Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist/Proposed decision

Wording of civility parole proposal
"he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week" looks a little odd to me, when the remainder of the proposal makes it clear that a blocking is envisioned. Temp-banned is too vague and it's jargon too, and I suggest that "blocked" would be better. "Shall" is probably too strong here, too. "May" makes more sense here (an admin is permitted to block him in the circumstances pertaining, but isn't being ordered to do so).

I'm speaking as an involved party, here, and not as a clerk. --Tony Sidaway 10:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding signatures in Karmafist's welcomes
As worded right now, Karmafist "may not link to personal advocacy pages" in his welcome message or signature. Many of us have at least a few statements of Wikiphilosophical principals on our main user pages... statements that could be interpreted as advocacy. Is some clarification needed regarding whether Karmafist's normal signature link could be considered a violation of this ruling? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think saying he can't link to his userpage would be too far, as, unless he inappropriately pipes it with some message, that's the normal thing to do. Rather than being an advocacy page, that can be construed as nothing else, it's a page with advocacy on it. Unless he's somehow using this exception to game the spirit of our ruling, I wouldn't see this as a violation. Dmcdevit·t 00:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If he attempts to game the system, it wouldn't be difficult to see. Basically, we're simply trying to avoid the nonsense he's bent on promoting. -ZeroTalk 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Have some civilty. He's a good-faith contributor with ideas of what needs to be done to "save" Wikipedia that just don't match everybody else's, and a temper problem. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was being civil. He was asked to desist utilizing the welcome template for selfish gain, and later decided to play us for fools and instead sneak it into his sig. I was one of the select few who really believed that Karmafist was honestly attempting to difuse the situation (per the porposal), only to violate that expectation. I am at a loss for words. Its wrong anyway you look at it. -ZeroTalk 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I may have overreacted some by calling your statement uncivil; sorry if so. My point was that characterizing Karmafist's views as "nonsense" is unfair. Try "controversial" or something. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I put a new proposed remedy over on the workshop, that tries to address the situation without focusing solely on "welcome" messages. Hopefully, it would curb attempts to game the system.   InkSplotch(talk) 23:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Allowed welcome templates
Not sure if this is the right place to propose; move this comment if it's not. Shouldn't Karmafist also be allowed to use Welcome2, Anon, etc.? TheJabberwock 02:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcomeip is important too. As currently worded he wouldn't be allowed to use it. --kingboyk 12:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Though it's not a big deal, I noted that he only uses the standard template (with his add-ons), and figures this was the least ambiguous way to make it. I don't expect it to be a problem. Dmcdevit·t 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about Blatantvandal and test? Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call that welcoming... Dmcdevit·t 23:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Blatantvandal does start off with "Welcome to Wikipedia"... Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "You're blocked, but when you're unblocked, kindly sign my petition." Nah. :) --Tony Sidaway 00:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol! I must be slow today, missed that first time round. Very droll. --kingboyk 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Inksplotch's proposal
Could someone at least reply as to why Inksplotch's proposed expansion is not necessary before closing the case? TheJabberwock 01:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an arbiter - but I'll take a stab. The ploy Inksplotch is worrying about -- greeting, then coming back and leaving a message -- clealy falls under '"Welcoming" is to be interpreted broadly, to prevent gaming.' It's already taken care of. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I noticed that before. It's a good statement, but I still worry it's not enough.  Rather, I worry that admin wars could errupt over interpreting that statement.  Still, it's all a matter of degrees.   InkSplotch(talk) 03:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There will be no admin wars over this. Nobody would dare. --Tony Sidaway 13:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)