User talk:Karmafist/Archive19

Old Talk Page Skin

---

• User_talk:Karmafist/POTW Archive
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive1
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive2
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive3
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive4
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive5
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive6
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive7
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive8
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive9
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive10
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive11
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive12
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive13
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive14
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive15
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive16
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive17
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive18
• User_talk:Karmafist/Archive19

My Manifesto

Works for me

Your new welcome message with the signature link works for me; thanks. Now about those WP:POINT edit summaries of yours... ;-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ditto; I don't care to bug anyone about what's in his signature. Karmafist, you intend to switch away from the old method, to this new method, on a permanent basis? If so, I really don't think the ArbCom case is necessary.-- SCZenz 17:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Karmafist/Workshop#Motion_to_drop_the_case. I hope we can reach mutually-agreeable solutions by easier methods in the future. -- SCZenz 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious

This may be one of the funniest edit summaries I've ever seen.Gator (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I must admit : I LOL-ed too. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 12:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

For one of the funniest edit summaries I've ever seen, I award you the surreal barnstar

--Gator (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Public Office

I wish you the best in your campaign. I just ran for public office in my town council as the darkhorse candidate and pulled off an upset victory. I wish you the same fortune.Gator (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Boston, Lincolnshire — {{minor}}

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help save the number 3055

Hi, Please help save the number 3055 by voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3055 (number). Without this number, 3054 would be followed directly by 3056, and we all know that would be wrong! --BostonMA 18:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit summaries

Please stop assuming bad faith. There is no cabal. Cheers, Alphax ^τεχ 05:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to assume. There is a cabal, whether you believe it or not. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 05:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have of this? Assume good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. Alphax ^τεχ 05:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am living evidence. Have a nice night. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 05:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Following the rules does not give you permission to be a dick. Alphax ^τεχ 05:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet other people have this permission? Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 05:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet. --Sockenpuppe 05:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell's comment

That was not very nice. The issue of your signature is obviously going to come up at some point; why not discuss it now? I was about to reply to Gmaxwell with this comment:

You may be right, but it's not that common-sensical. Many users (example) have their Wikiphilosophies on their user page, which is linked to by their signature. Thus, the Wikipedian who welcomes a new user will most likely have an influence on that user, whether they try to recruit the person or not. So I think you should explain why Karmafist's signature is different, and needs to be changed. TheJabberwock 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

but had an edit conflict with you. In my opinion, you should restore the original comment, append mine to it, and respond civilly. TheJabberwock 05:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Sure, you're right. Bullies just piss me off. Here's the comment, and i'll put a civil response to it.

If you're going to link to your manifesto in your sig, fine. But if you do so you should not continue welcoming new users. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 04:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Too bad. I like welcoming people. Have a nice night. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 05:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, Karmafist, just kindly stop welcoming users, but if you do, please use a sig that does not include the eassy. While it is good you are doing something that I do not see myself doing in a while, it is not a good thing to get users involved with Wikipolitik on their first welcome or first messages. That is what we are facing now is a lot of people who come to Wikipedia, edit, then get into politics, then they usually are the ones getting sent to the ArbCom. We have enough problems on the Wiki, please do not add to it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 06:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

What part of "too bad" is so hard to understand? I'm trying to solve the problems of Wikipedia. Feel free to disagree, i'm fighting for your right to do so without being arbitrarily punished by some random bully. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don’t see where the punishment is being handed out, or who the random bully is. The messages in your welcome edits have been met with significant disapproval by the community. I’d make the same request as others have on this page and ask that you please stop, linking to your thoughts on the current state of Wikipedia is one thing but making an assertion that it needs saving isn’t very helpful. Especially to new users that don’t have the background to make informed judgments about that assertion. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a living example of the many punishments being handed out, and the random bullies are numerous and growing. Please read my FAQs page before saying things like that again. I compromised, but I will not quit until there is equity and opportunity for all Wikipedians, regardless of their name. And as for "consensus"(which is another thing i'm fighting for, a real definition of what "consensus" actually is), well, if there was ever a consensus against consensus, I wouldn't listen. Doesn't the cabal always say that Wikipedia is not a Democracy? Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 06:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

