From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Motions and requests by the parties 1.1 Motion to drop the case 1.2 Template 1.3 Template 2 Proposed temporary injunctions 2.1 Karmafist banned from "political" welcoming 2.2 Karmafist forbidden to initiate contact with new users 2.3 Template 2.4 Template 2.5 Template 3 Proposed final decision 3.1 Proposed principles 3.1.1 Wikipedia is an encyclopedia 3.1.2 Policy-making on Wikipedia differs from real-world politics 3.1.3 New users and policy-making 3.1.4 Welcoming new users 3.1.5 Template 3.1.6 Template 3.1.7 Template 3.1.8 Template 3.1.9 Template 3.1.10 Template 3.2 Proposed findings of fact 3.2.1 Template 3.2.2 Template 3.2.3 Template 3.2.4 Template 3.2.5 Template 3.2.6 Template 3.2.7 Template 3.2.8 Template 3.3 Proposed remedies 3.3.1 Unsolicited politicing 3.3.2 Template 3.4 Proposed enforcement 3.4.1 Template 3.4.2 Template 3.4.3 Template 3.4.4 Template 3.4.5 Template 3.5 Analysis of evidence 3.5.1 Template 3.5.2 Template 3.5.3 Template 3.5.4 Template 3.5.5 Template 3.5.6 Template 3.5.7 Template 3.6 General discussion

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Motion to drop the case

1) Karmafist has added a link to his views from his signature, and has agreed to use standard welcomes with his signature in place of the disputed behavior. [1] [2]. It is customary on Wikipedia to include one's own links and interests in one's signature, and it should be clear that such links are not part of the official welcome message. As such, at least some of the users who have been working with Karmafist on this issue think that this case is no longer necessary. [3] [4]. I therefore move that this case be dropped, or at least suspended for the time being. -- SCZenz 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Consider it an out-of-court settlement, perhaps. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The below all seems academic at this point. I wish there were more motions such as this one. Wikipedia would be a better place. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 22:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, such abuses of the signature must be severely deprecated, and can certainly never be endorsed by the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's a different question than whether they're worth an arbitration. My point here is, if Karmafist had made this decision earlier, I don't think this case would have been brought—it's up to the arbitrators to decide if it's still worth persuing, of course. -- SCZenz 07:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the question of whether the case should be dropped is a completely different question from whether the signature is acceptable. There is a case to answer here: that Karmafist has demonstrated a persistent unwillingness to accept dispute resolution, has described the arbitration committee as a "kangaroo court"[5], and has deliberately set out to poison newcomers against Wikipedia with false and damaging statements about its nature. Nothing about his attempt at compromise suggests anything other than a change of strategy in achieving this end, nor anything more than a temporary expedient in seeking to avoid further scrutiny. --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure if this is the proper place to put this request, but here it is. -- SCZenz 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a very reasonable compromise. Karmafist still gets to promote his manifesto, but only in his signature (not directly in the welcome message). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a reasonable solution, if Karmafist explicitly states that he won't use the problematic welcome messages in the future. I'm not sure he's done that to this point, the link above doesn't have any context to it. Failing that, the case should go forward. Rx StrangeLove 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a reply to my question here (which I've added above), so I think it is clear. -- SCZenz 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

After some reflection and seeing the new text in his sig: "Save Wikipedia" (telling new users right off the bat that Wikipedia needs saving), I'd prefer this case go forward to whatever conclusion it takes. The quote " However, I gotta admit, that rfar was a great soapbox moment ;-)" makes me wonder how seriously he's taking this. Rx StrangeLove 05:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rx StrangeLove. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Some action needs to be taken in regards to this intolerable behavior. Karmafist is trying the communitie's patience. -Zero^Talk 18:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The signature IMO is no problem as Karmafist didn't advocate others to read it this time. --Deryck C. 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Karmafist banned from "political" welcoming

1.1) Until the conclusion of this case, Karmafist is banned from giving welcome messages to new accounts that contain content or links to content (excepting typical linkages to his user and user talk pages from his signature) espousing specific points of view regarding Wikipedia's politics, organization, or similar.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is what I came up with while editing at the same time as SCZenz. The only substantive difference might be singling out the signature links. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in passing an injunction that Karmafist has explicitly said "would mean nothing since they have no laws to stand upon that." [6] I have personally replaced all of his most recent newbie welcomes, and suggest that such actions are sufficient in the short term to deal with any resumption by Karmafist. --Tony Sidaway 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

While I have nothing against replacing his greeting (I guess -- although I can also see it just being confusing to the newbie), replacing them does nothing if the new user sees and explores Karmafist's links before they are replaced: that's where the damage is done. An injunction would make it clear that this behavior is blockable. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. An injunction would at least make continued action of this kind by Karmafist blockable. I'm very disappointed by the extremely inflammatory language used by Deryck Chan on the evidence page and I don't want to have to continue doing the replacement if it can be described by any other editor, with a straight face, as "flame bait". --Tony Sidaway 08:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I withdraw my wording. I think Bunchofgrape's is better, and the idea is the same in any case. -- SCZenz 02:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2. To be fair, I propose a ban an action preventing Tony Sidaway anybody from mass-reverting Karmafist's messages even if they're incorrect, in order to reduce confusion done to newbies. Tony Sidaway's previous act is too flamebaiting and should be stopped. --Deryck C. 15:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

   Edit 15:33 - Okay, I'm not a good user of language. Please don't criticize me for using an inappropriate tone. I reckon that anybody doing this would be kind of provocative act. I shouldn't have accused this specifically to anybody.

