Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if 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 enacted.

On this case, 2 arbitrators are recused and 1 is inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net aye votes needed to pass (each nay vote subtracts an aye)
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Temporary staying of previously issued ban

Enacted 1) The one year ban against RK's editing of articles related to Judaism is suspended pending the completion of this case.

Aye:
  1. I would like to see RK's current editing behaviour on these articles before determining whether the ban is warranted. -- Grunt   ҈  01:11, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 01:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Worth a try.
  3. Personally, I would be more interested in hearing what the other people who frequently edit those articles have to say. →Raul654 01:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 02:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Civility

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave in a calm and mutally respective manner in their dealings with other users. When disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Aye:
  1. Previously passed wording of this principle. -- Grunt   ҈  20:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] No personal attacks

2) No personal attacks.

Aye:
  1. Previously passed wording of this principle. -- Grunt   ҈  20:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Consensus

3) As put forward in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Surveys and requests for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.

Aye:
  1. Previously passed wording of this principle. -- Grunt   ҈  20:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Previous personal attacks / incivility

1) Prior to the previous case against him, RK engaged in innumerable personal attacks and general incivil practices.

Aye:
  1. This much is clear to me, or the previous committee would not have passed findings to this effect. -- Grunt   ҈  20:38, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Changes in editing habits

2) RK has significantly improved his editing habits since the previous case against him, and after the four-month ban instituted by the previous case has edited articles seen by others to be contentious to him in a fashion consistent with the principles of civility and consensus.

Aye:
  1. RK still may not be a model editor, but he certainly appears to be more calm and collected than he was before. -- Grunt   ҈  20:38, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Grunt. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) He's not perfect but has calmed down a lot.
  4. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
  1. Looking through the evidence, I really want to split this up. He has significantly improved, but still manages far too much incivility (c.f. the Jayjg evidence) - David Gerard 21:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) as David - there is still far too much characterisation of others state of mind rather than addressing questions. The apparent lack of understanding of the reasons for the previous ban also concerns me.

2.1) RK has not significantly improved his editing habits since the previous case against him, and after the four-month ban instituted by the previous case has not edited articles seen by others to be contentious to him in a fashion consistent with the principles of civility and consensus.

Aye:
Nay:
  1. RK still may not be a model editor, but he certainly appears to be more calm and collected than he was before. -- Grunt   ҈  20:38, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Concur with Grunt. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) As above.
  4. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. Looking through the evidence, I really want to split this up. He has significantly improved, but still manages far too much incivility (c.f. the Jayjg evidence) - David Gerard 21:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) see above

[edit] Personal attacks on mailing lists

3) RK has historically taken disputes on en: Wikipedia to the wikien-l mailing list, his mails about the disputes including accusations of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathies.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is not talking about the last month.
  2. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 23:35, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Grunt   ҈  01:25, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 11:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed remedies

[edit] Previous ban

1) As RK has demonstrated improved editing habits, remedy #2 of the previous Arbitration case is hereby revoked.

Aye:
  1. Grunt   ҈  20:39, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait! It's way, way too early to be making decisions like this at this point in time. -- Grunt   ҈  15:50, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
  1. Agree with Grunt. →Raul654 16:46, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) I want to think further on this before giving it a solid 'aye'


1.1) As RK has not demonstrated improved editing habits, remedy #2 of the previous Arbitration case is reaffirmed.

Aye:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) I would like to ammend this to "sufficiently improved"
Nay:
  1. Read my opinion on the associated FoF above. -- Grunt   ҈  20:39, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) abstain on this and 1 as I don't think it's that clear-cut

1.2) As RK has demonstrated some improvement in editing habits, but not to the status of "model editor", remedy #2 of the previous Arbitration case is hereby revoked and replaced with the measures outlined below.

Aye:
  1. If your concern is with saying outright that RK has reformed... -- Grunt   ҈  15:34, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  2. I am happy with this wording Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 04:20, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't see enough change to reverse the previous ruling - however - if 1.1 doesn't pass, I will agree to this
  6. David Gerard 22:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Revert limitation

2) RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on articles material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of three months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the three-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators.

Aye:
  1. If the ban is lifted, I would still like to see measures implemented to prevent RK from getting out of hand again. I view a one-revert limitation as an effective way to curb POV pushing which appears to have been a major issue in the last case. -- Grunt   ҈  20:45, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
    Addendum: only if 1) or 1.2) passes and 2.1) and 2.2) do not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) I've changed "articles" to "material". Also, this is only if not 2.1 or 2.2.
  5. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) conditional on 1.1 not passing, 1 or 1.2 passing. Only if not 2.1 or 2.2
Nay:
Abstain:

2.1) RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of six months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the six-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 21:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) If not 2.2.
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:30, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    Addendum: only if 1) or 1.2) passes and and 2.2) does not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) conditional on 1.1 not passing, 1 or 1.2 passing. Only if not 2.2
Nay:
Abstain:

2.2) RK is limited to one revert per twenty-four hour period on material directly or indirectly related to Jews and/or Judaism for a period of twelve months, with violations treated as violations of the three-revert rule and also resetting the twelve-month period. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the administrators.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 21:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is the original period applied. Reverts are bad. Reverts to any previous version bad. Convincing other editors through discussion that your revert is good enough for them to apply is good.
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:30, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    Addendum: only if 1) or 1.2) passes. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 03:21, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Nohat 06:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 23:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) conditional on 1.1 not passing, 1 or 1.2 passing. First choice in this section.
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attack parole

3) RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for three months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the three month period shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. If the ban is lifted, I would still like to see measures implemented to prevent RK from getting out of hand again. Personal attack paroles like the one above are, I view, an effective way to squish potential personal attack behaviour. -- Grunt   ҈  20:45, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
    Addendum: only if 1) or 1.2) passes and and 3.1) and 3.2) do not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 20:57, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) - only if not 3.1 or 3.2
    I should note also that this is intended to be a very short leash. At admin discretion is the normal criterion. To be safe, RK should IMO stick strictly to discussion of the article content and references, and take care not to attribute any descriptions to other editors whatsoever - David Gerard 21:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Nay:
  1. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) too short. We are replacing a year long ban of certain articles, our replacements should therefore also be a year long.
  2. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) agree with Theresa
Abstain:

3.1) RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for six months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the six month period shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 23:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) - if not 3.2
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:34, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    Addendum: only if 1) or 1.2) passes and and 3.2) does not pass. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) only if 3.2 does not pass
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) only if 3.2 does not pass
Nay:
Abstain:

3.2) RK is placed on standard personal attack parole for twelve months. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week, and the twelve month period shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 23:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) - preferred
  2. Grunt   ҈  01:34, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    Addendum: only if 1) or 1.2) passes. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Nohat 06:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) (prefer this length)
  7. sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) First choice in this section.
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Personal attacks on Wikimedia mailing lists

4) The personal attack parole shall include posts to Wikimedia mailing lists, such as wikien-l, carrying on disputes on Wikipedia. If he makes any posts which are judged by a mailing list administrator an en: Wikipedia administrator to be personal attacks - including but not limited to accusations of anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathy - he may be temp-banned for up to a week under the provisions of the personal attack parole, he may be suspended for up to a week from the mailing list in question, and the three month personal attack period shall be reset.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) Who does the judging may need some work. Note the "may" in there - we're not ordering anyone running the lists to do anything. I am an admin on wikien-l and we've tended to apply a very light hand to blocking the obnoxious, but personal attacks would be a good reason. Feel free to fiddle with the wording to get the point across that expanding the dispute to the mailing list is unacceptable.
    I've changed the wording to match whatever period is decided in 3. - David Gerard 23:34, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Nohat 21:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 11:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 03:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Only if the personal attack period applies, of course. -- Grunt   ҈  15:32, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
Nohat 20:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) (for now). Are there enough mailing list admins to implement this effectively?
I'm one, if it doesn't risk crossing the streams (which would of course be bad). But I've changed it to read "an en: Wikipedia administrator", of which there are plenty on wikien-l - David Gerard 21:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. I'm not really happy with the idea of connecting behaviour on the mailing lists to bans on the wiki - any more than I would with a similar connection to another project or language version. In my opinion, this is a matter for the mailing list community and administrators to decide sannse (talk) 21:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

RK honestly doesn't see any problem, others do and have provided substantial evidence. That makes this a tricky one. But we've fairly consistently held that accusations of anti-Semitism or of Nazi sympathy without damn good substantiation constitute personal attacks, for instance - David Gerard 16:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close

Four net Aye votes needed to close case (each Nay vote subtracts an Aye)
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Raul hasn't voted (significanty) on this case, and has declared himself away, which means that there is a majority of five required. The remedies appear to have met this threshold and I move to close. -- Grunt   ҈  16:24, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Neutralitytalk 17:30, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Aye (by 16:24, 2005 Apr 4) - David Gerard 22:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agreed - all is clear now sannse (talk) 23:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) (vote valid at 16:24, 2005 Apr 4)
  5. Aye ➥the Epopt 17:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)