Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist

Outside comments

Comment by User:NSLE

I've spoken to Karmafist about this many times, and feel that this is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. He's previously agreed once to stop what he's been doing, but has restarted. I agree with Bunchofgrapes that this will only harm Wikipedia, and with all respect to Karmafist, must stop. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:49 UTC (2006-03-13)

Comment by Deryck C.

Karmafist stated clearly on those two pages that the text on the pages is his own intepretation of the Wikipedian community. Neither of the articles commented Wikipedia's viewpoint on the society, but only Karmafist's viewpoint on Wikipedia. It is legitimate for a user to let others know his own viewpoints.

Moreover, both texts written by Karmafist talk about the complex contents of Wikipedia, such as RfA, AfD and policies, which newbies tend to learn more from mistakes pointed out by fellow editors who have common academic interest, instead of from this long and boring passage. When an editor has got sufficient experience to merely understand what Karmafist is talking about in his passages, that editor wouldn't be moved by Karmafist. At that point, that certain editor should already have his stand on his own viewpoints of the Wikipedian policy, instead of listening to Karmafist.

Karmafist asks newbies to sign on his Manifesto. This act, to some extent, let others show support to Karmafist. Although there is a harmful possible outcome that Karmafist himself uses these signatures to put his own manifestations onto the "policy", however, before that we must notice two points: First, Karmafist, as an experienced editor, should be able to do what he preaches. Second, I strongly believe that if Karmafist put that text onto public concern, he would receive a lot of oppositions or even a ban. Neither would be favourable to him.

To conclude, I believe that Karmafist's act on preaching his own message would not danger Wikipedia, and he should be allowed to continue doing so. --Deryck C. 03:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

This has been a recurring problem with Karmafist. During his last bout, I wrote this message on his talk page to try to explain why I find his behavior so distressing.

In part, I said:

What concerns me most is that, in your current version of the wikiphilisophies page, you seem to be deliberately poisoning new editors against Wikipedia's culture. You say things that I know to be false--that Wikipedia's IRC channels are quiet and members are unwilling to help, that Wikipedians do not in general care about one another unless they "really stick out" and so on...You seem to be saying that you're aware that your welcoming is having a disruptive effect, and you seem to be acknowledging that this is a deliberate act. You are doing so, not with the apparent purpose of trying to welcome new users, but with a political aim: "to hasten the eventual collision of the real world with the "wiki world" as well as to help newbies avoid becoming the next Joeyramoney". While I would welcome any attempt to warn editors against doing rash things for a "joke", nowhere in your wikiphilosophies do you say any such thing. Your precise meaning in hasten the eventual collision of the real world with the "wiki world" is obscure, but it seems evident that you have some political aim in mind, beyond welcoming editors.

He replied in this message. While he did not accept my points, he said: "i'm going to hold off on the welcomings until discussing things with Jimbo,"

Well he started things up again, and in the most provocative manner imaginable, with this edit whose summary says "Ok, here come the thugs", --Tony Sidaway 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by SCZenz

I expect it will be more than obvious to the ArbCom members why mass-spamming new users with one-sided information and a call to Wikipoliticking is a bad thing; I am more than happy to expound upon it if necessary. I have already typed many, many words on this matter on his user page [1] [2], and although he has continued to explain why his actions are acceptable, he has not changed them. Karmafist, like all Wikipedia users, has wide latitude in presenting his views about how to run the site—but the current method, I believe, is clearly over the line.

The last time I spoke with Karmafist, he agreed not to send further welcomes in this manner until he had had another talk with Jimbo Wales. I made sure Jimbo was aware of this condition so he could try to talk him out of it, and Jimbo seemed to indeed be interested in further conversation with Karmafist, but I don't know if any conversation has taken place yet.

Karmafist and I have worked together and listened to each other in the past, and I find it deeply frustrating that he can't see the harm he's causing Wikipedia. He believes the site needs to be shaken up and its management drastically changed, and it would appear that he realizes that established users mostly disagree with him. His conclusion that this gives him the right or obligation to create a oppositional new user subculture [3] is deeply troubling.

