copy and paste.

Dear <insert your name here>, it was my idea to place the message in the welcome message. Karmafist didn't at all force me to do it. Also, I tried to make the message as unintimidating as possible; I'm not rushing up to people and staring them down, but rather proposing something that might be of interest. Like I stated, I didn't barge in and shout "Vote for Karmafist,". Hence why it states please consider, not do. -MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 03:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also... I never noticed that his said "Please sign my petition." My fault. I tried to give mine a more friendly feel. --MasTer of Puppets ^Peek! 03:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Karmafist. In the following reply to your message on my talk page, I will use the word Cabal to mean "experienced editors who, having a clear idea of the purpose of the project, tend to work (sometimes together) towards maintaining those goals."

There are a lot of things I could say in reponse to your note. Here are some of them:

1. I don't think the cabal is always wrong; I think newbies feel oppressed when they first realize that they can't vote to change how things are run, but they need to realize that things are run the way they are for a reason—including the cabal being able to overrule them. That's why I'm exceptionally concerned about true newbies being pushed into Wiki-Politics; they'll get sucked into the political game and get frustrated, rather than falling in love with the encyclopedia first.
2. You are not going to win a war with the cabal. You can make constructive criticism and get small things changed, but the whole system can't be overturned—I think most things work ok, you think things are broken and corrupt, but surely we can both agree that it's not gonna be overturned by a petition. Certainly we're not going to turn Wikipedia into a democracy, which seems to be what you're suggesting. You should particularly reconsider how you deal with Jimbo—one of his major functions is to take decisive action where the rest of us can't, and if he's wrong in such an action, then the solution is to explain it to him, and I've actually seen him listen. I strongly urge you to fight the battles you can fight, rather than the one you appear to be heading towards.
3. Regardless of the rest of this, I think your political invitation to new users is just plain disruptive. I don't know where the right place to canvas is—have you tried a mail to the mailing list?—but that's not it. You will hurt the project and cost us users, and that is not worth support for a political movement, whether it's right or wrong. I beg you not to continue.

SCZenz 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And I expect you know that I say this with my fullest respect of you, mate. I wholeheartedly agree that what you're doing is disruptive. WP is an encyclopedia, and should not be anything else. This is not a battlefield. I agree that Jimbo may have a bit too much power, but you've got to learn to live with such things. What you're doing isn't helping the project. Not by getting newbies involved, anyway. You do want to help the project, don't you? Please mate, do it on the mailing list as SCZenz suggests. Do it on Wikipedia Review. Anywhere, anyow but by getting innocent newbies stuck right into something they didn't bargain for. I trust that you'll take my thoughts into consideration. I hope you make the right choice. NSLE _(T+C) 05:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're willing to wait a few weeks. I hope you won't need to start doing this again, for the good of the project. Hopefully. Thanks for taking my advice into consideration, mate. (And hopefully, I won't be Oprah Winfrey in a few days treating you like James Frey). NSLE _(T+C) 06:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfAr

Sorry to break your catharsis, but I think the Tony Sidaway RfAr merits very close monitoring. The Workshop is spiralling out of its initial scope and seems poised for a ruling on what level of authoritarianism should be imposed. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License rights on Beerpartysign.png

Karmafist, I'm a bit concerned about the license on Image:Beerpartysign.png -- do you think we should use images on wikipedia that could be taken away from us at any time? I'm not sure if that's in the spirit of our licensing rules. --Improv 04:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and believe that it also contradicts the letter of the copyright policy, which requires contributions to be irrevocably licensed under GFDL-compatible terms. I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags that the template used for that image, {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, should be deprecated. Please comment there. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your Comments

On democracy, if it ain't broke, why fix it? If the fear is that if the structure isn't formalised, Jimbo can just topple it, I think that's unfounded. Jimbo's never expressed any interest in seriously meddling with any of our existing processes, except those he's established himself (i.e. the arbcom). As for the assumption of bad faith towards the Foundation and Jimbo, I haven't seen anything to corroborate these assumptions. "Slave labor"? Only if volunteering for the Red Cross is slave labor. The Red Cross tells its volunteers what needs to be done. Jimbo doesn't even tell us much more than "go build an encyclopedia and release your submissions under the GFDL". If the Red Cross fires you for insubordination (or anything else), your contributions weren't for naught; you saved lives. If Jimbo bans you from Wikipedia, again, your contributions aren't for naught at all; they are legally yours, and under the GFDL, you can take everyone else's submissions and fork (which isn't very hard, especially if Jimbo really goes on a power-trip and pisses off large quantities of Wikipedians). Of course the network effect complicates matters, but if things get to the point where Jimbo is arbitrarily banning people, it's highly unlikely many people will be sticking around.

