Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/jguk

Here I demonstrate how I would react and what decisions I would make in a real case. I have chosen a decided case at random and explain how I would have reacted to and decided the case. I was interested myself to see how differently I would have reacted.

This case is at Requests for arbitration/RK.

Preliminary decisions on hearing the matter
At this stage I would have asked one Arbitrator to remove themselves from future discussion as their comments suggest an element of pre-judging. These comments question their objectivity in deciding the case.

In particular, the comment “RK is indeed remarkably rude and a frequent violator of the Wikipedia:no personal attacks policy.” is particularly objectionable. It suggests RK would not receive a fair hearing from that Arbitrator.

Whether the case should have been accepted for arbitration
Simonides requested mediation on 14 July 2004. RK accepted mediation on 20 July 2004, and then Simonides withdrew his request for mediation with the comment on 27 July 2004 with: ‘I would like to retract my request for mediation with all of the above users. I am not taking back any of the arguments I have made or factual opinions stated - but I wish to end the animosity, proceed with the editing of articles whose progress has been severely hampered, and would also like to apologize to the other users for any undue stress and misunderstandings.’ These are sentiments that I approve of, though on 22 July 2004, Simonides supported the request for arbitration against RK. The history of the RfM page does not now show RK’s edits - so I will assume his only edit was to make the comment that is currently on the page.

The main complainant, Zero, did not provide any evidence of alternative means of settling the dispute, but instead quoted as evidence old complaints against RK dating from the middle on 2003. I fail to see how these complaints are of relevance here.

In view of this I am not convinced that alternative means of settling this dispute were properly employed - there is clearly a lot of history between the complainant sand the complainee. Nor am I convinced by much of the evidence on the Requests for Arbitration page itself (see below for a fuller discussion of all evidence offered).

On balance, if I was just looking at the Requests for Arbitration page itself, I would have declined to have heard this Arbitration.

Proposed principles
Principles should apply regardless of the case immediately to hand. They are meant to be statements that apply to everyone, should not be controversial and there should be an expectation that they would have a consensus among Wikipedians. There were 5 principles the Arbitrators agreed upon, all of which were supported by (what I presume to be) then-existing advice pages. I object to none of these, all of which are good advice for every user.

If you wish to see those principles, click on Requests for arbitration/RK.

Evidence against RK
On the whole, whilst there is some evidence of RK crossing the line with his comments on edit summaries. A detailed analysis of the evidence shows that much of it does not hold water.

Many examples of bad behaviour cited relate from many months ago. Reading through RK's edits that the Arbitrators were directed to - I see nothing objectionable. RK was debating strongly, but, in the main, politely. He was seeking to support his additions to articles with sources and asking those who disagreed with him to cite their sources.

In fact, a detailed review of those edits leads me to agree somewhat with the Outside view presented to Arbitrators: For reference this was:


 * "3 Outside view
 * This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
 * RK can be reactionary at times, but is usually willing to continue discussion on issues until some sort of resolution can be reached. The best solution to the problems outlined here might be for RK to take some time away from the articles toward which he has a strong emotional or personal attachment, the defense of which seem to be causing him to lash out at times. RK probably means well, but could be having trouble maintaining an objective distance from certain issues.
 * Wclark 22:32, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Examples of RK crossing the line
The evidence cited which suggests to me that RK overstepped the line is mostly in the edit summaries that were quoted. However, I note that the edit history quoted is over many many months. I am inclined to only look at the more recent edit history. Some of the edits quoted are not objectionable. Others may be objectionable (the claims of “vandalism” are not objectionable if, indeed, it was clearly vandalism that was being objected to, but are objectionable otherwise). I have not reviewed what provoked the comments: had I done so, some may have proven justified. I shall continue my comments on the basis that they were not, though as an Arbitrator I would at least have chosen a sample to check. I would also have given RK an opportunity to respond explicitly to see if he wished to disagree with my preliminary findings of “objectionable”.

Edits which I do find objectionable include:


 * Since Zero has a history of supporting anti-Semites, I would not think his vote matters very much here. This is not a joke.


 * please be aware that Zero is lying, and we can prove this


 * stop pushing your anti-Zionist bias


 * VANDALISM ALERT. Simonides is out of control


 * You have now exposed yourself as a Muslim hating bigot.


 * Its clearly a hack job by paranoids


 * Your recent actions are hysterica, a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy, and anti-Semitic.


 * Without any exagerration, this behaviour is called "Lying to one's face", and is one of the definitions of trolling.

Evidence I reject
Simonides claim that RK misrepresented his views:


 * It is clear to me that, whilst it was unwise for RK to use quotation marks in outlining his views of what Simonides said, from the sense in which he wrote what he wrote, any reasonable reader would understand RK was putting his own gloss and interpretation on Simonides’ words and that they were not a direct quote. RK was offer his opinion on Simonides’ words - not misrepresenting them.

Simonides claim of threatening libel actions:


 * The comments about libel appear to be a reference to some historical event (of which I know nothing) called "bloody libel". They do not appear to be legal threats against other users.

Evidence of old disputes:


 * I found it hard to read the Community case RK page, but I didn't think it matters here. That page has not changed since 31 August 2003. This case against RK commenced on 20 July 2004. I find it hard to see how a page that is 11 months old can influence this case. It may influence the final sanction on a user (if there is one), but even then, an 11 month gap seems a large one to bridge.


 * The most recent comment on was on 1 October 2003, and there is also unrelated to this case.


 * refers to comments made on 20 October 2003.

Proposed findings of facts
Here I note the actual "proposed findings of fact" together with my comments thereafter. I also note that I would have put my discussions, deliberations and reasonings on the Wikipedia namespace so everyone can see why I decide cases the way I do.

1) RK has repeatedly, over the course of his long presence here, made a very great number of personal attacks, despite numerous warnings to the contrary.

I would have preferred to have deleted 'very great', but in view of the edit summaries provided (and assuming a more detailed review of them did not show they were justified) I would have agreed with this finding of fact.

2) RK has threatened legal action against other users, both on the mailing lists and on the Wikipedia proper, such as making edits with the edit summary "Legal action may need to be taken"

Only two examples of this were quoted relating to one instance where RK felt personal information about him had been published that could have put himself in personal danger. It is not clear what the nature of that personal information was, or whether RK's fears were well-founded. But the edits appear to show that RK's concerns were genuine. It is also clear that RK did not want to make legal threats, but really just wished that personal information be deleted and not repeated. In the circumstances, I do not think RK was being unreasonable. Technically the finding of fact was true, but I do not consider it reprehensible in these circumstances.

3) RK has repeatedly and to great degree violated NPOV, inserting POV statements into a variety of articles primarily connected with Judaism and Zionism, including intransigent reverting and edit-warring.

From what I have read (which is quite a lot, but not all that I would have read if deciding this case as an Arbitrator) RK added much detail to controversial articles. He was also willing, in the main, to discuss his edits (as the outside view states). I have seen nothing that makes me think that RK was repeated breaking the NPOV rules. In the main he sought to support his edits based on sources, and refuted the edits of others on the grounds that they did not cite proper academic RK was involved in content disputes with other editors, but I find nothing particularly objectionable in this. I do not agree with this 'finding of fact'.

4) Some of RK's work outside of the field of Judaism, most notably in genetics, has been of a high quality.

I am in no place to judge quality of edits made in articles I know little about.

Proposed remedies
I am also commenting based on my findings of fact, not the actual ones made. In practice, I would have discussed those openly with other Arbitrators - I would have considered their reasonings, they mine - and hopefully we would have come to a unanimous decision.

1) RK is banned from editing the Wikipedia for a period of four months.


 * The reasoning behind the length of this ban is absent. I would have liked to have seen it. Four months for what are admittedly a somewhat larger number of inappropriate comments than is generally acceptable seems harsh. It is important to enforce community norms though. I would have preferred a one month ban suspended for six months. To be enforced if there is a non-trivial breach of an admonishment not to use objectionable language or a further breach of Wikipedia policy leading to a finding against him by the Arbcom within six months.

1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time he is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.


 * A joke - which is quite inappropriate in the circumstances. If Arbcom is to be taken seriously as an effective disciplinary measure, "jokes" like this should not be made by the Arbitrators.

2) RK is permanently banned from editing articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the descretion of the admins. This ban is subject to reconsideration by the Arbitration Committee at some future date.


 * Since this user primarily edits pages related directly or indirectly to Judaism, this is a significant condition to put on this user. For a few personal attacks, and bearing in mind my proposed alternative to remedy 1, I do not find this remedy justified.


 * One Arbitrator voted against this proposal with the comment:


 * "I do not support a permanent ban. A century from now -- heck, maybe only fifty years from now -- RK may have grown up. I would support a ban of a year or less."


 * Unfortunately this is the third Arbitrator who appears to treat the proposed remedies as a joke. The insult on RK is also uncalled for (and particularly inappropriate bearing in mind finding of fact number 1). 

2.1) RK is banned from editing articles directly or indirectly related to Judaism for one year. Determing what is directly or indirectly related shall be left to the discretion of the admins. (And as is true of all arbcom bans, each time he violates this, the count shall be reset back to one year.)


 * Same objection to this as I have for proposed remedy 2.

3) If remedies (1) and (2) pass, RK is encouraged to return after the end of his ban to contribute to areas other than Judaism.


 * As noted above, I would have encouraged RK to continue contributing freely, but admonished him to make sure his comments and attitude is in line with acceptable community practice.

4) The administrators of the Wikipedia mailing lists are reminded that they may block RK from the mailing lists at their discretion.


 * This isn’t a remedy. It's not clear to me what this refers to either, so I can't comment more. (eg can those administrators block anybody at their discretion, or just RK?)

Summary
It looks to me that an editor has been forced out of Wikipedia as a result of a concerted effort by a small number of editors who disagreed with his reasoned edits on controversial articles. Note: I do not comment on whether his edits were true or whether I like them - I only comment that he explained his reasoning.

Also, a number of Arbitrators clearly saw this as an issue to joke about, and one was unconcerned as to whether he was objective or not. jguk 21:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)