When you always speak of your involvement here in terms of "fighting" is there any wonder that you're having trouble? It is really unfair to the new users to start drawing them into your drama before they've had a chance to acclimate on their own. Welcoming should be a warm and neutral engagement, free from controversy. If you can't even put on the pretense of neutrality then you shouldn't be welcoming. Your incivility is striking, have you completely forgotten how to work with others instead of against them? --Gmaxwell 07:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider your comments on incivility to be praise from Caesar, so thank you for the compliment. As for the comment in regards to collaboration, I suggest you give it a shot in this case, if the aborted Arbcom case against me showed anything, it's that i'm more than willing to compromise, if people give me one, but I will never betray my beliefs in response to ochlocratic pressure. Once the things on my manifesto, fairly simple requests really(equity, clarity, etc.), are met, i'll be more than happy to change the signature. Until then, welcoming is the perfect forum since these newbies are the most vulnerable to the contreversy you speak of, the Joeyramoney affair showed us that nobody is safe from that toxic atmosphere and it must be changed one way or another.Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, reading your FAQ page and not agreeing with it is not the same as not reading it. I'm just asking you to respect the significant disapproval your actions have been met with for the reasons I stated. I didn't say anything about consensus, nor did I equate it with Democracy. I have no problem with you fighting for anything you feel is important. It's the way you are conducting the fight is what so many people are objecting to. I also don't think you are being bullied, multiple editors expressing their objections to certain actions, even in a formal setting is not bulling. You yourself told us to feel free to disagree, right? Rx StrangeLove 07:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I can respect your right to disagree if you can respect mine. If the things on the manifesto happen, then i'll stop, unless of course, an opinion that goes against that of Jimbo's is enough to remove you from this project, because all people disagree with each other at some point. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Forking off the thread above, here is my reply to TheJabberwock: When an editor welcomes users he isn't just acting on his own, he's acting as a representative of Wikipedia. The welcome isn't just personal comment... it's as close to a direct message from Wikipedia to the user as anyone will ever get. As such there is a special responsibility taken by those performing welcomes, a responsibility to represent Wikipedia fairly and to not confuse the new user over what is official and what is personal. If you can show me someone else whos linked their non-consensus Wikipedia agenda to official sounding text like "Save Wikipedia", then I'll ask them to stop as well. I think Karmafist is pretty clear above when he says I'm trying to solve the problems of Wikipedia. that at least he thinks the save wikipedia link is furthering his goals. --Gmaxwell 07:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the comment in regards to collaboration, I suggest you give it a shot in this case, if the aborted Arbcom case against me showed anything, it's that i'm more than willing to compromise, if people give me one, but I will never betray my beliefs in response to ochlocratic pressure. Once the things on my manifesto, fairly simple requests really(equity, clarity, etc.), are met, i'll be more than happy to change the signature. Until then, welcoming is the perfect forum since these newbies are the most vulnerable to the contreversy you speak of, the Joeyramoney affair showed us that nobody is safe from that toxic atmosphere and it must be changed one way or another.Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I consider this comment to be an insult against the intelligence of newbies, and part of the problem I see and i'm trying to help fix here. The line between "official" and "personal" has been so blurred that it no longer exists, if you are in a certain group, the two are interchangable at will and those people can use the word "consensus" to try and dissaude anyone who has an opinion contrary to their own. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blured? ah. Please don't claim things are so confusing when they are not. There are a great many things which are clearly acceptable to virtually everyone as a part of the welcome process, and then there are your actions which are widely opposed. I'm not asking you to only expose new users to my prefered contraversy, I've asked you to expose them to no contraversy at all. Do you not see the difference? I don't claim that the new users are lacking in intelligence and I can't see why you'd make that claim... What my concern is that you're drafting them into your army before they've had a chance to learn how the Wiki works on their own. You're abusing your privledge of editing, and I've simply asked you to back off a bit. I haven't demanded that you discontinue with your agenda, or anything of the sort... So please discontinue the hostility towards me, it is hurtful and non-productive. --Gmaxwell 19:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond to you after the block one of your thugs put on me wears off. Karmafist ^{Save Wikipedia} 19:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

