Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2

Case Opened on 16 Feb 2005

Case Closed on 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. 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.

The parties
This is an appeal by RK of a previously decreed one year ban on editing Judaism-related articles.

Statement by affected party
This is a formal request to overturn a year-long ban against me, User RK, from editing any Judaism related articles. The ban is especially bizarre and puzzling because the people who edit these articles do not support the ban. In fact, the major people who tried to get me banned from these articles seem to have been Simonides and Zero, who themselves do not edit these articles. To make it blunt, they are trying to be ban me out of spite, and not because of any actual problem.

The actual facts of the case were never even presented when the previous Arbitration committee attempted to ban me. We Wikipedians who work on these articles, such as myself, Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism - yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles productively.

For instance, please see WikiProject_Judaism for a perfect example of how I have been working successfully with others on a wide array of Judaism-related articles. In contrast, the people who attempted to smear me and ban me are themselves not party to 99% of the editing on these articles!

Facts:
 * I am not involved in any flame wars. Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when they were not in a flame war.


 * I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars.


 * The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago.


 * Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to a peacul and productive resolution. Ever. Unfortunately, a tiny number of people are angry that our system actually worked.  What kind of people think that peaceful resolutions and long-term cooperation is grounds for a year long ban?


 * In repeated shows of good faith, I repeatedly take week-long or longer Wiki-breaks, and allow other people to have their say without any problem. The tiny number of people trying to ban me do the opposite.


 * I have taken many contentious articles ''off' of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. No one else has done so.


 * I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary.


 * I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this previously. They were unable to come up with a *single* instance of someone in my shoes ever being banned.

In summary, we clearly have a situation where a tiny number of people are banning me despite following Wikipedia policy, despite following standard dispute protocols and finding a peaceful rsolution, and despite me doing all of the above things that - for all other people - have in the past brought kind words and brought the community closer together. RK 22:52, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/2/0)

 * 1) Accept. I advised Robert to appeal because he has only just been made aware of the ban. I fully respect the arbcom members who ruled in this case earlier, and am absolutely sure they did what they thought was best. However I don't see any harm in examining the evidence again. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 23:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. Neutralitytalk 23:38, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept - David Gerard 23:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Recuse Fred Bauder 00:25, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept -- sannse (talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Accept. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:52, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * 7) Accept. Nohat 07:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Recuse. RK and I have history. --mav 19:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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


 * Aye:
 * 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)
 * David Gerard 01:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Worth a try.
 * Personally, I would be more interested in hearing what the other people who frequently edit those articles have to say. &rarr;Raul654 01:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralitytalk 02:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delirium 02:44, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 04:22, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks
2) No personal attacks.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consensus
3) As put forward in 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 Neutral point of view. Surveys and requests for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.


 * ''Passed 5 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Previous ban
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.


 * Passed 6 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Revert limitation
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.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack parole
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.


 * Passed 7 to 0 at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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 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 personal attack period shall be reset.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 22:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)