Your concern about the circle turning into a pyramid also appears unfounded to me. Wikipedia has worked this way for a long time, and while past experience is no guarantee of success, I haven't seen Jimbo exercise his powers arbitrarily for no good reason, except in a couple of recent cases (the ban on anons creating articles and the new CSD for userboxes -- both of which can hardly be arbitrary or just plain wrong). We haven't gotten rid of the circle; we've just made it more obvious that there's a safety valve in case the people drawing the circle really fuck up. (Sort of like a constitutional monarchy.) Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "What do you think?"

It's a massive improvement. Your new version is identical to a soviet voting form. :-) (I kid you not ^^;;) Kim Bruning 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To save some time and skip ahead a century and all that: Have you considered trying for consensus? :-) (no sarcasm intended... it's just that you haven't yet :-/) Kim Bruning 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My dear Karma

Sweetie, I am so very happy that my Valentine's card cheered you up. I know these last days have been very hard to you; and for one who loves this place as much as you do, that is tough indeed. It is for that reason that it also saddened me to see that you feel you're being treated as a "black sheep" by some people. In moments like these, I always end up thinking how forgiving we all are of our own faults, yet how inflexible we are upon others'. Before judging you, all of us should stop for a moment and think if we are perfect, and let the one who is without sin, cast the first stone upon you. You've done great things at this place, and it would be extremely sad to see your name join those who have chosen to depart out of disbelief in our community. I'm sending a huge wave of wikilove your way - I hope you stay with us for a long, long time. *hugz*!! Phædriel ♥ ^{tell me} - 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC) PS. thank you so much for your offer to vote for me on a hypothetical RfA, but don't hold your breat, baby - there's still a loong road to walk before that moment arrives... if there ever is such moment! ;)

[edit] Re: your manifesto

I would have supported your manifesto, had it not been for one glaring detail...: you advertise to new users in your welcome message, as seen here.

"Also, if you could, please sign my petition" -- found within welcome message.

Why target new users to sign your petition? Do you want to make it look even better by having more names on it?

Someone who didn't read your statements carefully might just sign it without thinking, not realizing what it was. Not many people read what they sign, especially the new users.

It's not that I think that your manifesto isn't good, or that I don't agree (I agree with it). It's just the principle of posting it within a welcome message. It just seems wrong to me. Though the concept of your manifesto embodies what you are doing, I don't agree. Will you please respond on my talk page? Thanks. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 03:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He has already agreed to stop canvassing new users. NSLE _(T+C) 03:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Style

I tried the Feynman problem-solving algorithm for this one:

1. Write down the problem.
2. THINK REAL HARD.
3. Write down the solution.

1. The problem is that your current petition format leaves no room for compromise or discussion.
2. HMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... (OUW! I have a headache now... ouw ouw... ok, have to make do with this then.)
3. see below:

Hmm, if you want to get your ideas across, without getting squelched yourself , and squelching dissent, perhaps we already have a working format.

Could you maybe make the petition page RFC style?

Eg. "View by karmafist", "users who endorse this opinion ..." "View By Kim Bruning" , "users who endorse this opinion" ... etc :)

This would allow reasoning, reasonableness and reasoned compromise in a controlled format.

Would this be an acceptable compromise to you?

Kim Bruning 03:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Rilly

Lol, I posted a proposal to ban -Ril- for one year, and he retaliated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV/Workshop#Phroziac_banned_for_1_year --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I withdrew the RFB, it was 10 oppose to 7 support after a day. TINC. We're still on friendly terms. :) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)