My thugs? You give me too much credit. I didn't even know you were blocked, and I'm sad that it was necessary. I don't see how the block keeps you from replying, but I think you should take it's advice and cool off. --Gmaxwell 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, I think it's pretty clear that Karmafist's signature represents his own opinion, and would be so even to a newbie. Thus, I don't have a problem with Karmafists signature per se. TheJabberwock 00:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

However, I think the welcoming process is flawed. As I said, many users have stated their own beliefs about Wikipedia on their user page. Welcoming newbies will propogate these beliefs through the signaturee, whether that is the intention of the welcomer or not. And despite the admirable goal of welcoming all newbies (which failed in my case), users such as Karmafist are propogating their beliefs when they post welcome messages en masse. I can think of a couple possible solutions:

• Welcome by computer. Give every new user a talk page preset with a welcome message. Problem: very impersonal, and devoid of meaning (the same applies to a certain extent to the current practice of human welcoming en masse).
• Block signatures from welcome messages. Problem: again, very impersonal.
• Distributed welcome messages along with the first talk page comment. Problem: many users either 1) make only a few edits or 2) make only uncontroversial/minor edits, and thus do not get comments on their talk page. Possible solution: a more widespread use of complimentary comments for new users. It would be easy to determine who is a new user if the history function was changed to display a user's number of edits. Problems with solution: making the change to the software; notifying people of the suggested increase in compliment use; problems with the use of edit counts, including editcountitis and the suggestion that more edits is more valuable. Possible solution: instead change the popup tool to include an edit count, suggesting that edit count only matters if you are interested in a specific user.

Just some things to consider. In the meantime, I'll assume good faith in terms of Karmafist's purpose in welcoming so many users, and just ask him to think about whether the welcome message is the right place to propogate his beliefs. TheJabberwock 00:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The welcoming process is not 'flawed', it is fine, it is simply being gamed. Let's just use it to welcome people, not canvas thier support for our cause, however it is done. --Doc ^ask? 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite. The welcome template was admonished by the arbriration commitie and isn't coming back. So Karma is gaming the system by tweaking his sig. That should've been disallowed when the anti-good-faith welcome template was.

This is not the way we greet users at this site and, since there is already a strong consensus on Wikipedia that such things exist solely to disparage welcomes, it's reasonable to ask why the sig should be treated any differently. I take this quite seriously. In my opinion actions of any kind blacken the reputation of Wikipedia from within, cheapening public perception of the finished product, and unnecessarily dividing the community into factions. I do hope that the rfar remedies this, and admonishes such things. And why should that be so surprising? Attacks have no place on Wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Those edit summaries

Karmafist, your edit summaries on your latest welcomes have been just plain rude. They're not constructive criticism; they're just obnoxious one-liners. It appears to me that you are trying to push the rest of us, game the system, and see how far you can go before you get blocked. I thought you wanted to have constructive dialogue, if anyone would listen; well, I have news for you: we've been listening to you, but you haven't been listening to us.

