Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK/Proposed decision


 * "intransient reverting and edit-warring"

Do you mean "intransigent"? Martin 23:19, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoops, yes. My fault, sorry.
 * James F. (talk) 23:23, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are Middle-Eastern and Arab topics considered to be "indirectly related to Judaism"? -- Dissident (Talk) 15:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I do think that it might be helpful if RK were to refrain from editing articles relating to the Isr/Pal conflict. That said, I feel the same, to a greater or lesser extent, about many Wikipedians who edit the articles in question. Martin 23:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I've clarified the remedy in question, so that admins are now to exercise their good judgement in determing whether or not something is related to judaism. My personal opinion is that anything related to israel is covered. I'm also of the opinion that if RK decides to 'push the envelope' by editing articles that are somewhat-related (but arguably so), and an admin bans him for it, then he edited at his own risk and I would tend to side with the admin. &rarr;Raul654 23:30, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

The following edit is listed as evidence in support of a 4 month ban on RK:. This is, as stated, a "legal threat". However, the decision neglects to mention that the legal "threat" was in response to certain other events, including talk of death threats. Now, whether or not that makes a difference, if RK has made so many legal threats against people, surely there's better evidence to support it than a single duplicated threat likely to have been made in haste... no?  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 02:30, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)
 * In the Lir case, Lir said that he made his personal attacks after he himself had been attacked. We asked him to provide evidence to support the (he refused) - however, had he provided it, it would have been taken into account as a mitigating circumstance. The same option is open to RK - if and when he should present a defense, if he'd like to introduce evidence to mitigate the circumstances of that post (which, as the ruling says, was in violation of policy and grounds for banning) then he is free to do so. &rarr;Raul654 02:39, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Would it perhaps be a good idea to reexamine your evidence rather than taking the risk of banning a user based on a faulty premise simply because they didn't "provide evidence"?  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 02:46, 2004 Sep 22 (UTC)

Principle 5 "5) Legal threats are anti-social, and may be grounds for banning" does not reflect policy. The option to ban did not receive consensus support on the talk page. To assist the Arbitration Committee in its future consideration of this matter, I've noted that at the bottom of the No legal threats policy page. While we dislike legal theats, someone who has been threateened has a right to ask the site operator - the community - for assistance and must consider both legal action and police intervention to protect themselves. It's most unwise to cite a situation involving threats as part of a banning decision - it sends completely the wrong message to potential victims of violence. Jamesday 01:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Finding of fact 2 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". Mentioning the possibility of legal action is prudent for a potential victim. Seeking the assistance of the community in dealing with threats of violence should be encouraged, not condemned. While there are many matters concerning RK which are troublesome, we should not discourage potential victims of violence from requesting the asistance of the community. The Committee is most unwise in citing legal action possibilities involving physical threats as an example in this, or any, case. Jamesday 01:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed finding of fact 2 cites two examples of legal threats. Both examples are from 25 June 2004. The "proposed" part of the no legal threats policy did not change until 27 July 2004. It is inappropriate for the Committee to cite in a decision a policy which was not in force at the time the acts occurred. Jamesday 01:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It might not have been banable under policy at the time, but it was disruptive/anti-social and goes to the larger pattern of disruptive behavior. &rarr;Raul654 02:31, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * And, for the record WRT banning for making legal threats, the majority of people voted for the option "this should be decided on a case by case basis, and that many if not most legal threats are in clear violation of Wikiquette, which is a bannable offense". Under those criteria, the principle is correct. &rarr;Raul654 02:35, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Many if not most" does not mean "all", and I think this is quite clearly one that isn't.  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 02:37, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
 * RK threatening a lawsuit for mentioning his last name (which was already available in the mailing list archives) does not qualify as disruptive or anti-social? Well, in this case, I would disagree with you there (as, apparently, do the other two admins who have voted). &rarr;Raul654 02:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * A user noting that sie feels legal action may be required as the result of someone posting personal information that leads to a potential danger to their own safety is not worthy of a 4 month ban, and should not be used in support of it. Since the arbcom states that "RK has threatened legal action against other users, both on the mailing lists and on the Wikipedia proper, such as making edits [actually, one edit] with the edit summary 'Legal action may need to be taken'", perhaps they could provide a more obvious example of such legal threats which are anti-social and cause all these problems.   &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 02:48, 2004 Sep 24 (UTC)
 * (1) "A user noting that sie feels legal action may be required as the result of someone posting personal information" - RK voluntary gave out that information on the mailing list. (2) I fail to see the potential danger of having his name availble to the public - other users do it all the time. Apparently, he didn't feel any danger either, or I doubt he would have given it out voluntarily. (3) You are correct that the wording implies has has done it more than those two times. I don't know whether or not he has. If need be, the phrasing of the FoF can be changed. &rarr;Raul654 22:37, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not bannable now either. That option was discussed on the talk page of the then-proposed policy, not accepted by consensus and did not make it into the final policy. Please enforce only what was accepted by the community. I certainly agree that there are ample reasons to act against RK. The choice of this, however, is one which provides clear grounds for an appeal against the decision of this Committee, even though I expect most of us to agree that action against RK is merited overall. Jamesday 02:56, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The votes at the time were: support revoking editing privileges: 2. pppose revoking editing privileges: 5. case by case and may be bannable: 7. Taking any action at all only received 5 opposing and 9 favoring. The option involving banning as a possibility received a 7:7 result. Simply, it was not accepted by the community and enforcing a policy option which was not accepted is not within the remit of thie committee. Jamesday 03:03, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not ban-able in-and-of-itself. It does to go under the larger subheading of "being disruptive". &rarr;Raul654 00:15, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)


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

you may prefer "block RK from posting to mailing list(s)", to clarify. Martin 14:24, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What's going on
Can we have some clarity on what is going on here? The block has been put in place without the suggested 12 hours warning and without any apparent notification or explanation to RK -- sannse (talk) 23:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is entirely my fault for being still a relatively new arbitrator. I asked what should be done about the ban.  An admin (not an arbitrator) left me a note saying I could impose the block myself -- I should have taken the advice I have often given others, and waited for the input of an experienced arbtirator.  I had been editing a bit too long, and I think I was trying to tie up too many loose ends as an arbitrator all in one night.  As a result, I did not give RK the notification or the time to put affairs in order that now seem like such an obvious thing to me.  I apologize deeply and sincerely to RK for this -- I am more than willing to unblock RK and allow him the time to set his user and user talk pages in the state he prefers.  This was not intended by me as a slight to RK in any way: as I said, it's purely a combination of my inexperience as an arbitrator and my appalling failure to consider the matter with more care and prudence.  I will copy this to the mailing list so that RK sees my response: if he wishes, he is more than welcome to let me know he would like to be unblocked for a day to set things in order.  I apologize once again to him, and to the Wikipedia community, for not displaying more fully the kind of careful and well-thought-out action that I believe led the community to entrust me with this position, and I promise to remedy that in the future. Jwrosenzweig 21:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation and for the notification of the ban on RK's user page. -- sannse (talk)