I think Karmafist's repeated behavior, however well-intentioned or principled, is grounds for a block for disruption. However, it would probably be more worthwhile for ArbCom to take up this case and make this matter clear. If you do, I strongly urge a temporary injunction against customized welcome messages by Karmafist, as suggested by Bunchofgrapes. -- SCZenz 04:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Update: It may be worth noting that Karmafist has already announced his intention to ignore any temporary injunctions. -- SCZenz 08:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Kaldari

This is, IMO, much ado about nothing. If Wikipedia can't stand one editor's vocal criticisms, what chance does it have to survive in the broader marketplace of ideas. If there are legitimate criticisms, let them be aired. If the criticisms are baseless, let them die of their own accord. As John Seigenthaler Sr. once said, the solution to bad speech is better speech, not censorship. Muffling karmafist only fuels the fire of those who want to confront "the cabal". Let karmafist speak his piece. If you disagree with what he has to say, write a response to his welcome message and post it as a follow-up. People are capable of thinking for themselves. We should not be so terrified of criticism that we feel the need to ban it. Ironically that is the first step to producing the kind of stifling environment that karmafist is criticizing. Kaldari 07:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with what he has to say, write a response to his welcome message and post it as a follow-up.. So, in your view, if we all did this, and every newcomer was greeted by a flurry of ten or twenty activists trying to sway them to their "side"... that would be OK? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One editor who has been otherwise totally uninvolved in these shenanigans (AFAIK), Robth, has written an excellent argument on why inducting newbies into WikiPolitics is bad. Johnleemk | Talk 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Robth's argument seems to essentially be that newbies don't understand wikipolitics so they shouldn't be exposed to it until they are more experienced. That's a good argument, and I agree with it, but is it imperative enough to justify officially censuring an editor? It's like saying that you shouldn't talk to children about politics because they won't understand it, but then using that argument to make talking to children about politics illegal. I guess the question is how much harm do you think Karmafist is actually doing to Wikipedia? So far I haven't seen evidence of any actual harm, merely a bit of soapbox grandstanding. Kaldari 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't make laws here on Wikipedia. We have rules for making the site run well, and they're based on what breaks things. Karmafist, especially at his most uncivil, was potentially doing a lot of harm. And things would've gotten much worse if others had duplicated his behavior in order to "counter" it. -- SCZenz 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Many of Karmafist's actions could certainly have done damage to Wikipedia: the propogandist welcome message, the uncivil edit summaries. But a "Save Wikipedia" link in his signature? Banning this signature in welcome messages seems excessive to me. Newbies can't be sheltered completely, even if such a thing was desirable. They are going to be exposed to wikipolitics on many userpages or talk pages - even such things as "This user trusts Jimbo," on SCZenz's own userpage, imply that some don't trust Jimbo.

Karmafist thinks his manifesto is very important, and putting a direct link in his signature is a way of emphasizing this. Maybe a couple of newbies will be turned off or not understand, but so what? I'm sure a fair number of people are turned off of Wikipedia by our policy of no "adult content" censorship in articles like Nude. But we maintain that others who are not offended should be free to visit these articles if they choose. Similarly, the newbies can choose to visit Karmafist's link, or not, and should nt to be put off or offended if they do so. Also, there will be some (I'd like to think many) users who, like me, enjoy politics, and are fascinated by a glimpse into the inner workings of this giant repository of knowledge.

I wish the arbcom had thought a bit more about the signature issue before closing the case. At the very least, Karmafists could have been offered an option of changing the link title to "My Manifesto," "My Wikiphilosophies," or some other non-official-sounding name. TheJabberwock 04:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. KF has been greeting people on a positively industrial scale (itself a bad thing, IMO), so more than a "a couple of newbies" are affected. The "save wikipedia" link in essence is the propogandist welcome, by (only slightly) other means. Why should one person's alleged right to campaign be privileged over many, many people's right not to be "bitten", either directly or indirectly, as clearly established by policy?

The more general issue is what sort of signature content is appropriate in general. While it's especially unwelcome in welcome messages (as it were), axe-grinding sigs in general strike me as an amazingly bad idea -- especially as compared to the mountain that's been made out of the userbox molehill. In several instances, signatures have been used to essentially continue a dispute or a protest, far outside its original context. That is, I think, entirely counterproductive, as while disputes can be used to lower morale and introduce disruption just about globally, they're only ever going to be resolved locally. Alai 21:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Clerking

Can people please stop making major changes to this case's (or any other case's) subpages without agreement from the arbs? The arbs and clerks have specific procedures on how to open a case and where everything should fit in. Yesterday Phroziac opened this case (incorrectly, I should add; I had to complete the notification of the parties and commenters, and fix a couple of broken links), and today TML1988 has moved the outside statements from here to the main case page. Please, don't do this. I know you guys mean well, but the clerks are here for a reason. Even if you do something to save us or the arbs the trouble, we still have to double-check everything, and this is even more work because errors hide themselves a lot more easily when everything has been done (incorrectly or otherwise). This is especially so if you are not fully acquainted with the procedure for handling arbitration cases. Thanks, Johnleemk | Talk 06:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from project page.

The following was posted to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist by KFSP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at 19:01, 2006 April 19. —Encephalon 19:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you think to stop me with that, you're very mistaken. No [[Kangaroo Court]] is going to cross my way. - [[User:Karmafist|Karmafist]]