Trolling is not the way to save Wikipedia, and I find it personally very disappointing that after I assumed good faith and tried to get your arbitration case closed, you immediately resumed your old tricks. Do you understand the difference between constructive dialogue and what you're doing? Is there some way I can explain it better? Or are you just using me (and everyone else) to score "political" points? -- SCZenz 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to respond to a couple things above, but events have overtaken that conversation. So I'll just agree with SCZenz above. The summaries are purposefully aggravating other editors and making a mockery of your claims to be a victim. I just don't see what purpose they are serving except to advance your self-proclaimed martyrdom, and that's not going to help anyone. There has gotta be a better way to make your points. Rx StrangeLove 20:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Having the edit summary of the first comment on a newbie's talk page be something like Well, if you Cabalists are able to think of an excuse to block me, i'll be around. Just remember, despite your best efforts so far, i'm still here :-) is undesirable. It's making a WP:POINT, and it's not helpful to the new user. See you back soon, I hope. TheJabberwock 00:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for 24 hours for your continuing disruption despite ongoing arbitration. See WP:ANI for specific actions of yours that were unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 19:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The above was removed by Karmafist [1] in a minor edit with the edit summary of "rv vandalism". I don't think it's appropriate for Karmafist to both remove the block notice and ask that the block be lifted. --Gmaxwell 20:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. In the future, please avoid making edit summaries that might be confusing when welcoming new users. —Guanaco 20:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reblocked you for 24 hours. The previous block was perhaps contraversial, but that does not give you the right to call an admin a a 'thug' [2] and a 'vandal' [3] - those are personal attacks, and you of all people should know better. Stop pushing it. --Doc ^ask? 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Karmafist, the proper edit summary for a welcome is "welcome" or similar. I wouldn't have blocked you, but it does seem like you need time to cool down. Your claim to make points out of care for the encyclopedia, but you seem to be making them out of anger instead. -- SCZenz 21:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add that I appreciate the apology you sent earlier, I was sorry to see things got worse afterward, and I recognize it wasn't entirely your fault. But no matter how frustrated you are, you cannot be uncivil or disruptive. If you keep responding with anger to everything you see as unjust, nothing good will come of it except a feeling of well-earned martrydom. When you come back, why don't you think about whether there's some other way to accomplish your goals? -- SCZenz 21:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy, mate

Take it easy for now, mate, go on a wikibreak or something, like I'm going to do (I'm very wikistressed over accusations of vandalism (from a known troll no less) and inappropriate blocking (hah, when it was backed by at least another admin?), but you don't see me freaking out... yet), join me on my wikibreak, for, say 24 hours. Get Wikipedia off your mind. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:03 UTC (2006-03-19)

What's going on here?

I thought everything was fine a couple days ago, but I come back and find Karmafist blocked? I thought everyone was satisfied with his compromise to stop welcoming with the controversial statements and to merely link to the wikiphilosophies in his signature. A lot of users link to policy proposals in their signatures. Is Karmafist not allowed to do so because his opinions are relatively radical? He makes it very clear to new users that the petition is his opinion and not Wikipedia policy. In fact, his welcomes are personal and don't look like they're from an automatic welcome-bot, which can (in my opinion) be a good thing. Newcomers don't want to receive a standard subst:welcome; they want to know that their contributions are appreciated by a real person who has real opinions about the project. I don't understand why so many of you are coming down so hard on Karmafist. It's obvious that he has been under attack since his involvement in the pedophilia userbox wheel war, and now I'm starting to think there might actually be a cabal out to get him. [Please excuse my personal attack.] He wants to improve Wikipedia, and he wants to spread the word about his petition as much as possible. Karmafist has shown willingness to compromise. What about his opponents? Must you keep assaulting him on his talk page and blocking him until he conforms to your standards or else leaves the project? [And again.] Please try to open your minds to his side of the conflict. --TantalumTelluride 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC) edited at 02:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith and perhaps read what has happened before you attribute motives to people. You seem to want to believe this is all an ideolgical war, well, sorry, it isn't. There are many ideas about how wikipedia might develope, people express them, argue their case, and no-one gets blocked. If you can't see the difference between that, and the reasons Karmafist has been blocked, then you really don't get wikipedia. I don't want Karmafist to 'conform' - just to be calm and reasonable. Try it yourself.--Doc ^ask? 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion here on this page as well as the discussions at WP:ANI and Karmafist's arbitration. I understand that Karmafist was first blocked today (by Cyde) for continuing to welcome new users despite the ongoing arbitration. (I'm not sure if the controversial edit summaries played a role in Cyde's decision to block.) I disagree with this first block because there are no temporary injunctions against Karmafist welcoming, especially if he uses the standard template with only a link in his signature. I understand that he was blocked again (by you) for personal attacks. I disagree with the second block because I sympathize with Karmafist due to the pressure he's been under lately and because at least one other admin (Guanaco) also disagreed with the first block. Perhaps I was a little harsh in my accusations above, but I assure you that I have a great deal of respect for you as well as Cyde, and I have seen a lot of good work from both of you. I apologize for including you in the "cabal." I should have merely asked you to consider my observations without attacking you. However, I still stand by my implication that there are ideological motives underlying this series of events, on both sides. I feel that Karmafist is being unfairly singled out and scrutinized. Again, I apologize for attacking you personally, and I understand why you would be offended by my statements above. I hope you, too, understand that I was feeling a bit emotional when I wrote that message. If I want to help Karmafist, I need to remain civil. I especially don't need to direct unnecessary accusations towards such valuable members of the community as yourself. --TantalumTelluride 02:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for reminding me to assume good faith. --TantalumTelluride 02:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Also please note that I've been regularly communicating with Karmafist privately for about six weeks now. (I usually avoid private communications regarding Wikipedia, but I made an exception in this case so that I could reason with him on the assumption that we both held some of the same beliefs about the Wikipedia community, which I was not willing to acknowledge publicly at the time, for fear of being associated with trolls and other incivil users.) At first I was very suspicious of his behavior and encouraged him to back down. But over the course of several weeks, he convinced me that he is acting in good faith and that many of his controversial actions are justified. Eventually, I found myself drafting a message for him in which I essentially encouraged him to give up and forget about his petition. As soon as I realized what I was intending to tell him, I deleted the draft and decided to declare my support for him through Wikipedia's extremely public communication channel, which can be seen in this diff. Interestingly, I have never acknowledged any support publicly or privately for Karmafist's manifesto. In fact, I do not support it. I do, however, support Karmafist's right to publicize his proposal through approved channels, and I do feel that much of the opposition he has met is unwarranted. Perhaps my opinion in this case has been influencd by my private communications with Karmafist. Perhaps I can't approach the issues here from a neutral perspective because of a preexisting friendship with Karmafist. I don't know. With all due respect to the admins involved, I just feel very strongly that Karmafist's recent blocks are unwarranted. --TantalumTelluride 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, here. It isn't about political campaigning, that's just a smoke screen. It's about Karmafist deliberately and maliciously setting out to poison the minds of newcomers against the culture of Wikipedia. That is absolutely unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 05:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Poison? Maliciously? The culture of Wikipedia? Everyking 07:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

From Me

Karmafist, I think we have a mutual respect overall. We had some awful disagreements when we both first started here, but resolved those differences and you even nominated me in my successful bid for adminship. I voted for your reinstatement as an admin as well, and do not think you should have been de-adminned at the time you were. I want to make this comment public but it is not done to scould, start an argument or to lecture you. I therefore state my opinion on some of the things going on with you in the following way. I do not think you should be linking in your welcome template or in your signature to your manifesto. Please just use a non-linking signature and a a regular welcome template (modified if desired, but not linking to areas that may be of conflicts or divisive). It really is important to Wikipedia that we do all we can to be neutral, and this can never be more true than when we are greeting newbies. You are a smart person as clearly shown in your comments and in most of your edits, so if this were to be resolved now, I think you will appear much less controversial by most editors. I don't agree with everything the "cabal" does and I understand your argument (not that I completely agree with it, I just understand it). I just do not think that this is the road back to adminship for you, nor do I think it is helping us build a better encyclopedia. Just let it go man, resume your normally scheduled programming of a few months ago. Peace!--MONGO 11:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)