Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist/Proposed decision

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.
 * Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
 * Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
 * Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if she/he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 0 Arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 7 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template
1)

{text of proposed orders}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this statement covers all the bases well. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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 Assume good faith.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 22:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a battleground
6) From 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.


 * Support:
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit·t 09:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Karmafist is uncivil
3) Karmafist has frequently been uncivil to other editors and administrators   , including making personal attacks  . He has been blocked a total of four times for personal attacks.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 09:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Temp-banned" sounds odd, so "blocked" instead. "Shall" changed to "may" per previous rulings. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.


 * Support:
 * Dmcdevit·t 08:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As Remedy 1) Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 22:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 00:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Implementation notes
''Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.''

As I understand it, Karmafist is banned from welcoming people with anything other than the standard template. He may not include links to personal advocacy pages or use political language in his welcome message, signature, or edit summary. "Welcoming" shall be interpreted broadly by admins. Karmafist is also placed on civility parole. Admins may block Karmafist for up to one week should he violate any of these remedies. After five such blocks, the maximum length of such a block shall be increased to one year. Johnleemk | Talk 12:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.


 * Right, we appear to be done now. Close.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Dmcdevit·t 22:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close, yes. James F. (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close ➥the Epopt 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raul654 02:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Motion to close 1 (withdrawn)

 * The parties to this case have resolved it without the need for our intervention.  No need for further arbitration. Raul654 09:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Strike that comment. I think it's clear from these recent edits he made   (look at the edit summaries) that he's gaming the system. I withdraw the motion. Raul654 07:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Close. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Fair enough. I'm convinced there's more to say.  This is not to discourage parties from attempting to resolve disputes in general, though.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see a resolution here though (for Wikipedia, not for the parties): Karmafist will still be linking this when welcoming, unless he doesn't sign, so it seems to still need resolution. And his assumptions of bad faith seem to be getting worse, not better. Oppose closing for now, until we can at least think about this some more, or possibly make this enforceable. Dmcdevit·t 07:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dom; no closing for now. James F. (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur with Dmcdevit. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)