3. Be aware, Karmafist has already resumed welcomes with (what appears to be) the standard template...and has simply move his link to the Manifesto to his signature. I had thought of suggesting a temporary injunction against Karmafist initiating welcoming contact with any new users, but that's just a club over the head. At this point, I don't think any injunction is warranted, until the case is complete. This isn't just about Karmafist's behavior, but how he expresses his meta-wiki opinions. And I think it's clear from the discussions on AN/I and elsewhere, it'll be an all-or-nothing case. I hope I'm wrong. InkSplotch^(talk) 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karmafist forbidden to initiate contact with new users

2) For the duration of the case, Karmafist must refrain from initiating contact with new users.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In view of the wide recognition, which extends to the arbitration committee, that Karmafist is attempting to "game" the system, I feel that administrators should be allowed to place a broad interpretation on "welcoming". Consensus should be reached on WP:AN or its subpages prior to any action enforcing this injunction, so it wouldn't amount to a blanket ban on reasonable (or accidental) contact with newcomers. But it might hopefully serve to dampen Karmafist's enthusiasm for trying his luck. The meaning of "new users" would be decided by the consensus of the community; this proposal isn't intended to entrap Karmafist. --Tony Sidaway 07:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree with and support this prosposal. When you welcome a user to the site in light of their good contributions, you do it because its appreciated for the encyclopedia and in the spirit of good faith. This is clearly not the case. I urge the commitite to rectify this and return the original purpose of welcoming users to the good of the encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 07:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the Wikipedia community exists to serve that end.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Let's start out with the obvious... -- SCZenz 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy-making on Wikipedia differs from real-world politics

2) Policies are made and changed on Wikipedia by discussion and consensus, not by voting, mass-campaigning, or other manuvers typical of real-world politics. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a democracy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree, considering that Wikipedia is a sociocracy and the battleground portion is unfortunately unenforcable under the current way things are run, one of the large reasons for why I am trying to reform the system. You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but campaigning will happen on Wikipedia one way or another. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Others' poor behavior doesn't justify yours. Campaining of the sort you were doing has not been tolerated in the past, and will not be tolerated in the future. In fact, you've been given a lot more leeway and time for discussion than some others have been, precisely because you're generally a good contributor. Anyway, I hope you'll reconsider your view of Wikipedia as a free-for-all political battleground—it isn't, and all of us need to do our best to make it even less so—or I fear you'll run into trouble again some day. Oh, and by the way... Wikipedia is not a sociocracy or any other form of government; it's an encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 23:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Also note that Karmafist is a real-world politician. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New users and policy-making

3) Although all users are welcome to voice their views on Wikipedia administration and policy in appropriate forums, the ability to make substantial contributions to Wikipedia policy typically depends on a good understanding of existing policies, experience with consensus-based decision-making, and an appreciation of Wikipedia's core mission. As such, new users should be encouraged to edit articles rather than to devote themselves to policy and other "meta" matters.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibly could be made less wordy, although I did want to get all the key ideas in. -- SCZenz 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning is valid, but the conclusion does not follow. Understanding of policy comes from dealing with policy. One could spend years editing uncontroversial articles and never deal with any major policy issues. —Guanaco 02:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not at all true, in my experience. Increasing involvement in various kinds of articles results in increasing exposure to applicable policies. If policies were totally divorced from content, we wouldn't have them. -- SCZenz 07:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming new users

4) 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". Such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I added a sentence (the one about spamming). I agree that the case very nearly begins and ends with this principal. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is the core of this entire case. The facts aren't in dispute, so it just depends on whether ArbCom agrees with this principle—personally, I think it follows clearly from the above principles. -- SCZenz 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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.

[edit] Unsolicited politicing

1) Karmafist is prohibited from linking to personal advocacy pages, or including any political language, unsolicited on user talk pages. This includes, but is not limited to, personal messages, welcome messages, signatures or edit summaries. He must use a reasonable, civil, relevant edit summary. 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I'm submitting this as an expansion on the "Welcome" message, for an obvoius loop-hole I see that Karmafist could post a normal welcome message, and followup later with an unsolicited "political" message. This pampleteering started with Welcome messages, it won't necessarily end there. InkSplotch^(talk) 19:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: