Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
RK is legendary for his offensive behavior towards other Wikipedians over years. He is especially notorious for accusing his opponents of anti-Semitism. Now he is repeatedly calling two respected Wikipedians Zero and User:DanKeshet "anti-Semites". This cannot be tolerated and I am asking the arbitration committee to put an end to it. This charge does not involve a particular single article. Typical of RK's recent behavior is his edit summary "Sysops, please stop Zero's ad homenim personal attacks and anti-Semitic Jew bashing" and "Responding to Dan's anti-Semitic canards" on Talk:Israel Shahak. In that talk page you can also find several charges of anti-Semitism, as well as intentional distortions of the words of Dan and myself. Another example appears in this edit of another article. In addition, mention can be made of RK's slanders and distortions on the WikiEN mailing list, such as here, here, and here. Note that I am not referring to disagreements over the facts covered by the said articles. I am big enough to handle robust disagreements over facts and how to present them. This complaint only concerns the practice of using abuse and lies against other editors. I'm sure the committee is well aware that I am hardly the first Wikipedian to make such complaints about RK. Additional examples of RK's antisocial behavior can be found listed at Community case RK, Requests for comment/RK2, and other similar places I can't find just now. I have to say that I never thought I would be taking this step as generally speaking I stay clear of such activities. But I consider anti-Semites to be the lowest of scum and there is only so many times I can accept being accused of being one. --Zero 09:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (original request 13:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC))


 * I would like to see some action taken against this user; I have been here for just over a month and from early on this user has engaged in incredible harassment of all kinds, which I listed here Requests for comment/RK2, and over here Requests for mediation/Archive 8. This user has repeatedly created abusive sections on Talk pages, or edits, and posted a message to the whole Wiki-en mailing list with my name in the title - this goes beyond ad hominem and verges on defamation, stalking, and what have you; he also engages in edit wars and frequently leaves slanderous and unfounded notes on numerous Talk pages of Wikipedia Users merely for the sake of stirring opinion against another user as he has done on Philosophy and elsewhere (documented by numerous other users here Requests for comment/RK before I joined). He has made, and continues to make this site a very unpleasant experience, distorting issues by engaging in hysterical attacks and utterly pointless edit wars which other users are then drawn into defending themselves against, an exhausting, wasteful and time consuming process, as can be seen from the pages he is involved in (Special:Contributions/RK), most recently Islamophobia. -- Simonides 23:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I support this arbitration request. Zero may have been thinking of RK. Martin 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Can I urge that this user is banned immediately? Has has deleted carefully worded material on Philosophy five times in the past day, and I believe he is about to do it again. The material was previously under discussion, a discussion he has refused to engage in at any time; his only contributions to the Talk page have been libel, and his past record of such activity is so long I can't figure out why he is still being tolerated here. -- Simonides 21:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's my place to comment here, but I must strongly agree with Zero's and Simonides' complaints. I am currently involved in a dispute with RK myself, and I find his near constant use of abusive language, ad hominem statements, and deletions of material he disapproves of from Talk: pages make it extremely difficult to work on any Wikipedia articles in which he disagrees with you. Jayjg 18:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Without prejudicing the arbitration committee on a particular action to be taken in this case, I would like to note for the record that I have been highly offended at being called anti-Semitic, at having my view mis-represented, and most of all, having my family dragged into the discussion (see /Evidence page), even for a hypothetical. There is absolutely no reason that that should ever happen on Wikipedia. DanKeshet 18:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me. It is improper to do this without me being part of it. RK

Be aware that Simonides was himself nearly banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia articles? He launched into abusive polemics against nearly everyone on the Philosophy and Anti-Semitism articles. We must note that many people are upset with the way that Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many people, so many times. Since I was one of the many people who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me. Just check out the archives of these pages, especially the anti-Semitism page, You will find that I have not been harassing him, or anyone. The reverse is true, and he is just trying to ban me to get his POV in. RK

As for Zero, we rarely have any conflict. He does have anger towards me, and I suspect that he is a sockpuppet for another user. I requested that in the one area we have a significant difference, we mediate (the Israel Shahak article.) As for all the other articles that we could have had disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I removed nearly all of those articles from my Watchlist. That's right, instead of arguing with Zero and others, for many months now I have totally let them have their own way on over a dozen articles. Compare this to the behaviour of other Wikipedians with arbitration cases; I don't know of a single user like myself who has been so generous in just totally removing themselves from a large number of contentious articles. RK

It seems odd to me that so few are willing to actively participate in mediation, but wish to push charges against me. And have they dropped any articles from their watchlist? Nope. I can't see how I am the bad guy here. RK 20:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * RK - an ad-hominem defense is no defense at all. How do you respond to the allegations made on the evidence page? (for the record, that page contains an entire section on "Ad hominem/Poisoning the Well") Also, more specifically, it says that Jimbo warned you earlier about being abusive - a warning which (to me) it appears that you have ignored. How do you defend this? &rarr;Raul654 21:00, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh? These people have along hisotry of making ad homenim attacks against me. That is my point. Also, what they present as evidence contains no violation of Wikipedia policy. Rather, what you see there are snippets taken out of context, in which I and other people have been complaining about the way that other people were violating Wikipedia policy. Are you seriously suggesting that you are refusing to read any of these articles and discussions, and that you are relying on sentence fragments taken totally out of context? That is unreasonable, and in fact shocking. Look, the fact that you refuse to look at Simonides long-list of hatespeech, and use his totally out-of-context rebuttal snippets as some kind of "evidence" against me scares the hell out of me. If that is what you are going to continue to do, then I will be forced to see up a request for arbitration against you, Zero and Simonides. I really don't have time for your attacks against me and your dsilly games of using out-of-context sentence fragments, but if you persist in this I do not see any other option. Please, Raul, for the good of Wikipedia stop this nonsense.  (BTW, if you think that Jimbo wants me banned, you are really in a world of your own.) RK 21:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand how arbitration works. The people making this complaint are expected to explain the reasons for their allegations and provide evidence to support it (others may also offer evidence as well). You, on the other hand, are expected respond to these allegations by offering reasoning and evidence of your own to defend your actions. Ad-hominem claims about the people making the complaint (or the arbitrators themselves) generally do not constitute a defense - particularly in light of the fact that you-being-abusive is one of the chief grievances in the case; further, because of the sheer number of people who have commented on the evidence page and the RFC. The arbitration committee's job is to weigh the evidence presented and render a verdict (although we may consider evidence that neither party presents). However, it is NOT our job to gather evidence. If you fail to offer a proper defense, it can only hurt you.
 * Furthermore, I strongly suggest that you take this matter seriously, because Jimbo has given the arbitration committee all the powers that he used to have in governing the banning of users. And while he still reserves the right to overrule the arbcom, he has said he does not intend to use it. &rarr;Raul654 21:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

So after reading Raul's tirade against me, I was left with no choice. I now have to institute a RFA against him, Simonides and Zero, for their harassment and dishonesty, and their attempt to ban me for no good reason. RK 01:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

 * 1) Recuse Fred Bauder 14:14, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. RK is indeed remarkably rude and a frequent violator of the no personal attacks policy. We have arbitrated other charges of rudeness and name-calling; we should hear this one. --the Epopt 14:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept. James F. (talk) 23:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Recuse. RK and myself have history. Martin 18:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept with no comment yet on the merits of the case.  RK-related stuff comes up on the mailing list and talk pages often enough that we should consider it. --Delirium 23:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Accept. Gutza 15:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Accept -- I'm hoping we can figure out a way to mediate this. The Cunctator 14:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Principles
1) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See No personal attacks.)
 * Passed with four ayes and one abstention, 8th October 2004

2) All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See NPOV.)
 * Passed with four ayes and one nay, no abstentions, 8th October 2004

3) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 8th October 2004

4) Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Civility.)
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 8th October 2004

5) Legal threats are anti-social, and may be grounds for banning. (See No legal threats.)
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 8th October 2004

Findings of fact
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.
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

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"
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

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.
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

4) Some of RK's work outside of the field of Judaism, most notably in genetics, has been of a high quality.
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

Remedies
1) RK is banned from editing the Wikipedia for a period of four months.
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 15th October 2004

2) 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.)
 * Passed with four ayes and one nay, no abstentions, 14th October 2004

3) RK is encouraged to return after the end of his ban to contribute to areas other than Judaism.
 * Passed with four ayes and one abstention, 14th October 2004

Enforcement
1) Unauthorised edits by RK to articles that he is banned from editing shall cause, or, if already banned, extend, a ban, for a period of a week per edit.
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 14th October 2004

Outcome
The four months time is over, and RK was not unblocked. He asked to do so. While the decision was taken on the 14th, he was notified on the 15th, so it is not entirely clear whether the end of the ban is the 13th or 14th. I think it should reasonably be the 13th. Accordingly, I unblocked him today and left a message on his talk page. SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)